women as breeding stock


 Science > Abortion > women as breeding stock

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 30

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 

29
 

30
 
Topic: Science > Abortion
User: "james g. keegan jr."
Date: 12 Mar 2005 04:12:35 PM
Object: women as breeding stock
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort
i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.
.

User: "Pat Winstanley"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 08:33:45 AM
In article <czfZd.27195$6g7.22682@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...

Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.


How do you know?

Because infanticide is about killing children, and a woman choosing not
to continue a pregnancy is not killing any child (and is therefore not
performaing any activity connected with infanticide).
I have no idea why you are seemingly pretending the two issues (killing
a child and dealing with a pregnancy) are connected or the same... but
they aren't.
.
User: "Johnny"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 12:58:26 PM
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9fb11f52f3a30398c304@news.uni-berlin.de...

In article <czfZd.27195$6g7.22682@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...

Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.


How do you know?


Because infanticide is about killing children, and a woman choosing not
to continue a pregnancy is not killing any child (and is therefore not
performaing any activity connected with infanticide).

I have no idea why you are seemingly pretending the two issues (killing
a child and dealing with a pregnancy) are connected or the same... but
they aren't.

Have a nice day.
I am not against you defending people. I know there are many involved.
Please do not think I want people to be hurt.
I hope the whole thing will be solved somehow.
.

User: "Ron"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 09:23:53 AM
In article <MPG.1c9fb11f52f3a30398c304@news.uni-berlin.de>,
Pat Winstanley <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

In article <czfZd.27195$6g7.22682@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...

Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.


How do you know?


Because infanticide is about killing children, and a woman choosing not
to continue a pregnancy is not killing any child (and is therefore not
performaing any activity connected with infanticide).

I have no idea why you are seemingly pretending the two issues (killing
a child and dealing with a pregnancy) are connected or the same... but
they aren't.

Well, they are. I certainly support a woman's right to access an
abortion, but I will also be honest. Whether we use the label offspring,
child, human, etc. some 'thing' is there and some 'thing' does die as a
result of the action of abortion. In most cases, I have no knowledge
that an embryo is present within a woman, but some 'thing' (an object)
is there despite my lack of knowledge or evidence at any given moment.
.
User: "Pat Winstanley"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 15 Mar 2005 05:32:07 AM
In article <homo-11830A.10235314032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...

Because infanticide is about killing children, and a woman choosing not
to continue a pregnancy is not killing any child (and is therefore not
performaing any activity connected with infanticide).

I have no idea why you are seemingly pretending the two issues (killing
a child and dealing with a pregnancy) are connected or the same... but
they aren't.


Well, they are. I certainly support a woman's right to access an
abortion, but I will also be honest. Whether we use the label offspring,
child, human, etc. some 'thing' is there and some 'thing' does die as a
result of the action of abortion.

I see... so because there is an embryo or foetus it must, according to
you, automatically be a *child*...
Sorry, sunshine... your logic is utterly flawed!
.
User: "Sergeant America"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 15 Mar 2005 08:22:26 PM
Pat Winstanley wrote:


In article <homo-11830A.10235314032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...

Because infanticide is about killing children, and a woman choosing not
to continue a pregnancy is not killing any child (and is therefore not
performaing any activity connected with infanticide).

I have no idea why you are seemingly pretending the two issues (killing
a child and dealing with a pregnancy) are connected or the same... but
they aren't.


Well, they are. I certainly support a woman's right to access an
abortion, but I will also be honest. Whether we use the label offspring,
child, human, etc. some 'thing' is there and some 'thing' does die as a
result of the action of abortion.


I see... so because there is an embryo or foetus it must, according to
you, automatically be a *child*...

Sorry, sunshine... your logic is utterly flawed!

No explanation offered.
Typical pro-abortionist.
Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been
necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing,
which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious
avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that
human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or
extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics
which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a
human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under
socially impeccable auspices.
"A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," 113 California Medicine 67, 68
(1970).
Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive,
ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well
established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of
modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in
medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a
"theory," as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off.
D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.D., "Abortion in
the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life." Abortion and Social
Justice, Sheed and Ward, 1974.
From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly-growing
individual. At fertilization, a new and unique individual is created
which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent,
is really unlike either.
B. Heffernan, "The Early Biography of Every Man," Abortion and Social
Justice, Sheed and Ward.
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of the life of a human being a being that is alive
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on
this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ...
Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn
children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value
question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any
evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human
conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is
of the human species.
Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate
Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.
Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very
neat beginning the moment of its conception.
Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Fundamental Genetics, Paris
Medical University, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of
Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session,
April 23, 1981. A complete text of his outstanding testimony, which
neatly encapsulates the entire pro-life position, is printed as "In Re
New Humans," in the Summer 1981 issue of Human Life Review, pages 60 to
64.
.




User: "Somewriter"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 05:04:59 PM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:42:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9f892e1caf2e2f98c300@news.uni-berlin.de...

In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,


says...

Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,


Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.


How do you know?

Well, duh?
.

User: "Sergeant America"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 15 Mar 2005 09:01:21 AM
Pat Winstanley wrote:


In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,


says...

Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,


Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy. The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))

Thanks for stating the obvious.
However the original poster makes sense. Afterall, men who use women as
sex toys are much more pro-abortion than are women.
Explain that, "feminists"....
.
User: "Ron"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 10:52:49 PM
In article <4236F8C1.EC15501F@yahoo.com>,
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pat Winstanley wrote:


In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,


says...

Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,


Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy. The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))


Thanks for stating the obvious.

However the original poster makes sense. Afterall, men who use women as
sex toys are much more pro-abortion than are women.

Women are the primary consumers of abortion. They are more proabortion
than anyone.

Explain that, "feminists"....

.

User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 15 Mar 2005 01:05:04 AM
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pat Winstanley wrote:


In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,


says...

Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,


Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy. The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))


Thanks for stating the obvious.

However the original poster makes sense. Afterall, men who use women as
sex toys are much more pro-abortion than are women.

But it's you anti-choice hypocrites who demand the right to use
women's bdies for what you want. And you think that you can get
children for yourself by forcing women to give birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.


User: "Somewriter"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 05:03:49 PM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:15:43 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net>
wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.



Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child...

Not a soul here is condoning that, moron.
.

User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 12 Mar 2005 09:28:09 PM
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.

Wow.
How...enlightening.
Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?
The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now at
least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes; and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
the time to decide whether one should get pregnant is BEFORE one
participates in the act that starts the process.
But I know, this is far too easy.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 12 Mar 2005 10:46:55 PM
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.


Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?

Contraception fails. What then?

The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now at
least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes;

Don't pretend that you care about human life when it's obvious that
you're only using it as an excuse to make other people obey. There
are human lives at issue when considering YOUR freedom as well.

and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?

Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 12 Mar 2005 11:08:39 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.


Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?


Contraception fails. What then?

Give me a break. Have you seen the stats on failure rates of contraception,
properly used? We are talking about 99.something success rate for the pill
alone. Using diaphragms and condoms are up there almost as high, used alone.
Combine any two of these methods and your failure rate is infinitisimal.
There IS no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. None, absent rape.
There are circumstances that may arise later that would make carrying a
child to term dangerous, even fatal, to the mother. These are entirely
different matters. I am talking about those who use abortion as back up
birth control; as in 'Oh, it doesn't matter if I skipped the pill this
morning" or "well, I don't suppose it would hurt to not use the condom just
this once', or 'if I use birth control it will look as if I meant this to
happen"...(sigh)
I'm one of those that think it would be a good idea to inject norplant into
every twelve year old female just for kicks.


The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now at
least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes;


Don't pretend that you care about human life when it's obvious that
you're only using it as an excuse to make other people obey. There
are human lives at issue when considering YOUR freedom as well.

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out of
the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on whether
that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for instituting
flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.

and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.

And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 13 Mar 2005 12:04:56 AM
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.


Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?


Contraception fails. What then?


Give me a break.

No. You don't give anybody else a break.

Have you seen the stats on failure rates of contraception,
properly used?

So what? You want to treat pregnant women like criminals so prove
your case.
[...]

There are circumstances that may arise later that would make carrying a
child to term dangerous, even fatal, to the mother. These are entirely
different matters. I am talking about those who use abortion as back up
birth control;

Tough *****. Pregnant women aren't your slaves and sex isn't a crime,
so you have no justification for demanding a woman's abject servitude.

as in 'Oh, it doesn't matter if I skipped the pill this
morning" or "well, I don't suppose it would hurt to not use the condom just
this once', or 'if I use birth control it will look as if I meant this to
happen"...(sigh)

It's always about punishing sex with you prudes.

The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now at
least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes;


Don't pretend that you care about human life when it's obvious that
you're only using it as an excuse to make other people obey. There
are human lives at issue when considering YOUR freedom as well.


Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

Let me put this into simpler words for you.
When you whine about "human life" you show yourself to be a hypocrite.

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out of
the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on whether
that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for instituting
flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.

Why should you be free to let children die if a woman is forced to
suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk in order to keep a fetus alive?

and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.


And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve?

More of the usual hatred and evil from the pro-lie fanatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "Murdoc"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 13 Mar 2005 01:11:34 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.


Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?


Contraception fails. What then?


Give me a break.


No. You don't give anybody else a break.

Have you seen the stats on failure rates of contraception,
properly used?


So what? You want to treat pregnant women like criminals so prove
your case.

[...]

There are circumstances that may arise later that would make carrying a
child to term dangerous, even fatal, to the mother. These are entirely
different matters. I am talking about those who use abortion as back up
birth control;


Tough *****. Pregnant women aren't your slaves and sex isn't a crime,

Necrophilia, and incest are both instances of sex that IS a crime, Ray.
<snipped rest />
--
Murdoc
Posted with XanaNews v1.17.2.7
An optimist is someone who thinks the future is uncertain.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.


User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 13 Mar 2005 10:10:36 AM
DianaC wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.


Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?


Contraception fails. What then?



Give me a break. Have you seen the stats on failure rates of contraception,
properly used? We are talking about 99.something success rate for the pill
alone.

False.

Using diaphragms and condoms are up there almost as high, used alone.

Another falsehood.

Combine any two of these methods and your failure rate is infinitisimal.
There IS no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. None, absent rape.

Completely untrue

There are circumstances that may arise later that would make carrying a
child to term dangerous, even fatal, to the mother. These are entirely
different matters. I am talking about those who use abortion as back up
birth control; as in 'Oh, it doesn't matter if I skipped the pill this
morning" or "well, I don't suppose it would hurt to not use the condom just
this once', or 'if I use birth control it will look as if I meant this to
happen"...(sigh)

What difference does it make to you why a woman chooses to discontinue
her pregnancy? "Why" she chooses to have surgery is none of your business.

I'm one of those that think it would be a good idea to inject norplant into
every twelve year old female just for kicks.

Why not just force your male children to be castrated and force the
females to undergo a hysterectomy?
You know... just for kicks.

The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now at
least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes;


Don't pretend that you care about human life when it's obvious that
you're only using it as an excuse to make other people obey. There
are human lives at issue when considering YOUR freedom as well.



Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out of
the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on whether
that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for instituting
flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.

But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".

and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?

It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.
.
User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 10:35:42 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".

It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.

and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.

The solution to that is. don't drive a car. If you DO, you are accepting the
consequences, ALL of them. When you drive a car and get in an accident, you
are expected to deal with it responsibly; hit and run drivers are not well
respected, especially if there is a life at stake.
.
User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 12:41:51 PM
DianaC wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:


"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...


DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".



It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.



and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.



The solution to that is. don't drive a car.

That's not a viable alternative for many people.

If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.

Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.

When you drive a car and get in an accident, you
are expected to deal with it responsibly;

Right.

hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a life at stake.

We aren't talking about hit and run drivers. We're talking about one
person in one car having a single car accident which results in an
undesired change in their physical condition.
.
User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 03:18:15 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:


"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...


DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".



It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.



and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.



The solution to that is. don't drive a car.


That's not a viable alternative for many people.

Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider, for
instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you don't
have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in huge
trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or more. It's
not pretty. Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do
you?

If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.


Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.

When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;


Right.

hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a life
at stake.


We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.

Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.

We're talking about one person in one car having a single car accident
which results in an undesired change in their physical condition.

Actually, we are talking about two people in a car who run over a kid in a
crosswalk and drive off.
.
User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 05:00:07 PM
DianaC wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:


"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...


DianaC wrote:



"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...



DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".



It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.




and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.



The solution to that is. don't drive a car.


That's not a viable alternative for many people.



Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider, for
instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you don't
have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in huge
trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or more. It's
not pretty.

Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put
your body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you
can put your body back to it's previous condition.

Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?

lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you
that I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to
utilize a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of
laws that require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.

If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.


Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.


When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;


Right.


hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a life
at stake.


We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.



Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.

That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".
I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal
of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more. If medical
science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling
host to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective
abortion would plummet.
.
User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 14 Mar 2005 07:25:27 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:XHoZd.549$hg.287@news01.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:


"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...


DianaC wrote:



"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...



DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".



It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.




and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable
to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd
rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens
no matter what precautions you take.



The solution to that is. don't drive a car.


That's not a viable alternative for many people.



Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider,
for instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you
don't have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in
huge trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or
more. It's not pretty.


Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put your
body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you can
put your body back to it's previous condition.

Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?


lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you that
I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to utilize
a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of laws that
require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.

Most states do. It's incredibly expensive, however...

If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.


Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.


When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;


Right.


hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a
life at stake.


We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.



Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to end an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.


That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".

I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal of
an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more.

Same difference. Killing the fetus is the only way you can terminiate the
pregnancy.

If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion would
plummet.

That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
.
User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 15 Mar 2005 12:17:15 AM
DianaC wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:XHoZd.549$hg.287@news01.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:


"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...


DianaC wrote:



"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...



DianaC wrote:




"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...




DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:


<snip to>

Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?

You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.


But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".



It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.





and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable
to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?


Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd
rather
not be inconvenienced.



And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.

Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?


It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens
no matter what precautions you take.



The solution to that is. don't drive a car.


That's not a viable alternative for many people.



Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider,
for instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you
don't have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in
huge trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or
more. It's not pretty.


Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put your
body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you can
put your body back to it's previous condition.


Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?


lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you that
I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to utilize
a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of laws that
require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.



Most states do. It's incredibly expensive, however...


If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.


Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.



When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;


Right.



hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a
life at stake.


We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.



Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to end an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.


That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".

I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal of
an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more.



Same difference. Killing the fetus is the only way you can terminiate the
pregnancy.


If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion would
plummet.



That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!

I'd find it hard to believe there's anyone that wouldn't. Once such a
thing is possible, everyone gets exactly what they want.
I'd bet the medical advances I suggested ("iron womb" or transplant)
will come to pass long before abortion is ever outlawed, and they'd come
to pass even faster if the pro-life movement directed their
"anti-abortion" energy into a "pro-science" agenda.
.
User: "junegill"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 17 Mar 2005 08:20:43 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:L5vZd.548$RE4.311@news02.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:

[snip]

If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means

of

gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling

host

to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion

would

plummet.



That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I

would

like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!


I'd find it hard to believe there's anyone that wouldn't. Once such a
thing is possible, everyone gets exactly what they want.
I'd bet the medical advances I suggested ("iron womb" or transplant)
will come to pass long before abortion is ever outlawed, and they'd come
to pass even faster if the pro-life movement directed their
"anti-abortion" energy into a "pro-science" agenda.

Who would pay for this? (My suggestion would be pro-lifers!) If ever such
an artificial womb were invented it would only be used by rich infertile
couples, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to 'rear' one
foetus, so to imagine such a contraption being used for a million unwanted
foetuses per year is a real flight of fancy ... and then what would you do
with the resulting babies? As for transplanting from an unwilling uterus to
a willing one, where on earth are you going to find a million surrogate
mothers per year (with the same problem as before of what to do with the
babies)? Surrogacy is so rare it makes headline news.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
User: "Pat Winstanley"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 18 Mar 2005 03:18:31 AM
In article <d1ddtr$6h1$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
junegill@btinternet.com says...

Who would pay for this? (My suggestion would be pro-lifers!) If ever such
an artificial womb were invented it would only be used by rich infertile
couples, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to 'rear' one
foetus, so to imagine such a contraption being used for a million unwanted
foetuses per year is a real flight of fancy ... and then what would you do
with the resulting babies? As for transplanting from an unwilling uterus to
a willing one, where on earth are you going to find a million surrogate
mothers per year (with the same problem as before of what to do with the
babies)? Surrogacy is so rare it makes headline news.

If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!
And I wonder how such anti-choice women would react if they were to have
no choice in the matter - but be legally forced to accept a transplant
(to conform with their anti-choice ethos)?
I wonder just how many would put their health/life where their mouth is?
.
User: "junegill"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 18 Mar 2005 06:32:47 PM
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca4ad3ef98267d498c379@news.uni-berlin.de...

In article <d1ddtr$6h1$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
junegill@btinternet.com says...

Who would pay for this? (My suggestion would be pro-lifers!) If ever

such

an artificial womb were invented it would only be used by rich infertile
couples, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to 'rear'

one

foetus, so to imagine such a contraption being used for a million

unwanted

foetuses per year is a real flight of fancy ... and then what would you

do

with the resulting babies? As for transplanting from an unwilling

uterus to

a willing one, where on earth are you going to find a million surrogate
mothers per year (with the same problem as before of what to do with the
babies)? Surrogacy is so rare it makes headline news.


If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!

I can't see that that's really fair. I'm within my rights to protest at
cruelty to animals without the obligation to keep a menagerie.

And I wonder how such anti-choice women would react if they were to have
no choice in the matter - but be legally forced to accept a transplant
(to conform with their anti-choice ethos)?

But if that were the case, we both know that you'd be in the forefront of
fighting for their rights to bodily autonomy, just as you are for pregnant
women. :)

I wonder just how many would put their health/life where their mouth is?

Not many, but how many even put their money where their mouths are? At
least when I protest about cruelty to children and animals I donate
regularly to organisations which will help to prevent cruelty.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html


.
User: "Pat Winstanley"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 19 Mar 2005 08:13:51 AM
In article <d1frvf$2e0$1@titan.btinternet.com>,

says...

If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!


I can't see that that's really fair. I'm within my rights to protest at
cruelty to animals without the obligation to keep a menagerie.

Mmmm not quite the same thing. The cruelty to an animal could stop
without the animal needing somone new to look after it. That wouldn't
really work with the embryo transfer. In order for the enmbryo to cease
attacking the woman it was part of it would have to be moved to some
other person or place.


And I wonder how such anti-choice women would react if they were to have
no choice in the matter - but be legally forced to accept a transplant
(to conform with their anti-choice ethos)?


But if that were the case, we both know that you'd be in the forefront of
fighting for their rights to bodily autonomy, just as you are for pregnant
women. :)


Absolutely! ;-))
(Even if I held them in contempt for refusing to provide specific
performance to back up their protests, I would object to anyone forcing
them to do so by law or other coercion such as physical/financial).
.

User: "Michael Calwell"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 19 Mar 2005 02:55:15 AM
junegill wrote:
headline news.



If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!



I can't see that that's really fair. I'm within my rights to protest at
cruelty to animals without the obligation to keep a menagerie.

Well done June. Well Done. So now you can see why one can oppose
abortion without the obligation to spend all your life and resources on
children's homes.
Don't tell me you're coming round to the pro-life view? Has engaging
with the lost soul of Pat Winstanley given you an insight into the
horror that you've consorted with?
.
User: "junegill"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 19 Mar 2005 12:22:29 PM
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:423be8f4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

junegill wrote:
headline news.



If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!



I can't see that that's really fair. I'm within my rights to protest at
cruelty to animals without the obligation to keep a menagerie.


Well done June. Well Done. So now you can see why one can oppose
abortion without the obligation to spend all your life and resources on
children's homes.

I always could see that, Michael, but you've snipped the bit where I said I
put my money where my mouth is, if not my life, and donate regularly to the
NSPCC and IFAW.

Don't tell me you're coming round to the pro-life view?

OK, I'll not tell you that. :) You just don't get it about the pro-choice
view, do you? It's quite simply a defence of anyone's bodily autonomy -
even yours! No-one should be forced to have their body used against their
will, no matter if the person in question thinks it's OK for others to be so
forced.
Has engaging

with the lost soul of Pat Winstanley given you an insight into the
horror that you've consorted with?

Pat's post was clearly tongue-in-cheek. As I said in my last post, which
you snipped, Pat would be one of the first to protest at people with
pro-life views being forced to have their bodies used against their will ...
it's just a fun idea to flirt with, to give pro-lifers a taste of their own
medicine - and to show the hypocrisy of some of them.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.

User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 19 Mar 2005 12:37:12 PM
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:

junegill wrote:
headline news.



If it became possible for an implanted embryo/foetus to be transplanted
to another person's body, I wonder what proportion of anti-choice women
would voluntarily sign up to accept such transplant from the next
available embryo/foetus ready for transplant in their local area? Those
who did would have my respect. Those who didn't - claiming some form of
'inconvenience' would simply have my contempt!



I can't see that that's really fair. I'm within my rights to protest at
cruelty to animals without the obligation to keep a menagerie.


Well done June. Well Done. So now you can see why one can oppose
abortion without the obligation to spend all your life and resources on
children's homes.

Does'nt work for you. June isn't demanding the enslavement of people
in order to provide food and shelter for animals.
You ARE demanding the enslavement and suffering of people in order to
provide for fetuses.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.




User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: women as breeding stock 17 Mar 2005 09:39:49 PM
junegill wrote:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:L5vZd.548$RE4.311@news02.roc.ny...

DianaC wrote:



[snip]


If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means


of

gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling


host
<