| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Dr. Gamete" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2003 11:59:58 AM |
| Object: |
When does human life really begin? |
The abortion issue turns on how one answers the question of when human
life begins. About 400 years ago early scientists argued that what
becomes a baby existed pre-formed in male germ cells. A tiny baby,
called a homunculus, was imagined to inhabit each sperm. The woman's
egg or womb was thought by these male scientists to serve only to
incubate the homunculus. In this view human life began with
spermatogenesis.
In 1651, William Harvey propose his ex ovo omnia (everything comes
from the egg) theory. In this view human life begins with oogenesis.
Sperm were actually hypothetical entities until Von Leeuwenhoek
invented the microscope in 1677 and discovered spermatozoid. In 1694,
Niklaas Hartsoecker made his famous drawings of sperm showing tiny
babies in the sperm's head. In 1751, Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertius
studied the occurrence of polydactyly in several generations of a
Berlin family and became convinced that Harvey's theory was the
correct one. In 1827, Karl Ernst von Baer discovered the mammalian
ovum, but viewed sperm as mere parasites. It wasn't until 1840 that
Martin Barry came up with the crazy idea that spermatozoa actually
enter the egg. In 1875, Oscar Hertwig, based on his study of sea
urchin reproduction, proposed that both egg and sperm are required for
reproduction, and that both physically unite during the process we now
refer to as fertilization. In 1877 fertilization was actually observed
happening in starfish eggs.
Was this, then, the first scientific proof that life begins with
fertilization? While this has been a popular view in recent times, a
better case can be made that both of the early theories were correct,
and that life, including human life, begins with both spermatogenesis
and oogenesis. It is gametogenesis, then, that gives rise to a human
being. Fertilization, which takes about 24 hours, is no "moment of
conception" that many imagine, but rather one of several stages in
human development, the earliest being gametogenesis. If an artificial
womb were ever made, what would you have to put into it? Although a
fertilized ovum would work, the first, the most basic thing you would
need is not a zygote, but a mature ovum and sperm (QED).
So again, when does human life begin? Do you equivocate like some and
point to viability, implantation, or perhaps the initiation of a fetal
heartbeat as the beginning of human life? Or perhaps, like Carl
Sagan, you think that human life doesn't begin until the fetus
develops distinctly human brain waves, since an adult without brain
waves is considered by most to be dead? If you're uncomfortable
standing on the slippery slope and are looking for a firm place to
stand, the erroneous notion that the 24-hour process of fertilization
is the beginning must be abandoned. The view that must now be
embraced, in light of advancements in scientific knowledge, is that
life begins with gametogenesis.
More, of course, could be said, but I've taken up enough bandwidth.
Thanks for reading thus far. For a more in-depth discussion of this
view and its implications please visit:
http://www.alysion.org/truelife/
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
06 Aug 2003 12:11:59 AM |
|
|
Dr. Gamete <drgamete@alysion.org> wrote:
The abortion issue turns on how one answers the question of when human
life begins.
This idiocy again?!?
No, it matters not in the slightest. A woman does not belong to you,
your church, the state, or the fetus, and you have no right to command
her servitude. She is not your slave.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
06 Aug 2003 10:32:46 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Dr. Gamete <drgamete@alysion.org> wrote:
The abortion issue turns on how one answers the question of when human
life begins.
This idiocy again?!?
No, it matters not in the slightest. A woman does not belong to you,
your church, the state, or the fetus, and you have no right to command
her servitude. She is not your slave.
This doesn't make sense to me... There are many things the state can
stop a person from doing. Some are considered more just than others by
most people. One major factor in the decision of what is just is "would
her actions harm another human being?" If yes, then most would agree
that the state is justified in stopping her from doing that action.
(There are extenuating circumstances of course, for example one must ask
if refusing to allow her to do that action would harm her.) Because of
this, for most the abortion issue does turn on how one answers the
"human being" question.
If a fetus is simply personal property, then abortion is a non-issue. No
one has a problem with an individual disposing of personal property in a
safe manor. If a fetus is a separate, distinct human being, then there
is an issue because most people have a problem with an individual
performing an action that is known to cause the death of another human
being, especially if that action is premeditated...
(Please note, this does not mean I'm pro-life.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 08:59:11 AM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f325370.177995814@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:44:07 GMT, "Daniel T."
<postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
But what abortion opponents want is to force women to gestate and give
birth....
What abortion opponents want is to protect what they see as an innocent
person.....
This might be believed if abortion opponents were consistent in their
wish to "protect... an innocent person." The majority are quite
willing to kill this "innocent person" if the woman did not willingly
have sex. "Kill the bastards!" seems to be their standard.
Where do you come up with this sick crap?
Abortion opponenets claim that this 'innocent person' is a person from
conception -- and yet they toss the dead and/or (not that they care to
even check) dying bodies of their own 'precious innocent children'
into the trash.
Huh? You really are trying to develop some strawman
Given that abortion opponents do not seem to actually *believe* that
the embryo is actually an innocent child morally the equivalent to a
born child I will have to ignore any anti-abortion argument based upon
what is obviously a lie.
Oh no, not the "lie" line again.
Since abortion opponents do not *really* want to protect 'innocent
persons' (given that they do not believe that the embryo is a person)
it seems that their *real* agenda is to force women to gestate adn
give birth.
Another strawman
Which is confirmed by their running of adoption agencies that make
tens of thousands of dollars off of every baby they manage to get
women to produce for them. (By law, the women get nothing for
producing the baby -- nice racket, eh?)
....
Re the state's actions: When person A....
Sorry, but abortion opponents do not actually believe that the embryo
is a person. Arguments based upon lies are discarded.
When were you elected to speak for abortion opponents?
So we are once again left with the issue turning on how one answers the
question of a fetus' "person-hood".....
There is no question. Abortion opponents do not treat their own
unborn children as persons and thus do not believe the crap they are
trying to sell.
I am still trying to figure out who elected you to speak for others and why
you are making up such nonsense
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 09:07:24 AM |
|
|
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion opponents do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as "woman-
haters", since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state only
important when she didn't?
(please don't shoot the messenger!! ;) )
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:D-ycnVJ9mMqsxq-iXTWJkw@comcast.com...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f325370.177995814@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:44:07 GMT, "Daniel T."
<postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
But what abortion opponents want is to force women to gestate and
give
birth....
What abortion opponents want is to protect what they see as an innocent
person.....
This might be believed if abortion opponents were consistent in their
wish to "protect... an innocent person." The majority are quite
willing to kill this "innocent person" if the woman did not willingly
have sex. "Kill the bastards!" seems to be their standard.
Where do you come up with this sick crap?
Abortion opponenets claim that this 'innocent person' is a person from
conception -- and yet they toss the dead and/or (not that they care to
even check) dying bodies of their own 'precious innocent children'
into the trash.
Huh? You really are trying to develop some strawman
Given that abortion opponents do not seem to actually *believe* that
the embryo is actually an innocent child morally the equivalent to a
born child I will have to ignore any anti-abortion argument based upon
what is obviously a lie.
Oh no, not the "lie" line again.
Since abortion opponents do not *really* want to protect 'innocent
persons' (given that they do not believe that the embryo is a person)
it seems that their *real* agenda is to force women to gestate adn
give birth.
Another strawman
Which is confirmed by their running of adoption agencies that make
tens of thousands of dollars off of every baby they manage to get
women to produce for them. (By law, the women get nothing for
producing the baby -- nice racket, eh?)
....
Re the state's actions: When person A....
Sorry, but abortion opponents do not actually believe that the embryo
is a person. Arguments based upon lies are discarded.
When were you elected to speak for abortion opponents?
So we are once again left with the issue turning on how one answers the
question of a fetus' "person-hood".....
There is no question. Abortion opponents do not treat their own
unborn children as persons and thus do not believe the crap they are
trying to sell.
I am still trying to figure out who elected you to speak for others and
why
you are making up such nonsense
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 09:41:35 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping like that it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't get past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't have good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than people.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a animal, but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals than
human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals than
innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer but it is
ok to kill a fetus
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or more, or
possibly all three.
See what I am getting at? These are stereotypes. And they don't help with
the issue and trying to understand the other persons point of view. What
Paul is doing is wrong, and all it does is just add fuel to the fire.
Yes, I can understand your questioning why I may understand abortion for
rape and incest.
Let me try to explain.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing, and I
still think it is wrong. However, the woman did not do anything willingly
to create that life. I am still not saying it is right to abort, I am just
saying I can understand her decision.
Now for the woman who just lays down and allows the man to have his pleasure
with her, and a life is created. They should "both" be responsible for
taking care of that life they created.
Not just her, I said both of them. Equally.
(please don't shoot the messenger!! ;) )
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:D-ycnVJ9mMqsxq-iXTWJkw@comcast.com...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f325370.177995814@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:44:07 GMT, "Daniel T."
<postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
But what abortion opponents want is to force women to gestate and
give
birth....
What abortion opponents want is to protect what they see as an
innocent
person.....
This might be believed if abortion opponents were consistent in their
wish to "protect... an innocent person." The majority are quite
willing to kill this "innocent person" if the woman did not willingly
have sex. "Kill the bastards!" seems to be their standard.
Where do you come up with this sick crap?
Abortion opponenets claim that this 'innocent person' is a person from
conception -- and yet they toss the dead and/or (not that they care to
even check) dying bodies of their own 'precious innocent children'
into the trash.
Huh? You really are trying to develop some strawman
Given that abortion opponents do not seem to actually *believe* that
the embryo is actually an innocent child morally the equivalent to a
born child I will have to ignore any anti-abortion argument based upon
what is obviously a lie.
Oh no, not the "lie" line again.
Since abortion opponents do not *really* want to protect 'innocent
persons' (given that they do not believe that the embryo is a person)
it seems that their *real* agenda is to force women to gestate adn
give birth.
Another strawman
Which is confirmed by their running of adoption agencies that make
tens of thousands of dollars off of every baby they manage to get
women to produce for them. (By law, the women get nothing for
producing the baby -- nice racket, eh?)
....
Re the state's actions: When person A....
Sorry, but abortion opponents do not actually believe that the embryo
is a person. Arguments based upon lies are discarded.
When were you elected to speak for abortion opponents?
So we are once again left with the issue turning on how one answers
the
question of a fetus' "person-hood".....
There is no question. Abortion opponents do not treat their own
unborn children as persons and thus do not believe the crap they are
trying to sell.
I am still trying to figure out who elected you to speak for others and
why
you are making up such nonsense
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 10:57:24 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtpvv$saej3$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Do men go through this ***** when they want a
vasectomy?
Not to my knowledge. But then the men I've known who have had vasectomies
have almost all lived in northern California, where I believe things are A
Bit Different. I can't imagine you'd be hassled for wanting a tubal
ligation there either.
One friend who had a vasectomy in his 20s in the late 60s or early 70s was
required by the urologist to shave his own scrotum to prove he really wanted
it, though. (He didn't have kids, but had been the cause of one
pre-California-legalization, Mexican abortion.) Another guy who had one
daughter froze sperm at the time of his midlife vasectomy, which he later
used to have another daughter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 12:28:00 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f32874d.191272455@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:57:24 GMT, "M is for Malapert"
<minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
One friend who had a vasectomy in his 20s in the late 60s or early 70s
was
required by the urologist to shave his own scrotum to prove he really
wanted
it, though. ...
I had mine with Kaiser in the late '80's and had to shave myself prior
to going in. I think more 'cause it is something I could do to save
them the bother rather than having to 'prove' anything.
Interesting. In his case, the doctor specifically said that was why he
would be shaving his own scrotum, but I wasn't there so the story's all I
have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 11:39:34 AM |
|
|
I was in Cali at the time- Central Coast area, not true Northern Cali.
The one doctor that sorta agreed to do it wanted me to attend a month of
psychiatric counseling (and get a clearance from the psychiatrist) and then
have another month waiting period before he would do the procedure. What,
may I ask, does a shrink have to do with gynecology? Hell, I already knew I
was crazy, that's why I wanted the tubal in the first place. Who wants to
pass this on to their kids?
M is for Malapert <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:EFuYa.58058$cF.20402@rwcrnsc53...
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtpvv$saej3$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Do men go through this ***** when they want a
vasectomy?
Not to my knowledge. But then the men I've known who have had vasectomies
have almost all lived in northern California, where I believe things are A
Bit Different. I can't imagine you'd be hassled for wanting a tubal
ligation there either.
One friend who had a vasectomy in his 20s in the late 60s or early 70s was
required by the urologist to shave his own scrotum to prove he really
wanted
it, though. (He didn't have kids, but had been the cause of one
pre-California-legalization, Mexican abortion.) Another guy who had one
daughter froze sperm at the time of his midlife vasectomy, which he later
used to have another daughter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 12:04:00 PM |
|
|
I think I got a deluge of paternalism.
My doctor now is a good doctor and doesn't argue with my decisions, which is
why I keep him. His staff is a whole other story.
M is for Malapert <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:hzvYa.58724$Oz4.15093@rwcrnsc54...
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtvc7$sa4ap$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
I was in Cali at the time- Central Coast area, not true Northern Cali.
The one doctor that sorta agreed to do it wanted me to attend a month of
psychiatric counseling (and get a clearance from the psychiatrist) and
then
have another month waiting period before he would do the procedure.
What,
may I ask, does a shrink have to do with gynecology?
He might have been protecting himself. So you couldn't come back and
claim
you were temporarily depressed and now find yourself unable to have kids
and
sue.
Hell, I already knew I
was crazy, that's why I wanted the tubal in the first place. Who wants
to
pass this on to their kids?
It's insane, I agree. But there has been sterilization abuse in the past.
It's mixed up between paternalism ("Of course you'll want to have more
children, little lady!") and self-protection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 06:47:27 PM |
|
|
In article <3f32874d.191272455@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:57:24 GMT, "M is for Malapert"
<minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
....
One friend who had a vasectomy in his 20s in the late 60s or early 70s was
required by the urologist to shave his own scrotum to prove he really wanted
it, though. ...
I had mine with Kaiser in the late '80's and had to shave myself prior
to going in. I think more 'cause it is something I could do to save
them the bother rather than having to 'prove' anything.
When I was pregnant (early 80s) it was routine for a full or partial
pelvic shave before an expected vaginal delivery (presumably for hygiene
as with vasectomies). I never heard of any woman being asked or
expected to shave themself or have themself shaved before coming into
hospital for the delivery, even when the woman knew it was about time
but had the time to do so!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 09:49:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:47:27 +0100, Pat Winstanley
<wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
In article <3f32874d.191272455@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:57:24 GMT, "M is for Malapert"
<minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
....
One friend who had a vasectomy in his 20s in the late 60s or early 70s was
required by the urologist to shave his own scrotum to prove he really wanted
it, though. ...
I had mine with Kaiser in the late '80's and had to shave myself prior
to going in. I think more 'cause it is something I could do to save
them the bother rather than having to 'prove' anything.
When I was pregnant (early 80s) it was routine for a full or partial
pelvic shave before an expected vaginal delivery (presumably for hygiene
as with vasectomies). I never heard of any woman being asked or
expected to shave themself or have themself shaved before coming into
hospital for the delivery, even when the woman knew it was about time
but had the time to do so!
Men tend to be a bit more modest than women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 05:38:49 AM |
|
|
In article <3f330dd4.8168175@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net says...
I had mine with Kaiser in the late '80's and had to shave myself prior
to going in. I think more 'cause it is something I could do to save
them the bother rather than having to 'prove' anything.
When I was pregnant (early 80s) it was routine for a full or partial
pelvic shave before an expected vaginal delivery (presumably for hygiene
as with vasectomies). I never heard of any woman being asked or
expected to shave themself or have themself shaved before coming into
hospital for the delivery, even when the woman knew it was about time
but had the time to do so!
Men tend to be a bit more modest than women.
Wanna bet! :-))
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 12:17:40 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping like that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't be solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals than
human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals than
innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer but it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is neither one
of the 3?
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing, and I
still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
However, the woman did not do anything willingly
to create that life. I am still not saying it is right to abort, I am
just
saying I can understand her decision.
Now for the woman who just lays down and allows the man to have his
pleasure
with her, and a life is created. They should "both" be responsible for
taking care of that life they created.
I believe their first responsibility is to the life they have, not the
non-viable one they accidentally created.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 10:24:31 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping like that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't be solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals than
human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals than
innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer but it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is neither one
of the 3?
No. I have a liberal slant on most issues. However, my brother is conservative
(registered Repub), agnostic and loves only women.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing, and I
still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
The how do you justify to yourself that killing living adults is ok but killing
a non-viable human fetus is not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 12:33:40 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F33C08F.11BE77FB@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman
did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all
as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping like
that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't
get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child
when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional
state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the
problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't be
solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a
animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals
than
human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals than
innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer but
it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or
more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is neither
one
of the 3?
No. I have a liberal slant on most issues. However, my brother is
conservative
(registered Repub), agnostic and loves only women.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing,
and I
still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
The how do you justify to yourself that killing living adults is ok but
killing
a non-viable human fetus is not?
the non-viable human fetus didn't kill anyone, the living adult did.
Every see the victims of a murder? I have, too many times.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 12:41:19 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:3F33C08F.11BE77FB@citlink.net:
Osprey wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the
woman did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you
all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping
like that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't
get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman-
as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a
child when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional
state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't
have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the
problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't be
solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher
than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street
and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a
animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals
than human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals
than innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer
but it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some
cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or
more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is
neither one of the 3?
No. I have a liberal slant on most issues. However, my brother is
conservative (registered Repub), agnostic and loves only women.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing,
and I still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
The how do you justify to yourself that killing living adults is ok
but killing a non-viable human fetus is not?
Not up to us to justify abortion-choice, or not. Only the woman involved
in an unwanted pregnancy should make her own reproductive choices and
decisions. Not me, not you, not anyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
10 Aug 2003 12:14:04 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:3F33C08F.11BE77FB@citlink.net:
Osprey wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the
woman did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you
all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping
like that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue can't
get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman-
as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a
child when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional
state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you don't
have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the
problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't be
solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher
than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street
and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill a
animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for animals
than human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for criminals
than innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass murderer
but it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some
cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or
more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is
neither one of the 3?
No. I have a liberal slant on most issues. However, my brother is
conservative (registered Repub), agnostic and loves only women.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is killing,
and I still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
The how do you justify to yourself that killing living adults is ok
but killing a non-viable human fetus is not?
Not up to us to justify abortion-choice, or not. Only the woman involved
in an unwanted pregnancy should make her own reproductive choices and
decisions. Not me, not you, not anyone else.
Of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
10 Aug 2003 11:22:01 AM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:3F35D490.6E2F1E7@citlink.net:
Bob wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:3F33C08F.11BE77FB@citlink.net:
Osprey wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F326DB9.DC5060FC@citlink.net...
Osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgtmeu$siu2r$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of
abortion
opponents
do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the
woman did
not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to
you all as
"woman-
haters",
That is a terrible generalization though and with stereotyping
like that
it
is no wonder so many people on opposing sides of this issue
can't get
past
the nonsense and just discuss the issue.
since that position is based on woman- as- property and
woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a
child when
the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her
emotional state
only
important when she didn't?
I can understand your point, and I am not saying that you
don't have
good
reason for that opinion.
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve
the problem.
There is no problem to solve. If there were a problem, it won't
be solved
on
usenet anyway.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher
than
people.
I, for one, have always said that if I'm driving down the street
and a
human is
in one lane and a dog is in the other, the human had better
move.
For example:
I see where many pro-choice people will get upset if you kill
a animal,
but
they could care less if you kill a fetus.
A fetus is not a people.
So is it safe to assume that all pro-choice care more for
animals than human?
Or how about how many pro-choice people care more for
criminals than innocent people?
Example: Pro-choice doesn't want you to execute a mass
murderer but it
is
ok to kill a fetus
I'm pro-choice and I fully support the death penalty. In some
cases, I
support
methods of execution that would make Idi Amin blush.
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those,
or more,
or
possibly all three.
Or none.
Ok. Are you saying that you, as a person who is pro-choice, is
neither one of the 3?
No. I have a liberal slant on most issues. However, my brother is
conservative (registered Repub), agnostic and loves only women.
I still do not condone the abortion, I still think it is
killing, and I still think it is wrong.
Do you support the death penalty?
Not as much as I used too since I have been working in the system.
The how do you justify to yourself that killing living adults is ok
but killing a non-viable human fetus is not?
Not up to us to justify abortion-choice, or not. Only the woman
involved in an unwanted pregnancy should make her own reproductive
choices and decisions. Not me, not you, not anyone else.
Of course.
Then apparently we are in agreement on this issue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 09:27:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:41:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
[snip...
Or is it safe to assume that all pro-choice people are either
a) Liberal
b) homosexual
or
c) atheist
Or maybe all 3?
I bet you that every single pro-choice person is one of those, or more, or
possibly all three.
See what I am getting at? These are stereotypes. And they don't help with
the issue and trying to understand the other persons point of view. What
Paul is doing is wrong, and all it does is just add fuel to the fire.
Dang! Broke another irony meter.
[snip....
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 07:00:17 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than people.
Heishman, you're still a dumbshit hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 07:43:56 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bh80gh$a3l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
We can generalize all day long, but it isn't going to solve the problem.
I often find that many pro-choice people value animals higher than
people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 09:07:04 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:9aecnbysoajmEqqiXTWJkA@comcast.com:
[...nothing much...]
coward osprey (Robert Heishman), you falsely
claimed that six people were pro-abortion in
news:3E8EE004.3060101@mail.com
by your failure to repost the full article
to support you claim while concurrently
responding to calls for you to post such
evidence, you have conclusively proven
that you lied about six people who post
here.
adding cowardice to your blatant dishonesty,
you have called on those you lied about to
post proof of their innocence of the lies
you posted about them.
in addition, you demonstrated blatant hypocrisy
by ignoring your own statement made in
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it."
Then you refused to do that with your own claims.
[this notice will be appended to each of your
posts to talk abortion and alt.abortion until
you have apologized for this specific lie.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 09:30:54 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote:
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion opponents do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as "woman-
haters", since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state only
important when she didn't?
It seems to me that the opponents' concession to allow abortion for rape
and incest cases was just that, a concession or compromise. Certainly,
you are not faulting your opponent for a willingness to compromise his
views in order to help forge consensus are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
07 Aug 2003 06:38:15 PM |
|
|
In article <postmaster-BD04BA.10305407082003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
postmaster@earthlink.net says...
"--sexkitten--" <knighthawk@citlink.net> wrote:
Well, he's right about the first part; the majority of abortion opponents do
believe in allowing abortion for rape and incest (when the woman did not
willingly have sex). It's part of why we tend to refer to you all as "woman-
haters", since that position is based on woman- as- property and woman- as-
subhuman mentality. Reasonably, a fetus would be no less a child when the
woman didn't enjoy sex as when she did, so why is her emotional state only
important when she didn't?
It seems to me that the opponents' concession to allow abortion for rape
and incest cases was just that, a concession or compromise. Certainly,
you are not faulting your opponent for a willingness to compromise his
views in order to help forge consensus are you?
For most anti-choice people, the reason they give for judging abortion
as wrong is that they believe the embryo or foetus is already a human
being, a person, and that it is murder to kill or cause the death of
that 'human being' or 'person' by terminating the pregnancy before the
embryo/foetus reaches viability. (Some also think that terminating a
pregnancy after the foetus reaches viability is murder even though the
viable foetus would then normally be separated live and continue to live
if the pregnancy is terminated).
The point is... if aborting a pregnancy (with the side effect that the
embryo or foetus dies during or after the procedure) is murder, then it
is murder *regardless* of whether the woman consented to sex or not, or
had consensual or non-consensual sex with their brother, father, uncle
etc or not... and for that matter whether or not the woman would die or
be seriously injured should the pregnancy not be ended pre-term.
The embryo/foetus involved is exactly the same either way, regardless of
whether or not the woman consented to sex etc.
If some third party (the anti-choice person) is free to decide whether
or not some *other* person's pregnancy should be legally forced be
continued to term, clearly what they are saying is they want to be able
to make the choice about some other person's medical treatment (whether
or not that third party is medically qualified, ahs ever met the
pregnant person etc, but the person who is pregnant may not make a
choice about their own medical treatment.
If induced abortion with the consent of the pregnant person is murder
then it is murder - no exceptions!
Of course, induced abortion with the consent of the pregnant person
isn't and never has been murder, just as an embryo/foetus hasn't and
never has had the legal status of 'person' or 'human being'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 06:51:02 AM |
|
|
<no@spam.com> wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
If induced abortion with the consent of the pregnant person is murder
then it is murder - no exceptions!
Philosophically, yes. But the real world, sadly, in more complicated than
that.
Better include exceptions for the most extreme circumstances and get laws
enacted that way than have no restrictions because of an unwillingness to
allow those few exceptions. "Few" because it's only 1 percent of all
abortions, if that.
And it is because of such rationalizations that many conclude that
being "pro-life" is all about controlling women and punishing
sexuality.
Of course, induced abortion with the consent of the pregnant person
isn't and never has been murder, just as an embryo/foetus hasn't and
never has had the legal status of 'person' or 'human being'.
At this stage in man's knowledge of the facts the truth is undeniable.
Indeed. And yet we see many who are anti-abortion try to deny the
facts.
Funny. You seem to think past ignorance is an argument.
You seem to think that your wish to control women overrides the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
10 Aug 2003 02:26:34 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<3F32E3B8.22B46BA3@spam.com>...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Of course, induced abortion with the consent of the pregnant person
isn't and never has been murder, just as an embryo/foetus hasn't and
never has had the legal status of 'person' or 'human being'.
At this stage in man's knowledge of the facts the truth is undeniable.
Funny. You seem to think past ignorance is an argument. Nevermind the fact
that people have always viewed pregnant women as being "with child" in
probably any culture you'd care to name.
I'm afraid you don't seem to know any languages but English. For
instance, the literal translation of the corresponding German idiom is
that she *expects* a baby - in the sense that no baby is there yet.
Regards,
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 04:09:27 PM |
|
|
The point is... if aborting a pregnancy (with the side effect that the
embryo or foetus dies during or after the procedure) is murder, then it
is murder *regardless* of whether the woman consented to sex or not, or
had consensual or non-consensual sex with their brother, father, uncle
etc or not... and for that matter whether or not the woman would die or
be seriously injured should the pregnancy not be ended pre-term.
Totally agree.
The embryo/foetus involved is exactly the same either way, regardless of
whether or not the woman consented to sex etc.
If some third party (the anti-choice person) is free to decide whether
or not some *other* person's pregnancy should be legally forced be
continued to term, clearly what they are saying is they want to be able
to make the choice about some other person's medical treatment (whether
or not that third party is medically qualified, ahs ever met the
pregnant person etc, but the person who is pregnant may not make a
choice about their own medical treatment.
You could also say that the person is interfering in your financial
affairs if you're not allowed to off your teenagers.
In a related way, some pro-choice people believe babies can be
aborted, but if a pregnant person is assualted and the baby dies, well
that's murder. Based solely on the fact that the mother "wanted," the
baby. The Peterson case in California comes to mind. Double murder or
no? Does the mother decide if and when the baby is a person?
Trish
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
08 Aug 2003 07:18:24 PM |
|
|
"Trish" <Discotrish@msn.com> wrote in message
news:23be6401.0308081309.66714d09@posting.google.com...
In a related way, some pro-choice people believe babies can be
aborted, but if a pregnant person is assualted and the baby dies, well
that's murder.
Based solely on the fact that the mother "wanted," the
baby.
In an also related way, some pro-choice people believe it's fine for a man
and woman to make love, but if a man or woman is assaulted and forced to
have sex, that's rape. Based solely on the fact that each partner "wanted"
the sex, or didn't.
Go figure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
09 Aug 2003 08:07:03 AM |
|
|
In a related way, some pro-choice people believe babies can be
aborted, but if a pregnant person is assualted and the baby dies, well
that's murder.
Based solely on the fact that the mother "wanted," the
baby.
In an also related way, some pro-choice people believe it's fine for a man
and woman to make love, but if a man or woman is assaulted and forced to
have sex, that's rape. Based solely on the fact that each partner "wanted"
the sex, or didn't.
Go figure.
True, one is forcible (rape) the other is not (consensual sex). But
you seem to be saying the mother determines whether or not the baby is
a person based on if she wants it or not.
Trish
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: When does human life really begin? (Pro-lie propaganda) |
11 Aug 2003 11:47:32 AM |
|
|
"Trish" <Discotrish@msn.com> wrote in message
news:23be6401.0308090507.1fc14b03@posting.google.com...
In an also related way, some pro-choice people believe it's fine for a
man
and woman to make love, but if a man or woman is assaulted and forced to
have sex, that's rape. Based solely on the fact that each partner
"wanted"
the sex, or didn't.
Go figure.
True, one is forcible (rape) the other is not (consensual sex).
They're both a penis in a vagina (or whatever). The physical facts may be
exactly the same. It's entirely up to what's in one partner's mind whether
it is rape or not.
But
you seem to be saying the mother determines whether or not the baby is
a person based on if she wants it or not.
No, I'm not. It's not a person either way. It's a crime, or not, based on
what she wants to happen with respect to her pregnancy (which is a process
going on in her body). Just like my example.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
