| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Jon Young" |
| Date: |
25 Apr 2004 11:25:50 PM |
| Object: |
When abortion was still illegal. |
Thanks to the days when abortion was still illegal,there are hundreds
of thousands of people walking the earth today who would have
otherwise been murdered in their mothers womb.Many of these people,I
am sure,are contributing members of society.The far fewer number of
women who suffered from back alley abortions was a small price to
pay.Remember,abortion was illegal and these women were engaging
willingly in a criminal act.Crime,whether you agree with the law or
not,has its risks.Many of the voices heard in the abortion debate of
today,owe their own lives to the abortion laws of pre-Roe v.Wade.
America should return to the days when a pre-born child was protected
by society.
.
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 09:04:26 AM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0404252025.23fa7012@posting.google.com...
Thanks to the days when abortion was still illegal,there are hundreds
of thousands of people walking the earth today who would have
otherwise been murdered in their mothers womb.
<garbage taken out>
Your 'compassion' has been on display here long enough to expose your rank
hypocrisy, IBenTrollin'. Your credibility is *less* than zero.
Go home-your village needs you.
message ID <25e1e54f.0401250925.56a68120@posting.google.com>
LC~"Jon" and "IBen": twice the idiocy in one troll.
"When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield."~Quintilian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
27 Apr 2004 07:04:10 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0404252025.23fa7012@posting.google.com...
The far fewer number of
women who suffered from back alley abortions was a small price to
pay.
By...whom? You? Gee, I guess not. Did you ask any of them and their
children and families if *they* thought it was "a small price to pay".
What? Not that either?
Isn't that special.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 08:44:08 AM |
|
|
(Jon Young) wrote in message news:<25e1e54f.0404252025.23fa7012@posting.google.com>...
Thanks to the days when abortion was still illegal,there are hundreds
of thousands of people walking the earth today who would have
otherwise been murdered in their mothers womb.Many of these people,I
am sure,are contributing members of society.The far fewer number of
women who suffered from back alley abortions was a small price to
pay.Remember,abortion was illegal and these women were engaging
willingly in a criminal act.Crime,whether you agree with the law or
not,has its risks.Many of the voices heard in the abortion debate of
today,owe their own lives to the abortion laws of pre-Roe v.Wade.
America should return to the days when a pre-born child was protected
by society.
And hundreds of thousands of people are walking the earth today which
would never have existed if their mother hadn't had a previous
abortion. Many of these people,I am sure,are contributing members of
society etc. etc.
In other words, "what if"-arguments are silly.
BTW, are you a pre-died corpse ?
Regards,
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 08:59:28 AM |
|
|
(Jon Young) wrote...
Thanks to the days when abortion was still illegal,there are hundreds
of thousands of people walking the earth today who would have
otherwise been murdered in their mothers womb.
Nonsense. Women were having abortions at just about the same rate
back then as they do know. The incidence of complications and death
was much higher though.
Many of these people,I am sure,are contributing members of society.
The far fewer number of women who suffered from back alley abortions
was a small price to pay.
***** you. Well-to-do women could simply offer their ob-gyn doctors
large cash payments under the table for an abortion, or go abroad. It
was poor women, many of them already mothers, who died or turned up at
emergency rooms with raging infections. The only purpose that
anti-abortion laws served was to prop up a false, hypocritical
(im)moral stance. I happen to think that these deaths were an
unacceptable price to pay in order that smug moralizers like yourself
could feel good.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 07:54:54 AM |
|
|
In article <25e1e54f.0404252025.23fa7012@posting.google.com>,
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) wrote:
-Thanks to the days when abortion was still illegal,there are hundreds
-of thousands of people walking the earth today who would have
-otherwise been murdered in their mothers womb.Many of these people,I
-am sure,are contributing members of society.The far fewer number of
-women who suffered from back alley abortions was a small price to
-pay.Remember,abortion was illegal and these women were engaging
-willingly in a criminal act.Crime,whether you agree with the law or
-not,has its risks.Many of the voices heard in the abortion debate of
-today,owe their own lives to the abortion laws of pre-Roe v.Wade.
-America should return to the days when a pre-born child was protected
-by society.
Are you married?
If not I hope you jave either had a vasectomey(sp). ot are celibate.
Why are your arguements against abortion only firexted against women?
Where does the responsibility of the men who impregnate the women lie?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My latest Poll
Who would Jesus vote for?
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Votelet/34458
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 10:36:21 AM |
|
|
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote
Where does the responsibility of the men who impregnate the women lie?
in the toy-toy; along with the other 'paternalistic' practices so abhorred
by feminists.
With the broad availability of both birth control and the scientific
understanding of fertility, any woman who gets pregnant involuntarily has
probably been subjected to some sort of criminal act, is venal, or abysmally
stupid.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 05:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NpSdncU9N9DpsRDdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Ninure Saunders"
<RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote
Where does the responsibility of the men who impregnate
the women lie?
in the toy-toy; along with the other 'paternalistic'
practices so abhorred
by feminists.
With the broad availability of both birth control and the
scientific
understanding of fertility, any woman who gets pregnant
involuntarily has
probably been subjected to some sort of criminal act, is
venal, or abysmally
stupid.
Chas
Not really Chas. Do you know how many gynecologists fail to
warn their patients that common antibiotics can render their
birth control pills totally ineffective? Are you aware that
the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is
celibacy? Or are you too abysmally stupid to know these two
simple facts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 05:32:43 PM |
|
|
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
...... Do you know how many gynecologists fail to
warn their patients that common antibiotics can render their
birth control pills totally ineffective?
Do you know that the number is minuscule, and irrelevant to the general law?
Are you aware that
the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is
celibacy?
Do you know that most women wouldn't consider celebacy any more than having
their lips tattooed?
Or are you too abysmally stupid to know these two
simple facts?
or are you too abysmally stupid to know that neither of them is probative at
all?
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 05:40:23 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zLednYeO6eaWExDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
...... Do you know how many gynecologists fail to
warn their patients that common antibiotics can render
their
birth control pills totally ineffective?
Do you know that the number is minuscule, and irrelevant
to the general law?
Are you aware that
the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is
celibacy?
Do you know that most women wouldn't consider celebacy any
more than having
their lips tattooed?
Or are you too abysmally stupid to know these two
simple facts?
or are you too abysmally stupid to know that neither of
them is probative at
all?
Chas
You are the one who said that any woman who gets pregnant in
this day and age, with all of the available birth control,
is abysmally stupid. If there were someone abysmally stupid
enough to have sex with you, and they were on the pill,
would you find her abysmally stupid for not knowing that
simple antibiotics could render the birth control pill
totally useless? Even if her gynecologist, or the Dr.
prescribing the antibiotic never informed her of this? If
she then got pregnant, would it be all her fault for being
too abysmally stupid to know this? Would you be absolved of
all responsibility for the pregnancy because you THOUGHT she
was using effective birth control?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 09:47:31 PM |
|
|
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
You are the one who said that any woman who gets pregnant in
this day and age, with all of the available birth control,
is abysmally stupid.
Yes ma'am; I did.
If there were someone abysmally stupid
enough to have sex with you, and they were on the pill,
would you find her abysmally stupid for not knowing that
simple antibiotics could render the birth control pill
totally useless?
As a general answer, yes.
I'm not responsible for her stupidity, or the consequences of her stupidity
or the fact that her Gynecologist failed to rise to minimal standards of
professional competence.
Even if her gynecologist, or the Dr.
prescribing the antibiotic never informed her of this?
Or if he gave them to her maliciously, or negligently, or as a matter of
convenience-
that doesn't relieve her of the responsibility for her own body, nor does it
assign responsibility to the mate.
If anything, he has a cause of action against both of them.
If
she then got pregnant, would it be all her fault for being
too abysmally stupid to know this?
If pigs had wings, could we fly them to market?
If your Aunt had wheels, does that mean she's a pick-up truck?
Would you be absolved of
all responsibility for the pregnancy because you THOUGHT she
was using effective birth control?
Sure; if she's been gulled by her gynecologist, have I not also been?
Or do you just want to blame the only guy in the scenario that's been fucked
by everybody?
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
27 Apr 2004 09:32:31 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_OadnQEGd6VeVBDdRVn-vw@comcast.com...
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
You are the one who said that any woman who gets
pregnant in
this day and age, with all of the available birth
control,
is abysmally stupid.
Yes ma'am; I did.
If there were someone abysmally stupid
enough to have sex with you, and they were on the pill,
would you find her abysmally stupid for not knowing that
simple antibiotics could render the birth control pill
totally useless?
As a general answer, yes.
I'm not responsible for her stupidity, or the consequences
of her stupidity
or the fact that her Gynecologist failed to rise to
minimal standards of
professional competence.
Even if her gynecologist, or the Dr.
prescribing the antibiotic never informed her of this?
Or if he gave them to her maliciously, or negligently, or
as a matter of
convenience-
that doesn't relieve her of the responsibility for her own
body, nor does it
assign responsibility to the mate.
If anything, he has a cause of action against both of
them.
If
she then got pregnant, would it be all her fault for
being
too abysmally stupid to know this?
If pigs had wings, could we fly them to market?
If your Aunt had wheels, does that mean she's a pick-up
truck?
Would you be absolved of
all responsibility for the pregnancy because you THOUGHT
she
was using effective birth control?
Sure; if she's been gulled by her gynecologist, have I not
also been?
Or do you just want to blame the only guy in the scenario
that's been fucked
by everybody?
Chas
Well Chas, congratulations for letting us all know how much
of a moron you really are. If you engage in sexual
intercourse with a woman and she becomes pregnant you are
BOTH EQUALLY responsible whether she is on birth control or
not. You have already admitted that you know that no form
of birth control is 100% effective. Unless one or both of
you have been surgically sterilized, there is ALWAYS a
chance that the woman can become pregnant.
Of course mean like you who refuse to take equal
responsibility for unwanted pregnancies are a big part of
the abortion problem. You're a sad excuse for a man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 01:48:08 PM |
|
|
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
.....If you engage in sexual
intercourse with a woman and she becomes pregnant you are
BOTH EQUALLY responsible whether she is on birth control or
not.
No ma'am.
At the absolute least, I'm not the one carrying the baby, so the
responsibility seems to lie with one person only.
Her fertility is her responsibility. Nothing compels her to have sex except
for her own choices, made with full knowledge of her body's vulnerability,
depending on the cycle of the Moon.
More immediately; as her choice is between abortion and term, her choice
should affect her only, not him. She should not have the option of choosing
eighteen years of indentured servitude for him- particularly as he probably
exercised the 'choice' not to conceive sofar as he was able.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 05:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:df-dneRAOtH4YRLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
.....If you engage in sexual
intercourse with a woman and she becomes pregnant you
are
BOTH EQUALLY responsible whether she is on birth control
or
not.
No ma'am.
At the absolute least, I'm not the one carrying the baby,
so the
responsibility seems to lie with one person only.
Her fertility is her responsibility. Nothing compels her
to have sex except
for her own choices, made with full knowledge of her
body's vulnerability,
depending on the cycle of the Moon.
What compels men to have sex with women? Who is forcing
them? Any semi-intelligent man (obviously this leaves you
out) knows that no form of birth control is 100% effective,
therefore when HE CHOOSES to have sex with a woman, he knows
he is risking impregnating that woman. CHOOSING to have sex
with a woman knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome
makes that man equally as responsible as the woman. Maybe
more so, the most common reason for condom failure is
incorrect application, so if he put the condom on wrong he
is 100% responsible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 09:33:57 AM |
|
|
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
What compels men to have sex with women? Who is forcing
them?
There is no implicit agreement to effecting conception in just any incident
of intercourse. That criteria is forty years old, insofar as available birth
control, and thirty years old in terms of 'choice'.
The rights/choices available to men have actually diminished.
Any semi-intelligent man (obviously this leaves you
out) knows that no form of birth control is 100% effective,
therefore when HE CHOOSES to have sex with a woman, he knows
he is risking impregnating that woman.
Then he should have a say in the options exercized in that mutual agreement
between them- basic contract law, yes?
CHOOSING to have sex
with a woman knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome
makes that man equally as responsible as the woman.
Cool.
Then he can have an equal say in the options exercised insofar as his
participation in the contract outcome?
Maybe
more so, the most common reason for condom failure is
incorrect application, so if he put the condom on wrong he
is 100% responsible.
Then he should have 100% say over rectifying his mistrake, yes?
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dnarshAKAmax" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 02:05:36 PM |
|
|
For the poor, despairing, helpless, hopeless women, often with too many
chldren already, in those States in the USA that did not offer legal
abortions they were left with poisons, button hooks, coat hangers and if
lucky able to go to a ER in the hospital near enough to matter.if
uncontrolled bleeding occured....a D & C was the usual course for those
women that could afford the medical hospital surgical procedure.
I saw the photo of the Bush signing legislation of the "gag order" flanked
by an array of white MEN.
Get a grip folks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 01:51:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:48:08 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
.....If you engage in sexual
intercourse with a woman and she becomes pregnant you are
BOTH EQUALLY responsible whether she is on birth control or
not.
No ma'am.
At the absolute least, I'm not the one carrying the baby, so the
responsibility seems to lie with one person only.
Her fertility is her responsibility. Nothing compels her to have sex except
for her own choices, made with full knowledge of her body's vulnerability,
depending on the cycle of the Moon.
More immediately; as her choice is between abortion and term, her choice
should affect her only, not him. She should not have the option of choosing
eighteen years of indentured servitude for him- particularly as he probably
exercised the 'choice' not to conceive sofar as he was able.
Chas
Actually each of their respective use of protection is on them. But I
do agree; a man should not be compelled to pay for a child he had no
intention of having.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
26 Apr 2004 10:29:12 PM |
|
|
In article <_OadnQEGd6VeVBDdRVn-vw@comcast.com>, Chas
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote
You are the one who said that any woman who gets pregnant in
this day and age, with all of the available birth control,
is abysmally stupid.
Yes ma'am; I did.
And what is your position on forcing these abysmally stupid women to
give birth and care for an unwanted child?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 01:42:50 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote
And what is your position on forcing these abysmally stupid women to
give birth and care for an unwanted child?
It seems to be a natural development of pregnancy amongst the foolish, and
very little I can do about it.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
28 Apr 2004 10:03:11 PM |
|
|
In article <4cKdndK_CIy6ZhLdRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Chas
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote
And what is your position on forcing these abysmally stupid women to
give birth and care for an unwanted child?
It seems to be a natural development of pregnancy amongst the foolish, and
very little I can do about it.
Sure there is. Don't endorse forcing them to give birth when they get
pregnant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 09:28:46 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote
Sure there is. Don't endorse forcing them to give birth when they get
pregnant.
I don't.
I just want them to acknowledge the gravity of what they're doing.
Abortionists want some sort of moral equivalency between removing a wart and
terminating a pregnancy- I think that's specious reasoning.
I don't mind it being classified as a 'justifiable homicide' though- we make
all sorts of exceptions in that regard.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 10:02:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:28:46 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<WNSdnTb6jcCCjAzdRVn-hQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote
Sure there is. Don't endorse forcing them to give birth when they get
pregnant.
I don't.
I just want them to acknowledge the gravity of what they're doing.
I am sure they realize exactly what they are doing. Just because they
do not consider it an 'grave' as you do is strictly a matter of
opinion.
Abortionists want some sort of moral equivalency between removing a wart and
terminating a pregnancy- I think that's specious reasoning.
I have never seen any abortionists comment her so I cannot comment
either. I have no idea what they think.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
I don't mind it being classified as a 'justifiable homicide' though- we make
all sorts of exceptions in that regard.
That is a criminal classification which does not fit. Abortion is
legal and does not include any criminal charges or penalties, and
homicide by definition is the killing of a person and a fetus is not a
person. I *do* mind it being classified as any such thing and my
opinion is a good as yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 12:18:15 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
So far, in our history, that has tended towards the conservation of human
life. In that sense, 'abortion' is an abberration, and so bears the 'burden
of justification', as it were.
I don't mind it being classified as a 'justifiable homicide' though- we
make
all sorts of exceptions in that regard.
That is a criminal classification which does not fit. Abortion is
legal and does not include any criminal charges or penalties, and
homicide by definition is the killing of a person and a fetus is not a
person.
Except that for centuries, and until only about thirty years ago, abortion
was the most degenerate crime imaginable. You'll notice they dropped the
Hippocratic Oath at about the same time; so much for 'First; do no harm'.
It was suddenly as if SCOTUS had found a constitutional right to practice
cannibalism, or child molestation or euthanasia.
..I *do* mind it being classified as any such thing and my
opinion is a good as yours.
And I already know you're capable of participating in 40M deaths, so there's
no question of your sincerity.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 02:36:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:18:15 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<l9adndjOA8BFpQzdRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
So far, in our history, that has tended towards the conservation of human
life. In that sense, 'abortion' is an abberration, and so bears the 'burden
of justification', as it were.
I was not aware humans are an endangered species.
I don't mind it being classified as a 'justifiable homicide' though- we
make
all sorts of exceptions in that regard.
That is a criminal classification which does not fit. Abortion is
legal and does not include any criminal charges or penalties, and
homicide by definition is the killing of a person and a fetus is not a
person.
Except that for centuries, and until only about thirty years ago, abortion
was the most degenerate crime imaginable.
No it was not. It occurred in hospitals daily for those who could
afford to doctor shop and pay the bills. Check the D&C statistics for
35 years ago and today. Even when prosecuted it was a minor offense.
You'll notice they dropped the
Hippocratic Oath at about the same time; so much for 'First; do no harm'.
No oath is going to change the behavior of anyone outside of a bad
movie. unless some kind of a legal penalty is involved.
It was suddenly as if SCOTUS had found a constitutional right to practice
cannibalism, or child molestation or euthanasia.
Only in the minds of a few on the lunatic fringe.
..I *do* mind it being classified as any such thing and my
opinion is a good as yours.
And I already know you're capable of participating in 40M deaths, so there's
no question of your sincerity.
More than that since I showered today and probably killed a lot more
than 40M bacteria. Not only that but I have failed to impregnate a
woman when I was physically capable of doing so for untold thousands
of times so I am responsible for all of these actual people that will
never exist either.
Yawn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 03:47:45 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
So far, in our history, that has tended towards the conservation of human
life. In that sense, 'abortion' is an abberration, and so bears the
'burden
of justification', as it were.
I was not aware humans are an endangered species.
How's about them Cubbies?
Except that for centuries, and until only about thirty years ago,
abortion
was the most degenerate crime imaginable.
No it was not. It occurred in hospitals daily for those who could
afford to doctor shop and pay the bills. Check the D&C statistics for
35 years ago and today. Even when prosecuted it was a minor offense.
Doctors did years in prison when they were caught doing abortions- it was a
despicable crime, and if doctors did it, they did it knowing that.
SCOTUS finding a right to abortion in some sort of constitutional penumbra-
that doesn't seem to cover much else, privacy-wise, was very startling.
You'll notice they dropped the
Hippocratic Oath at about the same time; so much for 'First; do no harm'.
No oath is going to change the behavior of anyone outside of a bad
movie. unless some kind of a legal penalty is involved.
At your level of ethics, I wouldn't doubt it.
It was suddenly as if SCOTUS had found a constitutional right to practice
cannibalism, or child molestation or euthanasia.
Only in the minds of a few on the lunatic fringe.
Undeniable sociological fact- that's why the controversy goes on so strongly
thirty years, and 40M deaths, later.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 07:17:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:47:45 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IdidneMKlcBs9AzdRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
So far, in our history, that has tended towards the conservation of human
life. In that sense, 'abortion' is an abberration, and so bears the
'burden
of justification', as it were.
I was not aware humans are an endangered species.
How's about them Cubbies?
Except that for centuries, and until only about thirty years ago,
abortion
was the most degenerate crime imaginable.
No it was not. It occurred in hospitals daily for those who could
afford to doctor shop and pay the bills. Check the D&C statistics for
35 years ago and today. Even when prosecuted it was a minor offense.
Doctors did years in prison when they were caught doing abortions- it was a
despicable crime, and if doctors did it, they did it knowing that.
Most abortions were not called that. The only back-alley abortions
were by those who could not afford anything better.
My ex-wife was in the hospital overnight back in the late 60's and had
a semi-private room. The other woman there was in for a D&C, but it
was an open secret she was in for an abortion. It was one of the
largest hospitals in a large city (over 2 million) that is a state
capital..
SCOTUS finding a right to abortion in some sort of constitutional penumbra-
that doesn't seem to cover much else, privacy-wise, was very startling.
Since the SC is the judicial body that has the power to make a final
decision as to what is or is not in the Constitution I am sure they
were not very interested in whether you agreed or not.
You'll notice they dropped the
Hippocratic Oath at about the same time; so much for 'First; do no harm'.
No oath is going to change the behavior of anyone outside of a bad
movie. unless some kind of a legal penalty is involved.
At your level of ethics, I wouldn't doubt it.
I would trust someone with my ethics a long time before I would trust
someone with your's.
It was suddenly as if SCOTUS had found a constitutional right to practice
cannibalism, or child molestation or euthanasia.
Only in the minds of a few on the lunatic fringe.
Undeniable sociological fact- that's why the controversy goes on so strongly
thirty years, and 40M deaths, later.
No, this was picked up by some religious fanatics, and such people
literally do not know how or where to stop.
If you *actually* believe this life is merely a short
prelude to the one to come and if you *actually* believe
that one form of magic will enable you to live it in bliss
and another, slightly different form will cast you into
eternal fire, then anyone pushing the wrong magic is the
worst imaginable kind of criminal, far worse than a mere
murderer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 08:48:33 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
My ex-wife was in the hospital overnight back in the late 60's and had
a semi-private room. The other woman there was in for a D&C, but it
was an open secret she was in for an abortion. It was one of the
largest hospitals in a large city (over 2 million) that is a state
capital..
Do you think that sort of major professional ethics violation, much less the
criminal act, was common amongst doctors and hospitals of that period?
Since the SC is the judicial body that has the power to make a final
decision as to what is or is not in the Constitution I am sure they
were not very interested in whether you agreed or not.
It's true.
But one would also expect some sort of philosophical consistency, being a
'penumbra' and all.
No oath is going to change the behavior of anyone outside of a bad
movie. unless some kind of a legal penalty is involved.
At your level of ethics, I wouldn't doubt it.
I would trust someone with my ethics a long time before I would trust
someone with your's.
You seem to have none except as are criminalized, judging from your quote
above.
I find that a very low standard indeed.
Undeniable sociological fact- that's why the controversy goes on so
strongly
thirty years, and 40M deaths, later.
No, this was picked up by some religious fanatics, and such people
literally do not know how or where to stop.
Interesting to be called 'fanatics' by someone who invests such credulity in
the actions of nine old dears who seized such power with little or no
authority or precedent.
There are very few Constitutional rights that are 'penumbral'. Rights are
generally derived from pretty explicit sources- the few obvious arguments a
given.
Judicial fiat continues to be a major question as to the extent of the
authority available to be exercised by the Court.
If you *actually* believe this life is merely a short
prelude to the one to come
No, it's all one thing for those who are retained, a return to the Void for
those who aren't.
It's kind of a 'choice' thing.
and if you *actually* believe
that one form of magic will enable you to live it in bliss
and another, slightly different form will cast you into
eternal fire,
Well, actually, I believe that if you are moving in the right direction, you
get to keep moving in the right direction. If you choose otherwise, your
direction is otherwise-
It's a 'choice' thing.
then anyone pushing the wrong magic is the
worst imaginable kind of criminal, far worse than a mere
murderer.
Nah; everybody gets to find out the answer to their own question.
For your sake, I *do* hope it's Turtles, all the way down.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
29 Apr 2004 09:28:04 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HIidnXiKu63vLQzdRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
My ex-wife was in the hospital overnight back in the late 60's and had
a semi-private room. The other woman there was in for a D&C, but it
was an open secret she was in for an abortion. It was one of the
largest hospitals in a large city (over 2 million) that is a state
capital..
Do you think that sort of major professional ethics violation, much less
the
criminal act, was common amongst doctors and hospitals of that period?
Increasingly not in the 1960s, but more so in the 1950s and rampantly so
during and before the second world war. My mother's Navy doctor casually
offered her a D&C when the pregnancy that became me was discovered when she
was 41. After all, she was an officer's wife (like his own) and already had
two teenaged kids, so it's not like she was some young unwed female seeking
to escape her womanly responsibilities. She assured him that she actually
did want to be pregnant (but no, I wouldn't have cared if she hadn't - any
more than I'd care if the contraceptive my parents used had worked instead).
Undeniable sociological fact- that's why the controversy goes on so
strongly
thirty years, and 40M deaths, later.
No, this was picked up by some religious fanatics, and such people
literally do not know how or where to stop.
Interesting to be called 'fanatics' by someone who invests such credulity
in
the actions of nine old dears who seized such power with little or no
authority or precedent.
"Abortion" stands for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with a
minor medical procedure. Why was one of Bush's first actions in office a
mostly symbolic removal of contraceptive coverage for federal workers'
insurance plans? [1] Why has the Bush administration removed hundreds of
pages from the Women's Bureau website that have nothing to do with abortion?
[2]
It's all about putting women back in their proper place. "Abortion" is just
a symbol for that whole mindset.
[1] (a) April 2001:
Singling out contraceptive coverage
Scripps Howard News Service
April 17, 2001 12:05 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - It may seem like
a small thing, but the administration last week acted in a way that is truly
puzzling. Deftly tucked into the budget President Bush sent to Capitol Hill
was a provision that eliminates contraceptive coverage in health insurance
for federal employees. There are 1.2 million female federal employees of
reproductive age, so the end result is that thousands of female employees
may soon lose insurance coverage for birth control.
The president was elected [sic] with the voters having full knowledge of his
opposition to abortion rights. But it is news to a lot of people that Bush
is symbolically opposed to the use of contraception, or would single out its
coverage in this way. That is especially surprising given that use of
contraception prevents unplanned pregnancies, which in turn lowers the rate
of abortion - a goal of many Americans including the president.
It also seems bizarre to single out one category of drugs, used almost
entirely by women, for exclusion from a federal program. It would not seem
so bizarre, if, for example, the president's budget disqualified coverage
for prescription forms of birth control and for Viagra, a drug that treats
erectile dysfunction. Then the administration would at least be consistent
in its distaste for coverage of any drugs having to do with sex. But Viagra
was not targeted so as to potentially deny coverage for (predominantly male)
workers enrolled in federal health insurance plans.
It also would make more sense if the president's budget separated out
prescription coverage for "the morning after pill," which some religious
conservatives view as a form of abortion and left in financial support for
oral contraceptives that prevent conception before it begins. But his plan
bars support for prescription coverage for all forms of oral contraceptives.
Viagra was introduced to the U.S. market in 1998. Within two months of its
introduction, studies show more than half of all prescriptions for Viagra
were covered by health insurance. Coverage for women's prescriptions for
"The Pill" did not reach that level until oral contraceptives had been on
the market in the United States for almost 40 years. If the goal here is to
reduce unplanned and unwanted pregnancies (and therefore the number of
abortions) it would seem sensible to make Viagra less affordable and oral
contraceptives more affordable, not the other way around.
In fact, by boosting the sexual function of many men with Viagra, and
limiting women's access to oral contraception, it seems a climate is being
created in which more unwanted pregnancies could result instead of fewer.
Unless, of course, the hidden message here is couples should only have sex
when they plan to procreate. That is not a message that the American public
seems ready to buy.
(b) Bush Cuts Contraception
Proposed budget eliminates birth control for federal women
Bush's proposed budget will eliminate prescription birth control for women
who depend on health insurance plans for federal employees - but it won't
affect coverage of Viagra and other sex enhancements for men.
The cut, described by the Bush administration as something intended to make
religious conservatives happy, has angered just about everyone else,
including women's groups and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who
intend to fight it.
But religious conservatives were delighted. The cut won't affect a large
percentage of women, but it does send the kind of message anti-choice folks
want: sex for women is to make babies, preferably within marriage.
"We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease," said Susan Orr,
who promotes marriage for the Family Research Council. "It's not a medical
necessity that you have to have it," she added, "it" meaning contraception.
(It's not a medical necessity that you have to have Viagra either, or
anti-acne medications, nor a host of other drugs and services that enhance
people's lives and benefit their health.)
Orr said she heard about the birth control cut at a Department of Health and
Human Services briefing for conservative groups. "This is one of the things
that they were happy to tell us about," she said. "They were talking about
'things that will please you.'"
Women's groups were equally quick to recognize the symbolic significance of
the cut. Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League said the move demonstrates how "extreme" Bush's views are on
women. "This goes far beyond abortion," she said. "This is simply another
manifestation of President Bush's hostility to the reproductive rights of
women."
Reporter Marie Cocco of Newsday put it succinctly: "The anti-abortion agenda
long ago morphed into an anti-birth control crusade," she wrote in a recent
article. (http://www.bergen.com/op-ed/cocco3020010401.htm)
(Article originally published on about.com, no longer available except
through www.archive.org)
[2] Making women's issues go away
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/04/28/womens_report/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
30 Apr 2004 09:55:29 AM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote
It's all about putting women back in their proper place. "Abortion" is
just
a symbol for that whole mindset.
See, that's the sort of leap of logic that makes you people look so
ridiculous.
The whole question of when 'Rights' apply is very serious from a legal
standpoint- nothing to do with gender.
Some abortionists will kill anything that hasn't naturally parted.
Postpartum, the father of the baby can be held responsible in indenture for
the next couple of decades.
An interesting application of 'choice', as well as the assignment of
Constitutional Rights.
One wonders why there isn't room under the penumbra for us all.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
30 Apr 2004 09:32:18 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bM6dnRO2Gfx89Q_dRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote
It's all about putting women back in their proper place. "Abortion" is
just
a symbol for that whole mindset.
See, that's the sort of leap of logic that makes you people look so
ridiculous.
The whole question of when 'Rights' apply is very serious from a legal
standpoint- nothing to do with gender.
Nonsense. There were more abortions ratewise 50 years ago than today, they
were more spread across the socioeconomic spectrum, and nobody cared. There
was no "pro-life" movement, no "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" when an unwed,
untimely pregnancy really was a crisis, and no interest in fetal rights
whatsoever. Dallas Blanchard refers to this as "the general availability of
abortions on demand prior to 1973 and the general lack of interest
fundamentalists then expressed in them."
Read sociologist/lawyer Edwin Schur's 'Crimes Without Victims: Deviant
Behavior and Public Policy: Abortion, Homosexuality, Drug Addiction'
published by Prentice-Hall, 1965 for an enlightening view of how abortion
was viewed then. Abortion was considered a vice crime, like being a
homosexual or drug addict, and there is no mention in the book of fetal
rights at all. In fact, fetuses don't even appear as characters, because
they weren't considered as such. Speaking as someone who lived through
those times, I can categorically inform you that "fetal rights" is purely an
invention of the last 20+ years. (I did some research about the common
presence of preserved embryos and fetuses in high school labs before Roe vs.
Wade, and the unthinkability of having anything like that today. Here you
go, beginning with a quote from an old post of mine:
People born since Roe vs. Wade will have a hard time believing it, but
embryos and fetuses were not always the sacred fetish objects they are
today. Every high school biology lab - including Catholic schools - used to
have several jars containing aborted, preserved human fetuses at various
stages of gestation for students' edification.
P.S. Just did a quick web search and found this:
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/e/l/elisacarr/bottled.jpg.html
Read all the comments. Older writers remember "the baby in a bottle" in
high school biology lab. Young writers are absolutely stunned.
I also found this fascinating article:
Fetal Positions
The discovery at Mount Holyoke College of a collection of fetuses in jars
underscores how perceptions change over time. The specimens were once used
for routine study, but today, after decades of debate over abortion, they
elicit a very different reaction.
By Eric Goldscheider, 8/10/2003
Excerpts:
Five years ago, anthropologist Lynn Morgan made a chance discovery of a
collection of about 100 embryos and fetuses at various stages of
development. They were stuffed into a haphazard array of jars, including one
that previously had contained 8 pounds of grapefruit sections. That one
alone held more than half a dozen specimens.
Morgan, whose research to that point focused on ideas in non-Western
cultures about when a human life begins, was especially taken by the
heedlessness with which these objects of inquiry had once been treated. She
later learned that it wasn't unusual for human embryos to be stored in large
vats and that high schools, colleges, and hospitals all over the Western
world had collections.
"Only someone who considered them dead, inert, impersonal, devoid of
humanity, could have thrown them all together into one jar," Morgan says of
the Mount Holyoke fetuses. "They were regarded as undifferentiated
biological specimens; they certainly didn't represent people or even
potential people."
"Today it would be unthinkable to put together this kind of collection --
people would consider it disrespectful, inappropriate, and gross." She
searched out some of her colleagues at Mount Holyoke who once used these
specimens.
Retired biology professor Curtis Smith remembered a rivalry between zoology
and physiology alumnae as to who could keep their former professors better
supplied with fetuses and embryos.
B. J. White, a diminutive octogenarian whose white hair makes her slightly
smudged lipstick seem all the redder, was a zoology major at Mount Holyoke
in the late 1930s. She remembered studying embryos and fetuses. "We did
chicks and then we did pigs and then we did humans," she said.
The beginning of the intense politicization of the developing fetus
coincided with the publication of Swedish medical photographer Lennart
Nilsson's famous book A Child Is Born in 1965. The project had been more
than a dozen years in the making, and the subjects Nilsson photographed came
from the same kinds of collections Morgan had discovered. The book appeared
in conjunction with a 16-page spread plus the cover of Life magazine, which
sold out 8 million copies of the edition in four days. The photos, which the
unsuspecting eye might not have realized were of dead fetuses, showed
different stages of gestational development. They were simultaneously
published in Stern, Paris Match, London's Sunday Times, and other magazines.
[snip]
In the scientific community, the Carnegie Institution of Washington amassed
the largest and best-known embryo and fetus collection. From 1913 into the
mid-1940s, this collection grew to include nearly 10,000 specimens at
various stages of development. This was America's quintessential collection
in what Morgan refers to as "the curio cabinet" phase of biology.
In the late 1930s, the boundaries of "look and see" research involved trying
to get younger and younger specimens. Loretta McLaughlin, in her book The
Pill, John Rock, and the Church: The Biography of a Revolution, tells the
story of the contribution two Boston physicians made to this work.
Rock, a gynecologist and a devout Catholic, together with Arthur Hertig, a
medical pathologist, working at what was to become part of Brigham and
Women's Hospital, recruited women who were to undergo elective
hysterectomies. They asked them to chart their unprotected sexual activity
in the weeks and days leading up to the operation. Afterward, Hertig
searched the uterus for a fertilized egg. When he found one he delivered it
to the Carnegie collection in Baltimore. Between 1938 and 1952, the team
reaped 34 embryos from the uteri of 211 women. The youngest embryo was 36
hours old.
This research posed an obvious ethical, if not legal, dilemma, because it
could be argued that Rock and Hertig were performing abortions, which were
prohibited at the time. Their reasoning for why their research fell within
the letter of the law was that there were no tests at the time that could
have detected a pregnancy at such an early stage. The fact that they
encouraged these women to conceive in the days leading up to the operation
was harder to rationalize. McLaughlin reports that Rock and Hertig thought
"long and hard" about the ethical implications of their work. In the end it
came down to, in their own words, "a necessary scientific endeavor using
material that would have gone to waste but would have not been put to the
use for which the Lord intended it." They considered the fertilized eggs
"undifferentiated bits of protoplasm, tiny gelatinous packets of human
protein, destined to end up, undetected, in a surgical waste bin."
The big difference between then and now, notes Arthur Caplan, head of the
Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is
the growth of the antiabortion movement. "It is impossible to overestimate
the impact of the Roe v. Wade decision" on current bioethical debates,
Caplan says. "People today see everything through the prism of the abortion
debate, so to stop a practice which they think is morally wrong, they see a
baby in every cell."
To Morgan, reasoning grounded in biology, which might tell a true story
about how a fetus develops, can never hope to tell the true story of how a
person comes into being. The fetus and images of fetuses are raw material
onto which we project our hopes, fears, and political views.
[Wow! She could be quoting me.]
She searched the college archives for reference to the kinds of ethical
questions such a collection would certainly give rise to today. "But no one
ever even gave it a thought," says Morgan. "As far as they were concerned,
these were objects of nature. We now think of them as objects of culture; we
now think of them as being part of us."
About 20 cards had names on them. They corresponded to Mount Holyoke
alumnae, many who had gone on to work as doctors and nurses in the
Northeast. Among those was Grace V. Gorham, from the class of 1923. She
studied medicine at the University of Michigan, where she was one of six
women in a class of 250. For 35 years she had a solo practice in Norwalk,
Connecticut, in which she delivered more than 5,000 babies. She died in 1998
at the age of 96.
Gorham, a registered Republican, wrote on a 1960 questionnaire that issues
of particular concern to her were "maternal mortality, morbidity, still
births, neonatal deaths."
In the 1953-54 physiology department annual report, the department chair,
Charlotte Haywood, noted in the section headed "GIFTS" that "specimens of
human embryos and fetuses have come to our collection at various times from
one of our alumnae, Dr. Grace Gorham, an obstetrician. She arrived at her
reunion this June with a gift of more of them for us!"
Now the sense of fascinated repulsion Morgan's first encounter with the
fetus collection triggered has given way to a different image that she
carries around with her. That of a loyal alum, decked out in white for the
annual march around the campus, driving to South Hadley on a glorious spring
day with a jar full of fetuses -- and possibly even a dead baby, sloshing
around in a jar filled with formalin -- in the back seat of the car. And
thinking nothing odd of it.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/2003/0810/fetus/)
And nobody really wants to give full human rights to fetuses, regardless of
what claims are made.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: When abortion was still illegal. |
01 May 2004 12:05:28 AM |
|
|
Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote
It's all about putting women back in their proper place. "Abortion" is just
a symbol for that whole mindset.
See, that's the sort of leap of logic that makes you people look so
ridiculous.
The evidence is compelling. Those who oppose abortion do so as a
means to keep women controlled.
The whole question of when 'Rights' apply is very serious from a legal
standpoint- nothing to do with gender.
Some abortionists will kill anything that hasn't naturally parted.
Some pro-liars terrorists will kill anybody who gets in their way.
Postpartum, the father of the baby can be held responsible in indenture for
the next couple of decades.
Non sequitur.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
