| 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: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:30:41 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619B402613ACkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:wLiZd.4148$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.14.02.27.40.737756@nycap.rr.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:55:13 +0000, DianaC wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96185FD77F935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:DEPYd.2040$uw6.1278@trnddc06:
<snip to>
Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller
and she was taking a hammer to it?
certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against
abortion would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here.
that you said that convinces me there is no reason to discuss this
issue with you further.
i deleted the remainder of your post because your statement above is
both false and cluttered with issues not related to abortion but
intended to incite emotionally.
[...]
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain point. You
know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant, toddler, child,
adolescent, adult....where in all this does this human life experience
the biologically determined line that makes it something completely
different from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the expulsion of
the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time? The child isn't any
more or less alive before it breathes than after.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 08:28:28 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:R0qZd.2493$Z07.1233@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619B402613ACkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:wLiZd.4148$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain point.
You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant, toddler,
child, adolescent, adult....where in all this does this human life
experience the biologically determined line that makes it something
completely different from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?
The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes than after.
there is no child before birth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:10:45 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:R0qZd.2493$Z07.1233@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619B402613ACkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:wLiZd.4148$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain point.
You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant, toddler,
child, adolescent, adult....where in all this does this human life
experience the biologically determined line that makes it something
completely different from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?
The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes than after.
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 04:16:40 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in news:F%uZd.5372$b_
6.1074@trnddc01:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:R0qZd.2493$Z07.1233@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619B402613ACkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:wLiZd.4148$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain point.
You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant, toddler,
child, adolescent, adult....where in all this does this human life
experience the biologically determined line that makes it something
completely different from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?
The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes than after.
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in communications.
there are actually those popele so corrupt that they try to redefine
words to bolster a failed argument.
following are some definitions you should have understood before you
posted
Found this news:MPG.1c90b15a8d1fea5f98c217@news.uni-berlin.de in
talk.abortion:
-= BEGIN forwarded message =-
Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Pat Winstanley <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,
talk.abortion
Subject: Re: For those who insisted that Terri Schiavo be starved to
death
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:30:37 -0000
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <MPG.1c90b15a8d1fea5f98c217@news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <Wa6Od.365$rB3.327271@twister.nyc.rr.com>
<1108572749.446879.30460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <yS6Rd.9124
$534.2015@twister.nyc.rr.com> <cv3ptk$qaa$1@bolt.sonic.net> <61nRd.11194
$qn2.2199372@twister.nyc.rr.com> <kpgy8dl7umj.fsf@panix2.panix.com>
<AsoRd.11198$qn2.2209303@twister.nyc.rr.com>
<kpgpsyx7qld.fsf@panix2.panix.com> <naqRd.11206$qn2.2218713
@twister.nyc.rr.com> <kpgk6p57kse.fsf@panix2.panix.com> <B2rRd.11214
$qn2.2221708@twister.nyc.rr.com> <kpgpsyke8oa.fsf@panix1.panix.com>
<VpLUd.17868$qn2.3539497@twister.nyc.rr.com> <42ea998e.539037795
@news.la.sbcglobal.net> <RtOUd.17878$qn2.3575161@twister.nyc.rr.com>
<42eb903a.602186087@news.la.sbcglobal.net> <1q0Vd.18756$534.11061
@twister.nyc.rr.com> <42ebb2dc.611052507@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
<P43Vd.18836$534.13810@twister.nyc.rr.com> <42ebcd98.617896588
@news.la.sbcglobal.net> <6a4Vd.18875$534.3846@twister.nyc.rr.com>
<42251dcc.599742874@news.la.sbcglobal.net> <Zs9Vd.18992$534.18648
@twister.nyc.rr.com>
X-Trace: individual.net
fcEEwlD7RfgRZxHrhKao7A6dQhK9QrfUOAU155/QNrqSpUdYw=
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.politics:1299861 alt.politics.bush:2705277
alt.society.liberalism:455705 talk.politics.misc:3559776
talk.abortion:1156547
In article <Zs9Vd.18992$534.18648@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
says...
Concepts, ideas,
are abstractions that allow us to think about things without
actually experiencing them first hand. A newly conceived person is a
physical fact, not simply an idea, and certainly not an idea about
something that only exists in imagination.
At conception the person is a concept.
No. At conception the person begins, including significant elements of
intelligence and personality.
Nope. Personhood begins at live birth, pretty much across the whole
world.
Last updated Dec21 2002
Definitions of 'human being' and/or 'person' and related definitions:
(Many thanks to the various people who have helped and are helping to
contribute to this list by passing on definitions of "human being" and
"person" etc when found in their browsing of the laws of various places
in the world.)
=======================================================================
Using Indiana State Law, here is the proof that abortion is
not murder.
[link to Indiana Legal Code:
http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/]
IC 35-42-1-1
Murder
Sec. 1. A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit
arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal
deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or carjacking;
(3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
(A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine, a narcotic drug, or
methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1);
(B) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC
35-48-4-2);
(C) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
(D) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or
(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability
(as defined in IC 16-18-2-365); commits murder, a felony.
IC 35-42-1-0.5
Abortions exempt
Sec. 0.5. Sections 1, 3, and 4 of this chapter do not apply to an
abortion performed in compliance with:
(1) IC 16-34; or
(2) IC 35-1-58.5 (before its repeal).
As added by P.L.261-1997, SEC.2.
[Editor's note: This code specifically states that abortion is not
murder. Also, IC 16-34 is the laws that specifically deal with abortion
in Indiana. The article is too extensive to warrant posting here, and
does not affect the discussion.]
IC 35-41-1-14
"Human being" defined
Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is
alive.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.15.
[Editor's Note: Note that an embryo or fetus does not fulfill the
requirements for a human being. It has not been born. Since it is not
a human being, it cannot be murdered.]
IC 35-41-1-22
"Person" defined
Sec. 22. (a) "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited
liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or
governmental entity.
(b) "Person", for purposes of section 10.7 of this chapter, means an
adult or a minor.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.23. Amended by P.L.8-1993, SEC.509;
P.L.133-2002, SEC.64.
[Editor's Note: A fetus also does not qualify as a person by any
definitions.]
IC 16-18-2-365
Viability
Sec. 365. "Viability", for purposes of IC 16-34, means the ability of a
fetus to live outside the mother's womb.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.1.
[Editor's Note: Added for completeness. Nobody is talking about
abortion on demand in the third trimester, and most abortions done at
this time are done for reasons of death of the fetus, severe
developmental abnormality, or health of the woman.]
=======================================================================
USA - Ohio Revised Code §2105.14 (Added Oct 24 2002)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
§ 2105.14 Posthumous child to inherit.
Text of Statute
Descendants of an intestate begotten before his death, but born
thereafter, in all cases will inherit as if born in the lifetime of
the intestate and surviving him; but in no other case can a person
inherit unless living at the time of the death of the intestate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Edited comment from contributor]
The law does not give any legal rigths to the unborn.
What it gives is rights to the born that was conceived prior
to the death of the intestate. No birth, no inheritance.
================================================================
US - Federal (Added Oct 15 2002)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/73696.pdf
The purpose of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is to protect
infants who are born alive by recognizing them as a person, human being,
child or individual for purposes of Federal law.
This recognition would take effect upon the live birth of the infant
regardless of whether or not the child's development is sufficient to
permit long-term survival and regardless of whether the baby survived an
abortion.
The act also clarifies that nothing in the bill shall be construed to
affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal rights
applicable to any unborn child.
This is a bill of compassion, a bill that says all of America's children
are precious and should be protected.
It has long been an accepted legal principle that infants who are born
alive are persons
and are entitled to the protections of the law. A live birth is
considered
to occur whenever an infant is expelled from his or her mother's
body and displays any of several specific signs of life: breathing,
heartbeat, or definite movements of voluntary muscles.
================================================================
Australia
http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/legislat.nsf/d989974724db65b1482561c
f0017cbd2/dbafb2130d99822e692568cd00090c69?OpenDocument
Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion
156. When a child becomes a human being
A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely
proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has
breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.
================================================================
Canada
http://www.webhart.net/vandee/prolife/history.shtml
(Hansard Extract)
Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal
Code of Canada as follows:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has
completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,
whether or not
(a) it has breathed,
(b) it has independent circulation, or
(c) the navel string is severed.
================================================================
America (New York - Title H)
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&a=5
or
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82
should get you there. The site is a little weirdly implemented.
S 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions
of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide,
means a human being who has been born and is alive.
=======================================================================
America (Texas)
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html
the definition
of murder in §19.02 does not include abortion itself,
it merely defines murder as the death of an individual, given
certain criteria (e.g., §19.02(b)(1) states that he "intentionally
or knowingly causes the death" thereof).
Fortunately §1.07(a)(26) defines an individual:
(26) "Individual" means a human being who has been born and is alive.
========================================================================
=
USA (Indiana - IC 35-4-1)
(Note that Indiana is a very conservative state and very Republican.)
IC 35-41-1-14
Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is
alive.
IC 35-41-1-22
Sec. 22. "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental
entity.
========================================================================
==
USA (Colorado 18-3-101)
http://64.78.178.12/cgi-dos/statdspp.exe?LNP&doc=18-3-101
As used in this part 1, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Homicide" means the killing of a person by another.
(2) "Person", when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal
act.
========================================================================
==
USA
http://www.mfhf.org/papers/new_99/abortion.html
In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological
being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that
abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court
said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in
the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of
full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or
cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired
Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the
moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not
obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life
may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal
in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)
================================================================
UK
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~joash/homicide.htm
DISCUSSION POINT: What is a human being?
What do the Courts say about this?
The courts have asked this question in relation to the foetus and a
corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical
opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask
themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a foetus become
a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become
a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that foetuses and corpses
are not persons.
=======================================================================
Germany
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/lastcb/bgbengl.htm#§%201
And this position is not restricted to common-law countries.
§1 German Civil Code:
"Personhood of humans starts with the completion of the birth process".
literally: "the ability to enjoy rights" (Rechtsfähigkeit)
=======================================================================
-= END forwarded message =-
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 05:29:48 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a human
being between one stage of development and another. It can be said that
there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh, three, since
before that time he is a toddler and before that an infant...though in a
broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age of puberty, or in relative
terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it, he relies upon the strict
definition...which is true....and then attaches another meaning to it, which
is NOT true; that is, "there is no human life before birth", or "whatever it
is before birth is irrelevent, because it's not a person".
Which of course is begging the question of whether a fetus is a living
human. Are you going to tell me that it is not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 07:00:51 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a
human being between one stage of development and another. It can be
said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh,
three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age
of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
i have seen only one pro-abortionist on usenet since talk.abortion was
created.
as for me being "disengenuous," i can see why you deleted my text before
you said that.
remainder deleted as i have become convinced you will continue to try to
misrepresent through semantics. if and when you feel you can put aside
that kind of misrepresentation let me know.
but of course, then you have no arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:59:37 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BA505D93Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a
human being between one stage of development and another. It can be
said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh,
three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age
of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords. When I see a 'pro-choice' person who thinks that abortion is
the WRONG choice, then I will stop thinking that 'pro-abortion' and
'pro-choice' are synonyms.
i have seen only one pro-abortionist on usenet since talk.abortion was
created.
as for me being "disengenuous," i can see why you deleted my text before
you said that.
remainder deleted as i have become convinced you will continue to try to
misrepresent through semantics. if and when you feel you can put aside
that kind of misrepresentation let me know.
but of course, then you have no arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 01:07:02 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BA505D93Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is
no 'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to
a human being between one stage of development and another. It can
be said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about,
oh, three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the
age of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords.
why did you use them then?
i have seen only one pro-abortionist on usenet since talk.abortion
was created.
as for me being "disengenuous," i can see why you deleted my text
before you said that.
remainder deleted as i have become convinced you will continue to try
to misrepresent through semantics. if and when you feel you can put
aside that kind of misrepresentation let me know.
but of course, then you have no arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:10:46 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961B8F8FE6ABAkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BA505D93Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is
no 'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to
a human being between one stage of development and another. It can
be said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about,
oh, three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the
age of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords.
why did you use them then?
Which ones? "Pro-choice"? When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous. It's the
pro-choicers that don't want to admit this.
i have seen only one pro-abortionist on usenet since talk.abortion
was created.
as for me being "disengenuous," i can see why you deleted my text
before you said that.
remainder deleted as i have become convinced you will continue to try
to misrepresent through semantics. if and when you feel you can put
aside that kind of misrepresentation let me know.
but of course, then you have no arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:23:04 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961B8F8FE6ABAkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BA505D93Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is
no 'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches
to a human being between one stage of development and another. It
can be said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is
about, oh, three, since before that time he is a toddler and
before that an infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is
anybody below the age of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody
younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords.
why did you use them then?
Which ones?
don't *you* know which ones *you* labeled?
perhaps things are falling apart for you?
i have seen only one pro-abortionist on usenet since talk.abortion
was created.
as for me being "disengenuous," i can see why you deleted my text
before you said that.
remainder deleted as i have become convinced you will continue to
try to misrepresent through semantics. if and when you feel you can
put aside that kind of misrepresentation let me know.
but of course, then you have no arguments.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 04:44:28 PM |
|
|
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:57:33 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice, restricting my activities to
attempting to persuade them that abortion is generally the wrong one, am
denied the title 'pro-choice'?
Could it be because I'm not gung ho behind abortion as the automatic correct
choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:09:48 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <> writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice, restricting my activities to
attempting to persuade them that abortion is generally the wrong one, am
denied the title 'pro-choice'?
Could it be because I'm not gung ho behind abortion as the automatic correct
choice?
More likely, it's because you're congratulating yourself for being pro-choice
while stating, in effect, that you only approve of one choice. Is English
your first language?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Utah 1 (March 16)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 18 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:17:24 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3buugkcj.fsf@eris.io.com...
"DianaC" < > writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice, restricting my activities to
attempting to persuade them that abortion is generally the wrong one, am
denied the title 'pro-choice'?
Could it be because I'm not gung ho behind abortion as the automatic
correct
choice?
More likely, it's because you're congratulating yourself for being
pro-choice
while stating, in effect, that you only approve of one choice. Is English
your first language?
What difference does it make what *I* approve of? As long as I do not
advocate forcing the woman to do it 'my way', I am an advocate for choice.
Whether I approve of her choice is irrelevent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:43:37 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3buugkcj.fsf@eris.io.com...
"DianaC" < > writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice, restricting my activities to
attempting to persuade them that abortion is generally the wrong one, am
denied the title 'pro-choice'?
Could it be because I'm not gung ho behind abortion as the automatic
correct choice?
More likely, it's because you're congratulating yourself for being
pro-choice while stating, in effect, that you only approve of one choice.
Is English your first language?
What difference does it make what *I* approve of? As long as I do not
advocate forcing the woman to do it 'my way', I am an advocate for choice.
Whether I approve of her choice is irrelevent.
It's just a coincidence that only one choice is the right one to you, I
guess. Me, I let the woman make her own conclusions about it. You're the one
trying to get her to choose your way. You're not overtly forcing her, but
you're anything but upfront about trying to cajole them into picking _your_
choice.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Utah 1 (March 16)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 18 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 12:17:42 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkacp2dmva.fsf@eris.io.com...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:
<snip to>
What difference does it make what *I* approve of? As long as I do not
advocate forcing the woman to do it 'my way', I am an advocate for choice.
Whether I approve of her choice is irrelevent.
It's just a coincidence that only one choice is the right one to you, I
guess. Me, I let the woman make her own conclusions about it.
And so do I. Do you see me holding a gun? Do you see me advocating for legal
sanctions? Tell me, do words tie her up and make her physically incapable
of making a choice?
If so, you are forcing her every inch as much as I am.
You're the one
trying to get her to choose your way.
Of course. It's called 'debate' and 'persuasion'.
You're not overtly forcing her,
If I'm not 'overtly forcing her', I'm not forcing her. Period.
but
you're anything but upfront about trying to cajole them into picking
_your_
choice.
OF COURSE I'm trying to get her to pick 'my' choice! Good grief! Sometimes
I win, sometimes I lose, but the measure of 'force' isn't whether I can talk
someone around to my viewpoint. It's what happens when I CAN'T. If a woman
listens to me and chooses an abortion anyway, and I do nothing physically to
stop her, then I AM NOT FORCING HER.
It's pretty simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 07:18:58 PM |
|
|
In article <oBl_d.7313$mq2.2274@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3buugkcj.fsf@eris.io.com...
"DianaC" < > writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice, restricting my activities to
attempting to persuade them that abortion is generally the wrong one, am
denied the title 'pro-choice'?
Could it be because I'm not gung ho behind abortion as the automatic
correct
choice?
More likely, it's because you're congratulating yourself for being
pro-choice
while stating, in effect, that you only approve of one choice. Is English
your first language?
What difference does it make what *I* approve of? As long as I do not
advocate forcing the woman to do it 'my way', I am an advocate for choice.
Whether I approve of her choice is irrelevent.
Clearly, this is untrue. That you have been advocating for birth control
to avoid abortion carries, to some degree, your disapproval with any
woman's choice of abortion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:29:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:17:24 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
[...]
What difference does it make what *I* approve of?
Exactly. It's meaningless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:53:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:57:33 GMT, "DianaC"
<> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice...
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:50:05 AM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:3coi319jeck3v2n4lupd1q6id32qp3ojl3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:57:33 GMT, "DianaC"
< > wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice...
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts. I dare you to find any post from me, as far back
as you would care to look (and you can find posts from me dating back
fifteen years) that advocated a law against abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:53:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:50:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:3coi319jeck3v2n4lupd1q6id32qp3ojl3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:57:33 GMT, "DianaC"
< > wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
Indeed? Then how come I, who am AGAINST a law prohibiting abortion, and
advocate that women do have this choice...
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts.
You kicked them down and dragged them away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:16:17 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:20hj3192itqo0ecfcelgrkpmlsofakama4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:50:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts.
You kicked them down and dragged them away.
How so? Just once, take your oneline insults and irrelevencies and back up
your charges? Cheap shots do not make you look good, y'know.
In fact....have you graduated from high school yet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:28:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:16:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:20hj3192itqo0ecfcelgrkpmlsofakama4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:50:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts.
You kicked them down and dragged them away.
How so?
As I have described.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 03:26:27 AM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ojtj319r0ds2ep4nv943ed6okfrfk5iis0@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:16:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:20hj3192itqo0ecfcelgrkpmlsofakama4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:50:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts.
You kicked them down and dragged them away.
How so?
As I have described.
Except that you haven't.
Indeed, you have to be using one of those on-line insult generators,
because your posts make NO sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 05:44:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:26:27 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ojtj319r0ds2ep4nv943ed6okfrfk5iis0@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:16:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:20hj3192itqo0ecfcelgrkpmlsofakama4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:50:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Put the goalposts back where you found them.
I didn't move goal posts.
You kicked them down and dragged them away.
How so?
As I have described.
Except...
....that you aren't willing to admit your 'mistake.'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 05:46:39 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.1ca2c724962a9f5c98c341@news.uni-berlin.de:
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
every honest person does.
but it is reassuring to see an anti-choicer begin to babble on about pro-
aborts because it labels them as knowing their position is bogus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:53:39 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <ap0_d.4040$UV2.1721@trnddc04>,
says...
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
You pretend they are not despite definitions given to you from a major
dictionaries. You provide no evidence for your view, other than
insisting that pro-abortion means advocating abortion of every
pregnancy, which no one would assume given the clear boundaries of the
debate.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proabortion
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
Since you favor the legalization of abortion - as opposed to it be
illegal - you're clearly pro-abortion. That's the opposite of
ANTI-abortion, which people like me are. Got it yet, tard?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:28:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:53:39 +0000, Sergeant America
<sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
....
When I use them, everybody knows that I
understand that 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' are synonymous.
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
You pretend they are not despite definitions given to you from a major
dictionaries. You provide no evidence for your view, other than
insisting that pro-abortion means advocating abortion of every
pregnancy, which no one would assume given the clear boundaries of the
debate.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proabortion
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
Since you favor the legalization of abortion - as opposed to it be
illegal - you're clearly pro-abortion. That's the opposite of
ANTI-abortion, which people like me are. Got it yet, tard?
Lies and insults.
The dictionary defines "pro-abortion" as "favoring the legalization of
abortion." The dictionary does not define "favoring the legalization
of abortion" as "pro-abortion."
The dictionary further defines "pro-choice" as "Favoring or supporting
the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to
continue a pregnancy to term." Clearly not synonymous with
pro-abortion as abortion can be legal with the choice of whether or
not the pregnancy is aborted held by someone other than the woman or
girl. (People who support parental notification laws are not
pro-choice as they are for legal abortion but give the choice for that
abortion to the parent.) The definition of pro-choice does not
specify how the pregnancy terminates, just that the woman or girl gets
to choose to terminate. If that termination can be done without an
abortion the pro-choice position is still satisfied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:14:00 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in news:4300adbe.1985998534
@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:53:39 +0000, Sergeant America
<sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote:
No... you *pretend* they are synonymous... even though they are not
synonymous. You don't 'understand' them to be synonymous at all. You
know perfectly well they are not.
You pretend they are not despite definitions given to you from a major
dictionaries. You provide no evidence for your view, other than
insisting that pro-abortion means advocating abortion of every
pregnancy, which no one would assume given the clear boundaries of the
debate.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proabortion
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
Since you favor the legalization of abortion - as opposed to it be
illegal - you're clearly pro-abortion. That's the opposite of
ANTI-abortion, which people like me are. Got it yet, tard?
Lies and insults.
The dictionary defines "pro-abortion" as "favoring the legalization of
abortion." The dictionary does not define "favoring the legalization
of abortion" as "pro-abortion."
The dictionary further defines "pro-choice" as "Favoring or supporting
the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to
continue a pregnancy to term." Clearly not synonymous with
pro-abortion as abortion can be legal with the choice of whether or
not the pregnancy is aborted held by someone other than the woman or
girl. (People who support parental notification laws are not
pro-choice as they are for legal abortion but give the choice for that
abortion to the parent.) The definition of pro-choice does not
specify how the pregnancy terminates, just that the woman or girl gets
to choose to terminate. If that termination can be done without an
abortion the pro-choice position is still satisfied.
since talk.abortion was formed, those opposed to reproductive choice have
expended a huge amount of time and effort redefining words and playing
with semantics in an ongoing effort to present their unjustified case in
a less repugnant light.
to my knowledge, they have never tricked a single person into changing
their position. still they persist, probably because they have no
options.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:37:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:10:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961B8F8FE6ABAkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BA505D93Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is
no 'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to
a human being between one stage of development and another. It can
be said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about,
oh, three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the
age of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords.
why did you use them then?
Which ones?
"pro abortionist."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
