| 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: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:56:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1ce58$58o$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Right. I'm a pro-choice (*not pro-abortion*) person.
Basically abortion is *always* the wrong choice for the pregnant person
if the pregnant person decides it's the wrong choice for her.
Abortion *of my pregnancies* would have been the wrong decisions *for
me* - not because of anything inherently wrong with abortion, but simply
because I wanted those pregnancies (albeit one was very mistimed) to
continue through to live births.
There you go. Now you need no longer (in fact, *can* no longer, with any
honesty) claim that "pro-choice" == "pro-abortion". And nor can you
truthfully claim me to be 'pro-abortion'.
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
Really? Then why are you all upset because, even though I am against a law
prohibiting abortion (and anybody who has spoken to me knows this, my
position hasn't changed) I am arguing that abortion is the wrong one?
Pretty damn arrogant of you to decide for millions of women that you
know better than they what is a right or wrong choice.
As arrogant as you are for deciding for millions of women that they aren't
supposed to hear any arguments against abortion?
If I have to make the choice between abortion and childbirth, your
arguments against my right to choose one partilculr choice (or not)
will hold as much weight as an Iraqi flag in Texas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:18:04 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:m1hj31debaptjf8trst00r7dhm8amkbaiq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
As arrogant as you are for deciding for millions of women that they aren't
supposed to hear any arguments against abortion?
If I have to make the choice between abortion and childbirth, your
arguments against my right to choose one partilculr choice (or not)
will hold as much weight as an Iraqi flag in Texas.
And that, m'dear, is your choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:30:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:m1hj31debaptjf8trst00r7dhm8amkbaiq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
As arrogant as you are for deciding for millions of women that they aren't
supposed to hear any arguments against abortion?
If I have to make the choice between abortion and childbirth, your
arguments against my right to choose one partilculr choice (or not)
will hold as much weight as an Iraqi flag in Texas.
And that, m'dear, is your choice.
You're damned right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 03:26:54 AM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:oltj31dki51j0d95nioutjkub636fdvn6i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:m1hj31debaptjf8trst00r7dhm8amkbaiq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
As arrogant as you are for deciding for millions of women that they
aren't
supposed to hear any arguments against abortion?
If I have to make the choice between abortion and childbirth, your
arguments against my right to choose one partilculr choice (or not)
will hold as much weight as an Iraqi flag in Texas.
And that, m'dear, is your choice.
You're damned right.
Well, I'm right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 05:45:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:26:54 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:oltj31dki51j0d95nioutjkub636fdvn6i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:m1hj31debaptjf8trst00r7dhm8amkbaiq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
As arrogant as you are for deciding for millions of women that they
aren't
supposed to hear any arguments against abortion?
If I have to make the choice between abortion and childbirth, your
arguments against my right to choose one partilculr choice (or not)
will hold as much weight as an Iraqi flag in Texas.
And that, m'dear, is your choice.
You're damned right.
Well, I'm right.
--in respect to 'And that, m'dear, is your choice.'
My choice, indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:57:47 AM |
|
|
In article <LPa_d.5779$b_6.1917@trnddc01>,
says...
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
Really?
Yes.
I look forward to you ceasing your lies.
I don't suppose you will, but I can certainly be optomistic on the
issue.
Maybe *someone* can shame you into retracting your lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:23:23 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3d573b5f0502b98c356@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <LPa_d.5779$b_6.1917@trnddc01>,
says...
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
Really?
Yes.
I look forward to you ceasing your lies.
I don't suppose you will, but I can certainly be optomistic on the
issue.
Maybe *someone* can shame you into retracting your lies.
Perhaps you could enumerate some of my 'lies'???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:23:35 PM |
|
|
In article <%Gl_d.7332$mq2.2282@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3d573b5f0502b98c356@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <LPa_d.5779$b_6.1917@trnddc01>,
says...
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
Really?
Yes.
I look forward to you ceasing your lies.
I don't suppose you will, but I can certainly be optomistic on the
issue.
Maybe *someone* can shame you into retracting your lies.
Perhaps you could enumerate some of my 'lies'???
Read back through the thread. I have pointed several out, quoting your
lie at the time.
I can't be bothered going back now to create a collection of them for
your convenience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:54:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:01:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2a74d8df3e6c198c331@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08>,
says...
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.
Right. I'm a pro-choice (*not pro-abortion*) person.
Basically abortion is *always* the wrong choice for the pregnant person
if the pregnant person decides it's the wrong choice for her.
Abortion *of my pregnancies* would have been the wrong decisions *for
me* - not because of anything inherently wrong with abortion, but simply
because I wanted those pregnancies (albeit one was very mistimed) to
continue through to live births.
There you go. Now you need no longer (in fact, *can* no longer, with any
honesty) claim that "pro-choice" == "pro-abortion". And nor can you
truthfully claim me to be 'pro-abortion'.
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
Really? Then why are you all upset...
What makes you believe she is upset?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 04:33:44 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <JJYZd.6998$mq2.1299@trnddc08>,
says...
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.
Right. I'm a pro-choice (*not pro-abortion*) person.
Nope; for the purposes of the abortion debate 'pro-choice' and
'pro-abortion' are pseudonyms as has been pointed out.
Consider Merriam-Webster:
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
Basically abortion is *always* the wrong choice for the pregnant person
if the pregnant person decides it's the wrong choice for her.
Abortion *of my pregnancies* would have been the wrong decisions *for
me* - not because of anything inherently wrong with abortion, but simply
because I wanted those pregnancies (albeit one was very mistimed) to
continue through to live births.
Irrelevant. No one assumes that 'pro-abortion' means you believe in
aborting every pregancy - except you, in a lame attempt to escape the
term.
There you go. Now you need no longer (in fact, *can* no longer, with any
honesty) claim that "pro-choice" == "pro-abortion". And nor can you
truthfully claim me to be 'pro-abortion'.
I look forward, therefore, to you ceasing to lie about my position on
the issue of abortion/birth. (Though, somehow, I doubt you will).
I suggest you write your own dictionary then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:43:43 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42395D08.74B93C8F@hotmail.com:
Nope; for the purposes of the abortion debate 'pro-choice' and
'pro-abortion' are pseudonyms as has been pointed out.
the only people who have pointed that out are people with a need to
misrepresent because there is no rational expression of their position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:03:34 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BAA20881FEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42395D08.74B93C8F@hotmail.com:
Nope; for the purposes of the abortion debate 'pro-choice' and
'pro-abortion' are pseudonyms as has been pointed out.
the only people who have pointed that out are people with a need to
misrepresent because there is no rational expression of their position.
Actually, I believe that was a dictionary definition that he posted. Which,
in any reasonable discussion, would settle the matter of definition.
I also notice which side is calling the other names...
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 07:33:43 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:qRa_d.5780$b_6.688@trnddc01:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BAA20881FEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42395D08.74B93C8F@hotmail.com:
Nope; for the purposes of the abortion debate 'pro-choice' and
'pro-abortion' are pseudonyms as has been pointed out.
the only people who have pointed that out are people with a need to
misrepresent because there is no rational expression of their
position.
Actually, I believe that was a dictionary definition that he posted.
Which, in any reasonable discussion, would settle the matter of
definition.
that it was, and by the same people who are ripping science out of
children's schoolbooks too. i'm amazed that even a single person was
fooled.
as i said, "the only people who have pointed that out are people with a
need to misrepresent because there is no rational expression of their
position."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:35:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:03:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961BAA20881FEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42395D08.74B93C8F@hotmail.com:
Nope; for the purposes of the abortion debate 'pro-choice' and
'pro-abortion' are pseudonyms as has been pointed out.
the only people who have pointed that out are people with a need to
misrepresent because there is no rational expression of their position.
Actually, I believe that was a dictionary definition that he posted. Which,
in any reasonable discussion, would settle the matter of definition.
Only if the definition was being used to clairify rather than deceive.
The dictionary defines "pro-abortion" as "favoring the legalization of
abortion." The dictionary does not define "favoring the legalization
of abortion" as "pro-abortion." Calling someone who is pro-choice
"pro-abortion" is a lie and an insult.
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.
I also notice which side is calling the other names...
Which side do you claim to be on? Hint: "By their fruits shall ye
know them."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 05:56:04 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in
communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a
human being between one stage of development and another. It can be
said that there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh,
three, since before that time he is a toddler and before that an
infant...though in a broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age
of puberty, or in relative terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it, he relies upon the
strict definition...which is true....and then attaches another meaning
to it, which is NOT true; that is, "there is no human life before
birth", or "whatever it is before birth is irrelevent, because it's not
a person".
Which of course is begging the question of whether a fetus is a living
human. Are you going to tell me that it is not?
Not until it's born_alive. How many funeral notices and/or funerals have
you seen for dead feti that were never born_alive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:09:32 AM |
|
|
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns961AA218A7B08SD@68.6.19.6...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
<snip to>
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?
Not until it's born_alive. How many funeral notices and/or funerals have
you seen for dead feti that were never born_alive?
Two things: First, you are begging the question. Yes, there is a cultural
(the pro-choice/pro-abortion folks) who insist that this is so, because they
want to think so, because they think so. There is no reason for this other
than cultural...
Second, you try talking to a woman who has lost a baby? Trust me, that's how
she thinks of it; not 'I lost a fetus", but "I lost a baby" and her grief is
just as hard. Remember, Conner Peterson had a name. AND a funeral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 10:24:19 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:M_XZd.6815$mq2.875@trnddc08:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns961AA218A7B08SD@68.6.19.6...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02:
<snip to>
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?
Not until it's born_alive. How many funeral notices and/or funerals
have you seen for dead feti that were never born_alive?
Two things: First, you are begging the question. Yes, there is a
cultural (the pro-choice/pro-abortion folks) who insist that this is
so, because they want to think so, because they think so. There is no
reason for this other than cultural...
Because it is so.
Second, you try talking to a woman who has lost a baby? Trust me,
that's how she thinks of it; not 'I lost a fetus", but "I lost a baby"
and her grief is just as hard. Remember, Conner Peterson had a name.
AND a funeral.
As a matter of fact, my wife suffered two miscarriages during her
reproductive years so we don't need a sermon from you about grief and
losses.
What does that have to do with a woman's right to choose? We have three
healthy grown children and we are all pro-choice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:17:16 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns961AA218A7B08SD@68.6.19.6...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
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?
Not until it's born_alive. How many funeral notices and/or funerals have
you seen for dead feti that were never born_alive?
Two things: First, you are begging the question. Yes, there is a cultural
(the pro-choice/pro-abortion folks) who insist that this is so, because they
want to think so, because they think so.
Wrong. There are sound practical reasons for marking the start of a
human being's life at birth.
There is no reason for this other
than cultural...
Back at you. Because you desperately want to think
otherwise, you reject the social sandards that have been in
place for thousands of years.
Second, you try talking to a woman who has lost a baby?
Some years ago when my wife was pregnant I talked to several women
who'd had miscarriages. It is nothing like losing a child.
Trust me, that's how
she thinks of it;
Why would I trust you to tell me what I know to be false? I don't
trust pro-liars because you consider your ideology to be more
important than people or truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:38:50 PM |
|
|
In article <MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961AAFC239908keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
<snip to>
there is no child before birth.
Says who?
english speakers who understand the meanings of words in communications.
<snip to end>
Ah, but you are being disengenuous here. You are correct. there is no
'child' before birth, because 'child' is a label one attaches to a human
being between one stage of development and another. It can be said that
there is no 'child' before the human involved is about, oh, three, since
before that time he is a toddler and before that an infant...though in a
broader sense a 'child' is anybody below the age of puberty, or in relative
terms, anybody younger than you are.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it, he relies upon the strict
definition...which is true....and then attaches another meaning to it, which
is NOT true; that is, "there is no human life before birth", or "whatever it
is before birth is irrelevent, because it's not a person".
Which of course is begging the question of whether a fetus is a living
human. Are you going to tell me that it is not?
Your argument does seem to be realistic to me. However, the same
argument can be used where your position is concerned. My experience in
our society is that we do make distinction between various stages of
development in the human life cycle. I usually make the distinction of
"youth" and "adult". On that issue, is there a reason you are wanting to
expand what would be commonly or clinically referred to as an embryo or
fetus to the broader term of child. It would be similar to me claiming
that a youth is an adult.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:02:08 AM |
|
|
In article <MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02>,
says...
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".
Apart from never having heard words from anyone who is 'pro
abortionist' (whatever that is supposed to mean) I have never heard
anyone at all be they pro-choice, pro-life or neither who states that
"there is no human life before birth".
Clearly even a live, human sperm is human life, as is a live, human
embryo, a live, huma foetus, a live, human newborn etc. All are human
life, and some exists before birth whjile some exist after birth.
Please find a regular poster here, whatever their 'side' in the abortion
debate, who claims that "there is no human life before birth". And post
the references to postings where they have made that claim.
Note that stating 'there is no person or human being before birth' is
NOT the same thing as stating 'there is no human life before birth'. The
former is true. The latter is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:53:28 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <MdKZd.6696$Z07.1655@trnddc02>,
says...
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".
Apart from never having heard words from anyone who is 'pro
abortionist' (whatever that is supposed to mean)
Why don't you know what it means? The definition has been shown to you
before. You just can't stop lying.
From Merriam-Webster:
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
"Pro-abortionist." According to the definition you're a pro-abortionist.
I have never heard
anyone at all be they pro-choice, pro-life or neither who states that
"there is no human life before birth".
Clearly even a live, human sperm is human life, as is a live, human
embryo, a live, huma foetus, a live, human newborn etc. All are human
life, and some exists before birth whjile some exist after birth.
Please find a regular poster here, whatever their 'side' in the abortion
debate, who claims that "there is no human life before birth". And post
the references to postings where they have made that claim.
Note that stating 'there is no person or human being before birth' is
NOT the same thing as stating 'there is no human life before birth'. The
former is true. The latter is false.
Aren't *you* clevah! What a pity you can't figure out that if it's alive
and a genetically distinct human individual then it's a human being.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 08:36:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:29:48 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
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?
www.m-w.com:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
child: a young person especially between infancy and youth
Infant: a child in the first period of life
living: having life
life: the period from birth to death
unborn: not brought into life
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to claim that it is? If so, please explain why you
have more credibility than Merriam Webster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 09:06:57 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in
news:42379737.86960162@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:29:48 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....
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?
www.m-w.com:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------- child: a young person especially between infancy and
youth Infant: a child in the first period of life
living: having life
life: the period from birth to death
unborn: not brought into life
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------- Are you trying to claim that it is? If so, please
explain why you have more credibility than Merriam Webster.
many of the terms she has been misrepresenting were defined in the text she
deleted which convinced me she is dishonest,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:43:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:29:48 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"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
Human being a is status only given to the newly emerged-from-the-womb
human life.
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.
....and only after birth.
However, whenever I hear a pro abortionist use it,
Pro-Abortionist?
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",
LOL - How many times have we spoken about the humanity of the poor
human life sperm and ova that are completely ignored by the Pro-"Life"
camp? And not a single soul here on the Pro-Choice side have ever
deinied that the fetus or embryo at the time of gestation in a human
being is anything but human or alive.
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.
It's human and alive, much like human sperm and ova.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 10:50:46 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"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$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain point.
You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant, toddler,
child, adolescent, adult....where in all this does this human life
experience the biologically determined line that makes it something
completely different from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?
The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes than after.
there is no child before birth.
In Diana's defense, some "thing", an object is there. You may attach a
clinical label such as fetus or embryo, but it does seem to be true that
there is some object there.
an embryo or fetus does seem to meet some of the scientific requirements
of life. And the genetic base is that of a human. The question then, is
when is it okay to kill something that is human.
By your response, it would seem that before birth is when.
Personally, I take a different rationale. So long anyone or anything is
using another person's body without their ongoing consent, they are at
risk of being stopped up to including lethal force.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 04:12:25 PM |
|
|
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote in
news:homo-8B9610.23504614032005@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:R0qZd.2493$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$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my
statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the
level of development a human life goes through at a certain
point. You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus, baby, infant,
toddler, child, adolescent, adult....where in all this does this
human life experience the biologically determined line that makes
it something completely different from what it was a second
earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any
time? The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes
than after.
there is no child before birth.
In Diana's defense, some "thing", an object is there. You may attach a
clinical label such as fetus or embryo, but it does seem to be true
that there is some object there.
no one denied that.
an embryo or fetus does seem to meet some of the scientific
requirements of life. And the genetic base is that of a human. The
question then, is when is it okay to kill something that is human.
By your response, it would seem that before birth is when.
exactly
Personally, I take a different rationale. So long anyone or anything
is using another person's body without their ongoing consent, they are
at risk of being stopped up to including lethal force.
i don't think, as a society, we should question the motives of women who
wish to terminate pregnancies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:47:48 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns961AAF09D381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote in
news:homo-8B9610.23504614032005@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:R0qZd.2493$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.
Then I think it would be reasonable to explain to her that we use the
label embryo and child for specific reasons and to address that issue.
The reality does seem to be that while there are different labels for
these stages of development, she is correct in that they are 'human'.
I agree, a child doesn't die in an aboriton. But a fetus or embryo
certainly does.
In Diana's defense, some "thing", an object is there. You may attach a
clinical label such as fetus or embryo, but it does seem to be true
that there is some object there.
no one denied that.
an embryo or fetus does seem to meet some of the scientific
requirements of life. And the genetic base is that of a human. The
question then, is when is it okay to kill something that is human.
By your response, it would seem that before birth is when.
exactly
Unfortunately, this reasoning is only sufficient so long as one uses a
medical model. Fetus is generally a medical term that has been adopted
into law. A simple change in law or even a dictionary and the argument
that a child isn't present during pregnancy evaporates.
If the only argument to support legal abortion is that a child doesn't
get killed, the prolife faction only need redefine the fetus and embryo
as child and ....
Personally, I take a different rationale. So long anyone or anything
is using another person's body without their ongoing consent, they are
at risk of being stopped up to including lethal force.
i don't think, as a society, we should question the motives of women who
wish to terminate pregnancies.
I agree. A tthe same time, I find that disengenous by other prochoicers
in general. Any involvement in restrictions to abortion are passing
judgment on a woman, her interests and her reasons.
So long as there is an 'absolute' model that everyone enjoys the right
to stop the unwanted use of their body, the motivation for an abortion
becomes irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:48:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:47:48 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
.....
I agree, a child doesn't die in an aboriton. But a fetus or embryo
certainly does.
Which is not justification to deny basic human rights.
In Diana's defense, some "thing", an object is there. You may attach a
clinical label such as fetus or embryo, but it does seem to be true
that there is some object there.
no one denied that.
an embryo or fetus does seem to meet some of the scientific
requirements of life. And the genetic base is that of a human. The
question then, is when is it okay to kill something that is human.
By your response, it would seem that before birth is when.
exactly
Unfortunately, this reasoning is only sufficient so long as one uses a
medical model. Fetus is generally a medical term that has been adopted
into law. A simple change in law or even a dictionary and the argument
that a child isn't present during pregnancy evaporates.
You seem to be under the impression that the dictionary defines the
words, and that changing the definition in the dictionary is all that
is needed to change the meaning of a word. This is untrue. The
dictionary reports the definitions of words as to how they are
actually used..
.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:58:52 AM |
|
|
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote in
news:homo-4738DB.23474815032005@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <Xns961AAF09D381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote in
news:homo-8B9610.23504614032005@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <Xns9619DA71F6EB2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"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$GI6.3318@trnddc05:
You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up
my statement; where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term
for the level of development a human life goes through at a
certain point. You know, fertilyzed egg, blastocyst, fetus,
baby, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult....where in
all this does this human life experience the biologically
determined line that makes it something completely different
from what it was a second earlier?
birth.
What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the
expulsion of the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any
time? The child isn't any more or less alive before it breathes
than after.
there is no child before birth.
Then I think it would be reasonable to explain to her that we use the
label embryo and child for specific reasons and to address that issue.
The reality does seem to be that while there are different labels for
these stages of development, she is correct in that they are 'human'.
you must not have been following the discussions.
she previously deleted the following information.
====begin information insert
-= BEGIN forwarded message =-
Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Pat Winstanley <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,
talk.abortion Subject: Re: For those who insisted that Terri Schiavo be
starved to death Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:30:37 -0000
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <MPG.1c90b15a8d1fea5f98c217@news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <Wa6Od.365$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 =-
====end replacement information
an embryo or fetus does seem to meet some of the scientific
requirements of life. And the genetic base is that of a human. The
question then, is when is it okay to kill something that is human.
By your response, it would seem that before birth is when.
exactly
Unfortunately, this reasoning is only sufficient so long as one uses a
medical model.
exactly. abortion is a medical procedure.
If the only argument to support legal abortion is that a child doesn't
get killed, the prolife faction only need redefine the fetus and
embryo as child and ....
of course no one makes that argument. pro-choicers simply refute the
false claim made my anti-choicers that a child is killed.
Personally, I take a different rationale. So long anyone or
anything is using another person's body without their ongoing
consent, they are at risk of being stopped up to including lethal
force.
i don't think, as a society, we should question the motives of women
who wish to terminate pregnancies.
I agree. A tthe same time, I find that disengenous by other
prochoicers in general. Any involvement in restrictions to abortion
are passing judgment on a woman, her interests and her reasons.
So long as there is an 'absolute' model that everyone enjoys the right
to stop the unwanted use of their body, the motivation for an abortion
becomes irrelevant.
agreed
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:39:04 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
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?
It cannot come any time other than at birth.
The child isn't any
more or less alive before it breathes than after.
The question is NOT whether it's alive. The question is whether it is
a baby. Just as a 70-yera-old is not a teenager, a fetus is not a
baby.
Words mean things, and trying to change their meaning is just
desperate and dishonest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
