| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2004 04:58:53 PM |
| Object: |
WARNING TO WOMEN |
FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory
President Bush has announced his intention to appoint Dr. W. David Hager
to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. This committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's
Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on
matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology
and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception,
treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures
for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of health care are far
outside the mainstream for reproductive technology and modern
gynecological practice. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes
himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor
and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian
Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr.
Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the
common birth control pill is an abortifacient (causes abortion). We are
concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his
assessment of Technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or
to preserve and promote women's health. Dr. Hager's track record of using
religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a
dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee.
Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by
anti-abortion politics.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
Science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
There is something you can do. Below is a letter to be sent to the White
House, opposing the placement of Hager. Please copy all the text of this
message and paste it into a fresh email; then sign your name below and
SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
Please forward e-mail to
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
--
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
11 Nov 2004 06:13:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
President Bush has announced his intention to appoint Dr. W. David Hager
to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. This committee has not met for more than two
Welcome to two years ago; Hager was (unfortunately) appointed for
another term this past summer. You're not the first person to miss
that fact, though.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
17 Nov 2004 06:53:43 PM |
|
|
So what, yu wanna empower women?
Well then, look into the forensic reports from the archaeological digs
remote, rural witch communities in Europe. There's *reason* that
'Bachelor's Button' is so named. It is an emmenegogue.
there's a reason that Blessed Thistle is blessed. It contains
phyto-estrogens, which is what's in the Birth Control Pill; and if yu
wanna induce a birth, or a late term abortion, Ergot works every goddeam
time. We dont need the FDA to organize some double blind scientific
study of effective herbal alternatives... which dont even need a
*prescription*! Dont needa be 18 to buy and use them. Dont need parental
consent.
I dare them to get draconian; lotsa doctors will loose lotsa business.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 12:02:44 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
All people, including women, are far safer under the auspices of a
medical system that cherishes, nurtures and protects human life than one
that has contempt for it.
A case in point is Ireland, which boasts amongst the lowest infant (both
born and unborn) and maternal mortality and morbidity rates in the world.
As a Christian, Dr. Hager invariably brings compassion to his job, a
quality only optional for areligious post holders. What makes you
think that born people are likely to be safe in the hands of people who
advocate and defend the killing of unborn people?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 01:53:55 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
As a Christian, Dr. Hager invariably brings compassion to his job, a
^^^^^^^^^^
*cough* You mean "irrational fundamentalist zeal"?
quality only optional for areligious post holders. What makes you
think that born people are likely to be safe in the hands of people who
advocate and defend the killing of unborn people?
What makes you think that born people are likely to be safe in the
hands of people who put Jesus above medical science?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 01:58:41 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn34cj$8qa$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
:
: > As a Christian, Dr. Hager invariably brings compassion to his job, a
: ^^^^^^^^^^
: *cough* You mean "irrational fundamentalist zeal"?
:
: > quality only optional for areligious post holders. What makes you
: > think that born people are likely to be safe in the hands of people who
: > advocate and defend the killing of unborn people?
:
: What makes you think that born people are likely to be safe in the
: hands of people who put Jesus above medical science?
What makes you think anyone is safe in the hands of doctors that are
compelled to kill by a human law?
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:05:32 PM |
|
|
"Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote in news:RB8ld.4340080
$ic1.417314@news.easynews.com:
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn34cj$8qa$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: What makes you think that born people are likely to be safe in the
: hands of people who put Jesus above medical science?
What makes you think anyone is safe in the hands of doctors that are
compelled to kill by a human law?
when my cancer was removed by my surgeon, i believe the cancer cells were
killed.
the crazies who put jesus above medical science will hurt many people.
hopefully those they love most will be hurt first.
--
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:09:35 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959F99835C090keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
: "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote in
news:RB8ld.4340080
: $ic1.417314@news.easynews.com:
:
: > "Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in
message
: > news:cn34cj$8qa$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: >: What makes you think that born people are likely to be safe in the
: >: hands of people who put Jesus above medical science?
: >
: > What makes you think anyone is safe in the hands of doctors that are
: > compelled to kill by a human law?
:
: when my cancer was removed by my surgeon, i believe the cancer cells were
: killed.
:
: the crazies who put jesus above medical science will hurt many people.
: hopefully those they love most will be hurt first.
Maybe they will, by a doctor compelled to kill them with a lethal injection.
:
: --
: http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:14:26 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
Maybe they will, by a doctor compelled to kill them with a lethal injection.
Aren't you supposed to favor capital punishment?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:21:19 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn35j2$8s9$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
:
: > Maybe they will, by a doctor compelled to kill them with a lethal
injection.
:
: Aren't you supposed to favor capital punishment?
:
What gave you that impression?
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:05:11 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
What gave you that impression?
Most people on the right are. Most people on left get all
touchy-feely about the issue, whereas I'm elated when they put people
like Timothy McVeigh to death.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:09:43 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn38i7$93e$2@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
:
: > What gave you that impression?
:
: Most people on the right are. Most people on left get all
: touchy-feely about the issue, whereas I'm elated when they put people
: like Timothy McVeigh to death.
:
So, I'm on the right, huh? I think you are one that is quick to jump to
conclusions.
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:18:03 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
So, I'm on the right, huh? I think you are one that is quick to jump to
conclusions.
Sorry. Well, if you're arguing against abortion AND the death
penalty, at least you're maintaining consistency.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:22:06 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn39ab$97k$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
:
: > So, I'm on the right, huh? I think you are one that is quick to jump to
: > conclusions.
:
: Sorry. Well, if you're arguing against abortion AND the death
: penalty, at least you're maintaining consistency.
:
I'm not arguing for or against either. I could care less. I mind my own and
tend to others that try.
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:59:49 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
I'm not arguing for or against either. I could care less. I mind my own and
tend to others that try.
Not caring is closer to choice than not, so I'm not sure why you seem
to be coming out on the other side of the issue.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:10:26 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
What makes you think anyone is safe in the hands of doctors that are
compelled to kill by a human law?
Which law is it that requires doctors to provide abortions?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 02:19:11 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn35bi$8rt$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
:
: > What makes you think anyone is safe in the hands of doctors that are
: > compelled to kill by a human law?
:
: Which law is it that requires doctors to provide abortions?
:
Well, the one that compells my brother is the one that says that if a
patient is on Medicaid and he refuses to perform an abortion, he not only
loses his license to be a Medicaid provider, he also loses all government
funding for research, grants and loans. And, the one that compells my cousin
is the one that says that if he refuses his turn at performing a lethal
injection at the state prison, he loses his job.
Anything else?
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:03:46 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
Well, the one that compells my brother is the one that says that if a
patient is on Medicaid and he refuses to perform an abortion, he not only
loses his license to be a Medicaid provider, he also loses all government
funding for research, grants and loans.
Well, it's his choice whether to be a Medicaid provider or not. Then
again, Medicaid is a stupid socialist program, so the question would
be moot in a perfect world anyway.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Tim \NMRN" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:06:23 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:cn38fi$93e$1@chessie.cirr.com...
: In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
:
: > Well, the one that compells my brother is the one that says that if a
: > patient is on Medicaid and he refuses to perform an abortion, he not
only
: > loses his license to be a Medicaid provider, he also loses all
government
: > funding for research, grants and loans.
:
: Well, it's his choice whether to be a Medicaid provider or not. Then
: again, Medicaid is a stupid socialist program, so the question would
: be moot in a perfect world anyway.
:
You didn't ask for some convoluted explanation, all you asked for was a law.
I gave you two. And, I guarantee you they are not MOOT in any sense of the
word. They are very real to someone that has to commit murder in opposition
to their oath. Which is, in a manner of speaking, putting Jesus above
science.
--
Tiny Tim
http://bushido.cc/trs/services12.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 03:20:13 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion "Tiny Tim \(NMRN\)" <tiny@cingularwireless.net> wrote:
You didn't ask for some convoluted explanation, all you asked for was a law.
I gave you two. And, I guarantee you they are not MOOT in any sense of the
word. They are very real to someone that has to commit murder in opposition
to their oath. Which is, in a manner of speaking, putting Jesus above
science.
Well, I'll come out and say it: The Medicaid law, and the program it
supports, is stupid.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 04:13:43 PM |
|
|
Tiny Tim (NMRN) wrote:
:
You didn't ask for some convoluted explanation, all you asked for was a law.
I gave you two. And, I guarantee you they are not MOOT in any sense of the
word. They are very real to someone that has to commit murder in opposition
to their oath. Which is, in a manner of speaking, putting Jesus above
science.
Yes Tim, Here in Britain you are effectively discriminated against in
public service, in the provision of 'health care', if you, for example,
believe in the difference between 'right' and 'wrong'. It's come to
that. You can't get a job. You see, the sharks got in charge of the
swimming pool, and they made damn sure that the only people joining them
as pool attendents were cartilagionous fish of the same bent.
And the joke is, they still take the Hippocratic oath.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 04:07:41 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
As a Christian, Dr. Hager invariably brings compassion to his job, a
^^^^^^^^^^
*cough* You mean "irrational fundamentalist zeal"?
As irrational and fundamentalist as the idea that it's OK to kill some
people in the name of liberty?
quality only optional for areligious post holders. What makes you
think that born people are likely to be safe in the hands of people who
advocate and defend the killing of unborn people?
What makes you think that born people are likely to be safe in the
hands of people who put Jesus above medical science?
Is he? How? They aren't competing interests you know. Not in the way
that, say killing and living are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 05:00:36 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
As irrational and fundamentalist as the idea that it's OK to kill some
people in the name of liberty?
Well, let's check your rationality, shall we? Let's assume (probably
correctly) that you think a mother has the same responsibility to an
unborn child as a born child. Now I present you with the following
test:
1. True or false: A woman who consumes alcohol during pregnancy is
guilty of child endangerment.
2. True or false: A woman who chooses not to eat a healthy diet during
pregnancy is guilty of child endangerment.
3. True or false: A woman who chooses not to consult medical
professionals concerning her unborn child is guilty of child
endangerment.
4. True or false: A woman who chooses not to undergo a surgical
procedure, such as a Caesarian section, recommended by her doctors is
guilty of child endangerment.
5. True or false: A pregnant woman who participates in potentially
hazardous activities, such as riding amusement park rides, is guilty
of child endangerment.
Grade yourself:
5 "true" - You are a heinously evil human being, but at least your
presumed reasoning is consistent.
0-4 "true" - Your presumed reasoning is completely bogus.
Is he? How? They aren't competing interests you know. Not in the way
that, say killing and living are.
Unless, of course, one decides to use prayer as a substitute for
science, as Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably a number of other sects)
do.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
12 Nov 2004 05:49:19 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
As irrational and fundamentalist as the idea that it's OK to kill some
people in the name of liberty?
Well, let's check your rationality, shall we? Let's assume (probably
correctly) that you think a mother has the same responsibility to an
unborn child as a born child. Now I present you with the following
test:
1. True or false: A woman who consumes alcohol during pregnancy is
guilty of child endangerment.
False.
2. True or false: A woman who chooses not to eat a healthy diet during
pregnancy is guilty of child endangerment.
False.
3. True or false: A woman who chooses not to consult medical
professionals concerning her unborn child is guilty of child
endangerment.
False.
4. True or false: A woman who chooses not to undergo a surgical
procedure, such as a Caesarian section, recommended by her doctors is
guilty of child endangerment.
False.
5. True or false: A pregnant woman who participates in potentially
hazardous activities, such as riding amusement park rides, is guilty
of child endangerment.
False.
Grade yourself:
5 "true" - You are a heinously evil human being, but at least your
presumed reasoning is consistent.
0-4 "true" - Your presumed reasoning is completely bogus.
Or 0: Your postulation is false.
Life is full of attendant risks. Life is risky. Going to work in the
morning is risky. The womb, indeed, is a risky place. We cannot, for
these purposes accord EXACTLY the same rights on the unborn child as we
can to the born child, for the very good reasons you cite, any more than
we can accord EXACTLY the same rights on the born child as we can on the
adult.
Yet, there is a world of difference, a chasm of difference, between the
inherent risks of pregnancy, which include the risks of being conceived
to an unhealthy/ rash mother, and the deliberate and calculated
destruction of unborn children. It is the difference between unlawful
killing and holocaust, between falling into the sea and having concrete
blocks tied to your feet and being thrown off the boat.
It is about the morality and intent of the act, not about the outcome.
Is he? How? They aren't competing interests you know. Not in the way
that, say killing and living are.
Unless, of course, one decides to use prayer as a substitute for
science, as Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably a number of other sects)
do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 01:26:10 AM |
|
|
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Yet, there is a world of difference, a chasm of difference, between the
inherent risks of pregnancy, which include the risks of being conceived
to an unhealthy/ rash mother, and the deliberate and calculated
destruction of unborn children.
So if you drink alcohol with the intent to damage your unborn child,
presumably that changes your answer to "true"?
It is about the morality and intent of the act, not about the outcome.
Assuming that the above is true, I might believe you.
Unless, of course, one decides to use prayer as a substitute for
science, as Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably a number of other sects)
do.
Interesting that you had no arugment against this point.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 03:51:56 AM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Yet, there is a world of difference, a chasm of difference, between the
inherent risks of pregnancy, which include the risks of being conceived
to an unhealthy/ rash mother, and the deliberate and calculated
destruction of unborn children.
So if you drink alcohol with the intent to damage your unborn child,
presumably that changes your answer to "true"?
If someone takes a substance with the intention of it having an
abortifacient effect, then yes indeed that that would be the calculated
destruction of an unborn child.
If someone is stupid and reckless and ignorant and that damages the
uborn child, then it's not 'good', but then that's life. We should
strongly discourage people from doing these things, but not to the point
where we remove their bodily autonomy.
It is about the morality and intent of the act, not about the outcome.
Assuming that the above is true, I might believe you.
Unless, of course, one decides to use prayer as a substitute for
science, as Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably a number of other sects)
do.
Interesting that you had no arugment against this point.
I was coming to that. It is probably a false assumption that anyone can
and does use prayer as a substitute for medicine, or medicine as a
substitute for prayer. What is certainly true is that science cannot
provide the answers for humanity's current deep unease, and an unhealthy
adherence to science bordering on religious fanaticism has probably
contributed to the spiritual and moral vacuum that so many people are
being sucked into.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
14 Nov 2004 10:35:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.abortion Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
(arguments concerning intent)
Well, at least that makes some degree of sense. I'll get back to you
later on this.
I was coming to that. It is probably a false assumption that anyone can
and does use prayer as a substitute for medicine
Jehovah's Witnesses continue to refuse transfusions of whole blood and
major blood components on purely religious grounds. A Witness may
accept "minor" components (such as clotting factors) after prayerfully
asking God for approval.
http://www.ajwrb.org/
Consider also the General Assembly Church of the First Born:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/g03.html
http://www.rickross.com/groups/firstborn.html
These people really exist.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 08:56:33 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
All people, including women, are far safer under the auspices of a
medical system that cherishes, nurtures and protects human life than one
that has contempt for it.
Obviously you're not a republican.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ann Broomhead" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 03:19:21 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<4194fce5$0$27550$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
(snip)
A case in point is Ireland, which boasts amongst the lowest infant (both
born and unborn) and maternal mortality and morbidity rates in the world.
(snip)
Some years ago, I read that Ireland (Eire) was claiming that no
abortions were performed there, and that there were no
pregnancy-caused maternal deaths. In the same time frame, I read a
MMWR from the CDC that pointed out that tubular pregnancies occured at
a low, but predictable, rate for all women. As we all know, tubular
pregnancies are invariable fatal. So, I knew that either Ireland was
lying in its figurative teeth, it was carefully ignoring a certain
amount of traffic across the Irish Sea, or it was playing tricks with
definitions.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Some-Writer" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 08:31:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:02:44 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
All people, including women, are far safer under the auspices of a
medical system that cherishes, nurtures and protects human life than one
that has contempt for it.
Killing women isn't nurturing or protecting, dufus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
13 Nov 2004 09:15:04 AM |
|
|
Some-Writer wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:02:44 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
All people, including women, are far safer under the auspices of a
medical system that cherishes, nurtures and protects human life than one
that has contempt for it.
Killing women isn't nurturing or protecting, dufus.
Well at least we agree on something!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: WARNING TO WOMEN |
11 Nov 2004 06:36:30 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory
President Bush has announced his intention to appoint Dr. W. David Hager
to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. This committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/audiences/acspage/reproductivecharter1.htm
As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven
There are 13 voting members
positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's
Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions
aka: Recommendations
on
matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology
and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception,
treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures
for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of health care are far
outside the mainstream for reproductive technology and modern
gynecological practice. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes
himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor
and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian
Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr.
Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the
common birth control pill is an abortifacient (causes abortion). We are
concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his
assessment of Technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or
to preserve and promote women's health. Dr. Hager's track record of using
religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a
dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee.
Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by
anti-abortion politics.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
Science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
There is something you can do. Below is a letter to be sent to the White
House, opposing the placement of Hager. Please copy all the text of this
message and paste it into a fresh email; then sign your name below and
SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
Please forward e-mail to
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.
I bet you think the President will see it.
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|