| 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: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 10:06:55 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"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$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a
human being between one stage of development and another. It can be
said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh,
three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age
of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it
weaselwords. When I see a 'pro-choice' person who thinks that abortion is
the WRONG choice, then I will stop thinking that 'pro-abortion' and
'pro-choice' are synonyms.
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:09:10 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:zQYZd.703$EX5.685@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>>>>>
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.
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law, what
is that?
I can tell you what; such people are considered in the same catagory as
those who are bombing clinics and stumping for laws against abortions. How
do I know this? Because that's where y'all have classified me. I haven't met
a single pro-choice advocate who thinks it's ok to so much as mention
disapproval of abortion as a method of birth control. Being 'pro-choice' is
NOT about supporting the woman's right to decide for herself. It's about
embracing abortion as the best of all choices.
If it were not, you all would not be reacting to me the way you are, would
you?
Because I'm not advocating laws to make abortion illegal; my goal is to make
abortion unthinkable, and you don't do that by forcing everything
underground. You do that by changing minds, by getting men and women to use
birth control more consistantly, and getting THEM, the ones who are actually
facing this decision, to consider that an abortion isn't getting a shot of
antibiotics for an infection. An abortion ends a human life. You don't DO
that just because you find that life inconvenient.
But until the woman who is facing this decision feels that way, no law is
going to force the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:57:17 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:zQYZd.703$EX5.685@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>>>>>
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.
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law, what
is that?
A bit hypocritical, but it's a stronger position due to the more
realistic goal.
If they want to stop abortion entirely, then they are undoubtedly doing
so based on their emotions toward abortion resulting in the death of the
fetus, rather than seeing abortion as the termination of a pregnancy.
I can tell you what; such people are considered in the same catagory as
those who are bombing clinics and stumping for laws against abortions. How
do I know this? Because that's where y'all have classified me.
There are many here, on both sides of the abortion issue, who take the
extremist approach and immediately throw labels, insults, lies to any
who dare disagree with their lemming mentality.
Mind you, I don't seek to stop any of them from presenting their
opinions in this (unmoderated) forum, no matter how ridiculous they are.
If your skin is thick enough, you'll find out for yourself who you can
and can not engage in a rational discussion here, who is willing to
share their views in a civil manner. Then it's just a matter of ignoring
those you've identified as irrational.
IMO, even though we share opposing views on abortion, I hope you stick
around for a while and are able to offer reasonable debate on that
topic. Without an opposing view, this would be an awfully boring forum.
I haven't met
a single pro-choice advocate who thinks it's ok to so much as mention
disapproval of abortion as a method of birth control. Being 'pro-choice' is
NOT about supporting the woman's right to decide for herself. It's about
embracing abortion as the best of all choices.
No. Pro-choice is not a proclamation that abortion is the right thing to
do in all cases. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
Being pro-choice, I'll clear it up right now and say that abortion is
always the right choice when the pregnant woman wishes to (legally) have
one, no matter what her reasons. It is always wrong when she doesn't
wish to have one, no matter what her reasons.
It's the *ability to choose* that is supported, not necessarily the
choice itself.
Look at it like this: I, being pro-choice, support your right to eat
cake or poison. While I would personally recommend cake, if you chose
poison instead, I wouldn't try to stop you. Nor would I try to outlaw
your taking poison. Your choice, even if I think your decision is foolish.
If it were not, you all would not be reacting to me the way you are, would
you?
Because I'm not advocating laws to make abortion illegal; my goal is to make
abortion unthinkable, and you don't do that by forcing everything
underground. You do that by changing minds, by getting men and women to use
birth control more consistantly, and getting THEM, the ones who are actually
facing this decision, to consider that an abortion isn't getting a shot of
antibiotics for an infection. An abortion ends a human life. You don't DO
that just because you find that life inconvenient.
Some people do, and I honestly support their right to do that (within
the law). Currently, an abortion does end a human life in most cases.
I'm sure that won't always be the case, but right now, we can't allow
the development of a fetus to impede the rights of an adult.
But until the woman who is facing this decision feels that way, no law is
going to force the issue.
Right. I'm sure the "back alley" is ready and waiting, which would be a
thousand times worse than having it done in a controlled, sterile
environment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 04:42:48 PM |
|
|
In article <Gn0_d.4039$UV2.1296@trnddc04>,
says...
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law, what
is that?
You are missing the point. Someone who is pro-choice believes the
decision of whether or not a woman's pregnancy is to be continued is
*the choice of the pregnant woman*... regardless of what the pro-choice
person would do in that situation or thinks would be best for that
pregnant woman to do.
If I see a pregnant woman who is going to continue or going to end her
pregnancy and in her situation I would do the opposite, I would *still*
support her right to choose what *she* feels right for her. Her
pregnancy. Her body. Her choice.
Doesn't mean I approve of or applaud or advocate or encourage her chosen
course!
The pro-choice person advocates that the person who is pregnant (and
nobody else - including the pro-choice person) be the one who has the
right to choose the course of their pregnancy.
The pro-choice person does NOT advocate either possible course over the
other... except for their *own* pregnancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 07:56:03 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c6be555e8cc198c340@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <Gn0_d.4039$UV2.1296@trnddc04>,
says...
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is
to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to
talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and
just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law,
what
is that?
You are missing the point. Someone who is pro-choice believes the
decision of whether or not a woman's pregnancy is to be continued is
*the choice of the pregnant woman*... regardless of what the pro-choice
person would do in that situation or thinks would be best for that
pregnant woman to do.
If I see a pregnant woman who is going to continue or going to end her
pregnancy and in her situation I would do the opposite, I would *still*
support her right to choose what *she* feels right for her. Her
pregnancy. Her body. Her choice.
Doesn't mean I approve of or applaud or advocate or encourage her chosen
course!
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it. IF,
that is, you can give her a viable and workable alternative. You have the
RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to get to women before they have to face
this, and encourage responsible behavior; birth control used correctly and
consistently. There is no reason that a pro-choice person can't also be an
activist, and see an abortion as having lost a battle....and a life.
The pro-choice person advocates that the person who is pregnant (and
nobody else - including the pro-choice person) be the one who has the
right to choose the course of their pregnancy.
Indeed, but, and here's the thing....my own personal experiences with three
of my children tell me that the societal pressure is to influence the woman
to make the choice FOR abortion. There isn't an equal playing field here, at
all. Women are NOT given the alternatives, or if they are, they are given in
a very slanted manner. They are simply told that it's their right to abort,
that if they don't their world is ended, and, oh, by the way, we can take
you in the morning but if you want prenatal care instead, they will have to
wait three months. Whether they can keep anything down or not. Whether they
are hospitalized for dehydration or not.
that was MY experience. Three times...and I was married and stubborn and
wanted the babies. I had five; with the last two I called and my first
sentence, before the nurse could get into her spiel about abortion, was "I
am pregnant, I do not want an abortion, I get severe morning sickness and
high blood pressure, don't even WHISPER the word 'termination'". I can't
even imagine the pressure a young, unmarried or unsure woman gets under the
same circumstances.
I'm not alone in this perception of the general way these things are
handled, either. I wouldn't be nearly as adamant in my stance if I thought
for one minute that the options were actually given with as even and
objective a manner as you claim they are. Because they. are. not.
The pro-choice person does NOT advocate either possible course over the
other... except for their *own* pregnancy.
Then no pro-choice people operate the abortion clinics. By definition.
Because believe me, they do advocate one over the other, and mostly they
advocate the abortion over keeping the baby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:54:13 AM |
|
|
In article <Ts5_d.8748$oa6.2952@trnddc07>,
says...
If I see a pregnant woman who is going to continue or going to end her
pregnancy and in her situation I would do the opposite, I would *still*
support her right to choose what *she* feels right for her. Her
pregnancy. Her body. Her choice.
Doesn't mean I approve of or applaud or advocate or encourage her chosen
course!
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
False.
There is no such obligation at all. Nor do I have any reason of
justification for 'trying to talk her out of it'.
Nor is it any of my business whether or not she feels it right to abort
or right to continue her pregnancy.
It's *her* body. Not mine. She's doing nothing wrong, whichever course
she chooses. I simply might have chosen the other course in her shoes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:42:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:56:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2c6be555e8cc198c340@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <Gn0_d.4039$UV2.1296@trnddc04>,
says...
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is
to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to
talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and
just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law,
what
is that?
You are missing the point. Someone who is pro-choice believes the
decision of whether or not a woman's pregnancy is to be continued is
*the choice of the pregnant woman*... regardless of what the pro-choice
person would do in that situation or thinks would be best for that
pregnant woman to do.
If I see a pregnant woman who is going to continue or going to end her
pregnancy and in her situation I would do the opposite, I would *still*
support her right to choose what *she* feels right for her. Her
pregnancy. Her body. Her choice.
Doesn't mean I approve of or applaud or advocate or encourage her chosen
course!
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
Why? It's her choice. I am incapable of assessing any pregnant
woman's situation and deciding for her accordingly -- for the obvious
reason that I am not the pregnant woman and I am not the one that has
to make the choice between keeping an unwanted pregnancy to term or to
terminate long befoe the term ends.
What I am concerned about is the woman being led to give birth or have
an abortion against her will. Why don;t we work together to prevent
these tragedies from becoming common practice and underground?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 10:40:09 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ouuh31hecmqdv1ksujlk6saepik13ojbsv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:56:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
Why? It's her choice. I am incapable of assessing any pregnant
woman's situation and deciding for her accordingly -- for the obvious
reason that I am not the pregnant woman and I am not the one that has
to make the choice between keeping an unwanted pregnancy to term or to
terminate long befoe the term ends.
What I am concerned about is the woman being led to give birth or have
an abortion against her will. Why don;t we work together to prevent
these tragedies from becoming common practice and underground?
You mean, like advocating education and birth control and honest
alternatives presented objectively so that the woman can make a real,
informed decision, and that if she chooses to carry the baby to term there
are real programs and real help to make that a viable option for her? Like
that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:52:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:40:09 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ouuh31hecmqdv1ksujlk6saepik13ojbsv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:56:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
Why? It's her choice. I am incapable of assessing any pregnant
woman's situation and deciding for her accordingly -- for the obvious
reason that I am not the pregnant woman and I am not the one that has
to make the choice between keeping an unwanted pregnancy to term or to
terminate long befoe the term ends.
What I am concerned about is the woman being led to give birth or have
an abortion against her will. Why don;t we work together to prevent
these tragedies from becoming common practice and underground?
You mean, like advocating education and birth control and honest
alternatives
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
presented objectively
Impossible to do.
so that the woman can make a real,
informed decision, and that if she chooses to carry the baby to term there
are real programs and real help to make that a viable option for her? Like
that?
It depends on what you define as 'real programs'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:48:06 AM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8oi31th8b6824ebmajn9sm82vcpbefqmn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:40:09 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ouuh31hecmqdv1ksujlk6saepik13ojbsv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:56:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
Why? It's her choice. I am incapable of assessing any pregnant
woman's situation and deciding for her accordingly -- for the obvious
reason that I am not the pregnant woman and I am not the one that has
to make the choice between keeping an unwanted pregnancy to term or to
terminate long befoe the term ends.
What I am concerned about is the woman being led to give birth or have
an abortion against her will. Why don;t we work together to prevent
these tragedies from becoming common practice and underground?
You mean, like advocating education and birth control and honest
alternatives
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't think
that there is a person inside. Carrying the child to birth, however, causes
a whole bunch of problems for a woman, especially if it's going to interfere
with her ability to work, or deal with her life; it's not just the
pregnancy, it's the fact that there is a CHILD about to mess up her life
very soon. Yeah, she started it. However, if you don't offer her real help
with a decision to keep the baby, don't you see how the pressure is
automaticaly pointed at abortion?
No. her decision needs to be made, if possible, knowing that it's POSSIBLE
to carry the baby to term without ruining her life. Only then will she be
able to think about the situation with any sort of ability to reason. If all
she is faced with is a choice between an easy abortion and a black hole of
unknown and frightening future, isn't that, all by itself, pressure to
abort?
You bet your sweet life it is. It's coercion, in fact.
presented objectively
Impossible to do.
It certainly is if the only information given to her is 'abort and go back
to the way you were or stay pregnant and there's nothing out there to help
you'.
so that the woman can make a real,
informed decision, and that if she chooses to carry the baby to term there
are real programs and real help to make that a viable option for her? Like
that?
It depends on what you define as 'real programs'?
There are quite a few, depending on where she is...and if there aren't good
ones, then we need to develop some.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 08:30:16 PM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:40:09 GMT, "DianaC"
You mean, like advocating education and birth control and honest
alternatives
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement.
Because you don't like it?
Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't think
that there is a person inside.
Whereas you think that should suffer more?
Carrying the child to birth, however, causes
a whole bunch of problems for a woman, especially if it's going to interfere
with her ability to work, or deal with her life; it's not just the
pregnancy, it's the fact that there is a CHILD about to mess up her life
very soon.
And?
Yeah, she started it.
That's a lie.
However, if you don't offer her real help
with a decision to keep the baby, don't you see how the pressure is
automaticaly pointed at abortion?
How much money are YOU offering?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:37:18 PM |
|
|
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:15:01 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 08:32:38 PM |
|
|
DianaC <> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
You only look like a hypocrite when you whine "begging the question"
even as YOU consistently try to assume that a fetus is a person.
At least the people who correct you tell the truth.
You do not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:13:23 PM |
|
|
In article <9zl_d.7304$mq2.222@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
Nope. Stating a fact to correct a mis-statement by another poster is in
no way 'begging the question'.
Where did you learn English?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 12:12:43 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca4035297be91ab98c369@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <9zl_d.7304$mq2.222@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a
few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
Nope. Stating a fact to correct a mis-statement by another poster is in
no way 'begging the question'.
Where did you learn English?
The QUESTION for most pro-lifers is that the laws should be changed to give
a fetus 'person' status. The debate isn't about whether the fetus is a
person; of course it isn't because 'person' is a legal term and the laws at
present do not recognize a fetus as a person. In such a debate,it is quite
reasonable for them to say "a fetus is a person because..." in an attempt to
get that law changed. In response, it would be reasonable for you to say
'it's not a person because....and give some honest reasons why the fetus is
not a person. However, for you to respond with 'it's not a person because
the law says it's not" is a CLASSIC case of begging the question.
Where did you learn your logic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 12:27:37 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:vSE_d.35$191.2@trnddc02:
The QUESTION for most pro-lifers is that the laws should be changed to
give a fetus 'person' status.
explain why that would have any effect on the abortion issue.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 12:56:44 PM |
|
|
In article <vSE_d.35$191.2@trnddc02>,
says...
The QUESTION for most pro-lifers is that the laws should be changed to give
a fetus 'person' status.
Even if the law was so changed, it wouldn't affect the legality fo
abortion - since no person has the right to use another person's body
against their ongoing consent either.
In order to ban abortion, even if an embryo/foetus were to legally
allotted the status of 'person' or 'human being', laws allowing slavery
would ALSO have to be introduced.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
19 Mar 2005 03:24:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, "DianaC"
<> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca4035297be91ab98c369@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <9zl_d.7304$mq2.222@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a
few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
Nope. Stating a fact to correct a mis-statement by another poster is in
no way 'begging the question'.
Where did you learn English?
The QUESTION for most pro-lifers is that the laws should be changed to give
a fetus 'person' status.
How is that going to stop a woman from defending herself?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 06:26:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:13:23 -0000, Pat Winstanley
<boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
In article <9zl_d.7304$mq2.222@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3debad09e815198c35e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <qpj_d.5848$b_6.1179@trnddc01>,
says...
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement. Choosing to abort means a few
days of discomfort and back to the old life, for a woman who doesn't
think
that there is a person inside.
There isn't a person inside the woman (except herself, of course),
whether she is pregnant or not.
(sigh) begging the question again.
Nope. Stating a fact to correct a mis-statement by another poster is in
no way 'begging the question'.
Where did you learn English?
Well, she could attend Emerson College in Boston to recitfy that
problem. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:03:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:48:06 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8oi31th8b6824ebmajn9sm82vcpbefqmn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:40:09 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ouuh31hecmqdv1ksujlk6saepik13ojbsv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:56:03 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
Then you have the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to try to talk her out of it.
Why? It's her choice. I am incapable of assessing any pregnant
woman's situation and deciding for her accordingly -- for the obvious
reason that I am not the pregnant woman and I am not the one that has
to make the choice between keeping an unwanted pregnancy to term or to
terminate long befoe the term ends.
What I am concerned about is the woman being led to give birth or have
an abortion against her will. Why don;t we work together to prevent
these tragedies from becoming common practice and underground?
You mean, like advocating education and birth control and honest
alternatives
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement.
Sister, YOU are DISINEGNUOUS.
[...]
presented objectively
Impossible to do.
It certainly is if the only information given to her is 'abort...
Or 'stay pregnant' ... 'damn your rights'...
so that the woman can make a real,
informed decision, and that if she chooses to carry the baby to term there
are real programs and real help to make that a viable option for her? Like
that?
It depends on what you define as 'real programs'?
There are quite a few...
Name some and define how they're realstic in helping a pregnant woman
during the whole pregnancy process and the resulting child live stably
for the first eighteen years of his/her life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:14:40 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:06hj315al49jblq2o6v3i6ai3ultc0n7qm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:48:06 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
There are only two alternatives where it concerns an in-progress
pregnancy: childbirth and legal abortion.
Brother, is THAT a disengenuous statement.
Sister, YOU are DISINEGNUOUS.
[...]
Lady, you use words like a bird goes after crumbs; randomly and with no
descernible sense of pattern.
Or meaning.
You really need to learn that discourse requires that you speak in sentences
someone else might understand, and that your declaration that something is
true is not proof that it is true.
presented objectively
Impossible to do.
It certainly is if the only information given to her is 'abort...
Or 'stay pregnant' ... 'damn your rights'...
And I have advocated removing her rights, how, exactly?
so that the woman can make a real,
informed decision, and that if she chooses to carry the baby to term
there
are real programs and real help to make that a viable option for her?
Like
that?
It depends on what you define as 'real programs'?
There are quite a few...
Name some and define how they're realstic in helping a pregnant woman
during the whole pregnancy process and the resulting child live stably
for the first eighteen years of his/her life?
There are several church programs that do just that. Mine has one. There are
also programs that help the woman find other help; like school grants and
day care.
Or that help her pay for her medical care and arrange adoptions.
Quite a few of these. Depends on where you live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:40 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
[...]
Lady,
I am...
There are quite a few...
Name some and define how they're realstic in helping a pregnant woman
during the whole pregnancy process and the resulting child live stably
for the first eighteen years of his/her life?
There are several church programs that do just that. Mine has one. There are
also programs that help the woman find other help; like school grants and
day care.
You are a disingenous person. Have you heard the latest on what's
happening to these families, who don't have other means of support
from families and friends and cashed strapped charitable
organizations?
Examples:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Issue_Spotlights&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15521
http://www.detnews.com/2005/census/0503/11/census-282435.htm
http://www.ctpartnershiphousing.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=40
http://www.npach.org/17nov04.htm
http://rwor.org/a/v23/1110-19/1113/housing.htm
http://www.bronxmall.com/norwoodnews/past/101900/features/page1.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:50:29 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <Gn0_d.4039$UV2.1296@trnddc04>,
says...
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
Pro-choice means you support the woman's right to decide for herself,
whether you agree with her choice or not.
And if your pro-choicer happens to think that it's the wrong choice, but
doesn't want a law prohibiting it...that the way to stop abortion is to talk
women out of it, get them to use birth control more consistently, and just
keep attempting to change the public mind about it.....but NOT the law, what
is that?
You are missing the point. Someone who is pro-choice believes the
decision of whether or not a woman's pregnancy is to be continued is
*the choice of the pregnant woman*... regardless of what the pro-choice
person would do in that situation or thinks would be best for that
pregnant woman to do.
If I see a pregnant woman who is going to continue or going to end her
pregnancy and in her situation I would do the opposite, I would *still*
support her right to choose what *she* feels right for her. Her
pregnancy. Her body. Her choice.
Her body, her responsibility. Her body is the one she used to get
pregnant, unless she was raped. Her responsibility is that of the body
she is carrying in her womb as a result of her deliberate choices.
Doesn't mean I approve of or applaud or advocate or encourage her chosen
course!
The pro-choice person advocates that the person who is pregnant (and
nobody else - including the pro-choice person) be the one who has the
right to choose the course of their pregnancy.
The pro-choice person does NOT advocate either possible course over the
other... except for their *own* pregnancy.
Pat, you advocate ending human lives before they are born.
Now try debating the issue instead of restating your position for the
n^n^nth time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:37:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:10 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:zQYZd.703$EX5.685@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>>>>>
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.
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
How so? Pro-Choicers acknowledge that there are two, viable options
when dealing with a pregnancy: abortion or birth. Furthermore, we also
acknowledge that it is only the pregnant woman (and whoever else she
wishes to included in the decision making) to assess her situation and
decide accordingly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:52:18 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:a25h31hssqergfoao6md6sf4vfjqijhhpo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:10 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is
to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
How so? Pro-Choicers acknowledge that there are two, viable options
when dealing with a pregnancy: abortion or birth. Furthermore, we also
acknowledge that it is only the pregnant woman (and whoever else she
wishes to included in the decision making) to assess her situation and
decide accordingly.
However, what happens when the 'pro-choicer' voices the opinion that while
the woman has the legal right to make this decision, it's a bad one, and
that better options exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:59:35 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:a25h31hssqergfoao6md6sf4vfjqijhhpo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:10 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is
to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
How so? Pro-Choicers acknowledge that there are two, viable options
when dealing with a pregnancy: abortion or birth. Furthermore, we also
acknowledge that it is only the pregnant woman (and whoever else she
wishes to included in the decision making) to assess her situation and
decide accordingly.
However, what happens when the 'pro-choicer' voices the opinion that while
the woman has the legal right to make this decision, it's a bad one, and
that better options exist?
They have a right to do that, but they would be overstepping their (lack
of) authority. They can say it, but it doesn't mean much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 07:44:06 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:X61_d.720$RX5.694@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:a25h31hssqergfoao6md6sf4vfjqijhhpo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:10 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You will not find that anymore than you will find a pro-choicer (or
pro-lifer) who thinks carrying to term is the WRONG choice.
Then "pro-choice' is just as inaccurate a term to apply to them as it is
to
'pro-life' advocates, isn't it?
How so? Pro-Choicers acknowledge that there are two, viable options
when dealing with a pregnancy: abortion or birth. Furthermore, we also
acknowledge that it is only the pregnant woman (and whoever else she
wishes to included in the decision making) to assess her situation and
decide accordingly.
However, what happens when the 'pro-choicer' voices the opinion that
while the woman has the legal right to make this decision, it's a bad
one, and that better options exist?
They have a right to do that, but they would be overstepping their (lack
of) authority. They can say it, but it doesn't mean much.
Ah. So someone who says that is being politically incorrect, is
transgressing the party line, is betraying the trust...whatever. In other
words, 'pro-choice' had BETTER be 'pro-abortion', because if s/he is not,
s/he is 'outside'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 08:19:53 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
Ah. So someone who says that is being politically incorrect, is
transgressing the party line, is betraying the trust...whatever. In other
words, 'pro-choice' had BETTER be 'pro-abortion', because if s/he is not,
s/he is 'outside'.
The whole point of the term "pro-choice", and the reason that it is
synonymous with "pro-abortion" is that it is predicated on the
assumption that *abortion* is an acceptable choice. You cannot be (in
their terms) pro-choice without affirming abortion as a choice. What
about those people that think that women should have a choice between
keeping a baby and adoption? Are they "pro-choice" too? Or that women
should have a choice between getting pregnant and not getting pregnant
before they decide whether they want a baby. Are they "pro-choice".
No. Those people are ANTI-CHOICE, as though such people are against any
choice in the world except the choice to kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:48:13 AM |
|
|
In article <4238e94a$0$8744$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
michael.calwell@btopenworld.com says...
The whole point of the term "pro-choice", and the reason that it is
synonymous with "pro-abortion"
They aren't synonymous, dear.
You are lying, as usual! ;-))
(Doesn't your religion teach you that it is wrong, a sin, to lie)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
