| 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: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:58:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:15:23 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
:)) dang mind in the gutter...
Look at advertising -- what is it that sells? Is sex used to sell
food or is food used to sell sex? Look at Viagra -- old farts are
quite willing to risk death so they can have sex.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:56:40 PM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
And they say pro-lifers are obsessed with sex...
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:16:55 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
And they say pro-lifers are obsessed with sex...
Oh hell, we all are. Some of us prefer to be "obsessed" with it in a
positive way, rather than obsessed with making it a bad, dirty, ugly,
miserable act of breeding.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:41:55 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
And they say pro-lifers are obsessed with sex...
Oh hell, we all are. Some of us prefer to be "obsessed" with it in a
positive way, rather than obsessed with making it a bad, dirty, ugly,
miserable act of breeding.
No, sex is a joyful gift, and its primary, though by no means
exclusively, joyful use is procreation, another gift. It is a perversion
of that joyful gift to abuse in such a manner that you consider the cost
of another person's life as a price worth charging them for you to abuse
it, however. There is nothing remotely positive about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:41:55 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
.....
No, sex is a joyful gift, and its primary, though by no means
exclusively, joyful use is procreation.....
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:17:54 PM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:41:55 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
....
No, sex is a joyful gift, and its primary, though by no means
exclusively, joyful use is procreation.....
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species. Have you been at your "biology
textbooks" again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:14:08 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species.
That's not the primary purpose for sex in humans.
Have you been at your "biology
textbooks" again?
Read them yourself. Unlike almost every other animals species, humans
have sex when the female is not fertile, and humans cannot even tell
when the female is fertile.
Other animal species have sex just for reproduction. If the female
isn't fertile then there is no sex, and they know that she isn't
ready.
Humans have evolved to use sex for other purposes. Your religious
dogma is not the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 05:36:01 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species.
That's not the primary purpose for sex in humans.
Have you been at your "biology
textbooks" again?
Read them yourself. Unlike almost every other animals species, humans
have sex when the female is not fertile, and humans cannot even tell
when the female is fertile.
Other animal species have sex just for reproduction. If the female
isn't fertile then there is no sex, and they know that she isn't
ready.
Humans have evolved to use sex for other purposes. Your religious
dogma is not the truth.
"The female" Ray? So many misogynist overtones. I suppose your entire
raison d'etre is the objectificatian and the dehumanisation of people,
so no surprises there. You mean "women". Anyway, what was your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 07:38:27 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species.
That's not the primary purpose for sex in humans.
Have you been at your "biology
textbooks" again?
Read them yourself. Unlike almost every other animals species, humans
have sex when the female is not fertile, and humans cannot even tell
when the female is fertile.
Other animal species have sex just for reproduction. If the female
isn't fertile then there is no sex, and they know that she isn't
ready.
Humans have evolved to use sex for other purposes. Your religious
dogma is not the truth.
"The female" Ray? So many misogynist overtones.
Since I was NOT referring just to humans it's obvious that you're
still a stupid *****.
I suppose your entire
You cannot refute the my argument and so you do what all pro-liars do
when faced with the truth and you start spewing the usual hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 03:47:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:17:54 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:41:55 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
....
No, sex is a joyful gift, and its primary, though by no means
exclusively, joyful use is procreation.....
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species.
Then that'd mean you're not gettung any because the only way you'd
have sex is for procreation and nobody's stupid enough to reproduce
with you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:45:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:17:54 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:41:55 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
....
No, sex is a joyful gift, and its primary, though by no means
exclusively, joyful use is procreation.....
Only an idiot would claim that the 100% use, pleasure, is secondary to
the 1% use, procreation.
By definition, Paul, pleasure comes second to the primary purpose of sex
which is the continuation of the species. Have you been at your "biology
textbooks" again?
What definition, and kindly replace the goalposts -- it was USE, not
PURPOSE.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:09:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:56:40 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
And they say pro-lifers are obsessed with sex...
You can't get anything right. Pro-Lifers are obsessed with
*controlling* sex.
Acknowledging that sex is the most powerful drive is not being
obsessed with sex, it is being honest. As I told SexKitten,
advertisers use sex to sell everything else, nothing else is needed to
sell sex. Seniors use Viagra and risk death for the sake of sex.
That sex is more important than life itself is a fact of nature and
provides storylines for many tales -- such as with Painless in MASH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 04:26:54 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in news:42fe40e9.1827065200
@news.la.sbcglobal.net:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:56:40 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
You can't get anything right. Pro-Lifers are obsessed with
*controlling* sex.
ummm, there is certainly some of that, but i believe controlling women is a
far stronger obsession for anti-choicers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:15:50 PM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:56:40 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:15 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Huh? There is something more powerful? Since when?
And they say pro-lifers are obsessed with sex...
You can't get anything right. Pro-Lifers are obsessed with
*controlling* sex.
Acknowledging that sex is the most powerful drive is not being
obsessed with sex, it is being honest. As I told SexKitten,
advertisers use sex to sell everything else, nothing else is needed to
sell sex. Seniors use Viagra and risk death for the sake of sex.
That sex is more important than life itself is a fact of nature and
provides storylines for many tales -- such as with Painless in MASH.
Sex is an extremely powerful force. But like all powerful forces, like
nuclear fusion, or genetics, it can be as easily abused dangerously as
used creatively. Now that is the genuine recognition of the power of
it. It is the people that have the most causal attitude towards it,
people who seem to exist in the pro-abortion camp, who undervalue its power.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:30:46 AM |
|
|
In article <O6vZd.5376$b_6.4445@trnddc01>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would
almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it should
be considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
More fallacies to promote your agenda of harming one another. I
recommend that people who want to avoid disease avoid sex with someone
who is infected. Putting a condom on only puts them in a position of
risk. I recommend that people with infections refrain from sex until
they are well and not contagious, or until treatment is underway.
That you have advocated for the pill, I recommend that women take a hard
look at the the long term effects of ingesting chemicals on a daily
basis, month after month and for decades -- even with intermittent
breaks.
short term side effects are fairly well know. Would you mind suggesting
some longitudinal studies on what a 15 year old who uses such products
for the next 20 years will result in for her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:14:39 AM |
|
|
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
More fallacies to promote your agenda of harming one another. I
recommend that people who want to avoid disease avoid sex with someone
who is infected.
Can you spot the flaw in that plan?
Putting a condom on only puts them in a position of
risk.
It actuallly reduces risk.
I recommend that people with infections refrain from sex until
they are well and not contagious, or until treatment is underway.
I recommend that you mind your own business.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:22:01 AM |
|
|
In article <d1620u$udb$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
More fallacies to promote your agenda of harming one another. I
recommend that people who want to avoid disease avoid sex with someone
who is infected.
Can you spot the flaw in that plan?
Putting a condom on only puts them in a position of
risk.
It actuallly reduces risk.
I recommend that people with infections refrain from sex until
they are well and not contagious, or until treatment is underway.
I recommend that you mind your own business.
While I had decided not to respond to you because of your abusive
style...
If minding one's business is the goal, how did this subject of aboriton
bceome your business? Your not a woman. You don't get pregnant, in your
own words, mind your business!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:34:31 AM |
|
|
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <d1620u$udb$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
More fallacies to promote your agenda of harming one another. I
recommend that people who want to avoid disease avoid sex with someone
who is infected.
Can you spot the flaw in that plan?
Putting a condom on only puts them in a position of
risk.
It actuallly reduces risk.
I recommend that people with infections refrain from sex until
they are well and not contagious, or until treatment is underway.
I recommend that you mind your own business.
While I had decided not to respond to you because of your abusive
style...
Yeah, you want to make humanity into breeding slaves but you're
offended when somebody points out the gross inaccuracies and contempt
for people in your religion.
If minding one's business is the goal, how did this subject of aboriton
bceome your business?
Because I'm one of those who is pro-choice and argues that it's the
woman's business.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:42:10 PM |
|
|
In article <N7qZd.2495$Z07.358@trnddc02>,
says...
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life.
No it isn't... or no more so than having an appendix removed is "the
ending of a human life". In both cases some live, human cells die. In
neither case does a persion or human being ('a human life' to most
people) die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:55:58 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2aa782b40361498c333@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <N7qZd.2495$Z07.358@trnddc02>,
says...
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage,
or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took
that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life.
No it isn't... or no more so than having an appendix removed is "the
ending of a human life". In both cases some live, human cells die. In
neither case does a persion or human being ('a human life' to most
people) die.
Excuse me, but 'human being' (which, you will notice is a term I did NOT
use) is akin to 'person', which is a legal term. IT is culturally, not
scientifically assigned. There is NO scientific reason to deny personhood to
a fetus. None.
And whether or not there is, or should be, a cultural one is the question
under discussion. Therefore, your insistance that there is no human being to
kill is assuming the consequent, begging the question, any other thing you
might want to assign it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 05:01:11 PM |
|
|
In article <y31_d.5652$b_6.37@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2aa782b40361498c333@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <N7qZd.2495$Z07.358@trnddc02>,
says...
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage,
or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took
that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life.
No it isn't... or no more so than having an appendix removed is "the
ending of a human life". In both cases some live, human cells die. In
neither case does a persion or human being ('a human life' to most
people) die.
Excuse me, but 'human being' (which, you will notice is a term I did NOT
use) is akin to 'person', which is a legal term. IT is culturally, not
scientifically assigned. There is NO scientific reason to deny personhood to
a fetus. None.
There is no such thing as a scientific term for person or personhood.
And as I pointed out above - an appendix is human life just as much as
an embryo or foetus or sperm or ovum is a human life. If they are
removed from one's body, then they die. The human life that was in them
dies.
Birth ends human life too as it kills off some live, human cells!
When we talk of "a human life" the assumption is that the object of the
phrase is 'a human being' or 'a person'. You wouldn't normally think of
an appendix as 'a human life', even though it consists of living, human
cells. And in fact it is not 'a human life' in that sense of being a
'person' or 'human being'.
The same applies to an embryo or foetyus. It isn't 'a human life' in the
sense of being 'a a human being' or 'a person', even though it consists
of live, human cells.
When you said "abortion ends a human life" the normal meaning of those
words is "abortion ends the life of a human being" or "abortion ends the
life of a person".
However abortion does NOT end the life of a human being or the life of a
person... even though, like the removal of an appendix, it does end the
life that was in some human celss.
Now... did you mean to imply (as it appeared) that abortion is the
ending of the life of a human being/person? Or did you mean that
abortion ends the life of some human cells that do not make up a person
or human being?
Which was your intended meaning?
The end of the life of a person/human-being,
or
the end of the life of something that is not a person/human-being?
Which?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 08:07:25 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2cb0dfa9b8a6098c344@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <y31_d.5652$b_6.37@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2aa782b40361498c333@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <N7qZd.2495$Z07.358@trnddc02>,
says...
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the
damage,
or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took
that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life.
No it isn't... or no more so than having an appendix removed is "the
ending of a human life". In both cases some live, human cells die. In
neither case does a persion or human being ('a human life' to most
people) die.
Excuse me, but 'human being' (which, you will notice is a term I did NOT
use) is akin to 'person', which is a legal term. IT is culturally, not
scientifically assigned. There is NO scientific reason to deny personhood
to
a fetus. None.
There is no such thing as a scientific term for person or personhood.
Precisely. It's a legal term; and as with all legal terms is subject to
change by the culture.
And as I pointed out above - an appendix is human life just as much as
an embryo or foetus or sperm or ovum is a human life.
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes from.
No matter when you remove an appendix, it will never, EVER, grow into a
human adult that can reproduce itself. Get real here.
If they are
removed from one's body, then they die. The human life that was in them
dies.
Birth ends human life too as it kills off some live, human cells!
When we talk of "a human life" the assumption is that the object of the
phrase is 'a human being' or 'a person'. You wouldn't normally think of
an appendix as 'a human life', even though it consists of living, human
cells. And in fact it is not 'a human life' in that sense of being a
'person' or 'human being'.
Only because the culture says it's not....which of course is begging the
question. I submit that the culture is WRONG. This definition of 'person'
has changed many times over the course of human history; there is nothing
scientifically absolute about birth to make it so; we can change that.
The same applies to an embryo or foetyus. It isn't 'a human life' in the
sense of being 'a a human being' or 'a person', even though it consists
of live, human cells.
When you said "abortion ends a human life" the normal meaning of those
words is "abortion ends the life of a human being" or "abortion ends the
life of a person".
Oh, really? It wasn't all THAT long ago, in terms of human history, that
'human being' was a term restricted to those over the age of three, or past
puberty, or to those within a specific group, or skin color, or.....but
'others' were considered 'human life', well suitable for, say, sacrifice, or
work, or....
However abortion does NOT end the life of a human being or the life of a
person... even though, like the removal of an appendix, it does end the
life that was in some human celss.
Begging the question again. You are quite right. Abortion does not end the
life of a person...because you don't allow a fetus personhood. However,
'person hood' is something that can be assigned, legally. The idea behind
the 'pro-lifers' who want laws changed is that personhood SHOULD BE GRANTED
to fetuses. And it can be. Therefore, your argument that abortion isn't
ending the life of a person is assuming the consequent; rather like the
argument of the slave owners early on who claimed that slaves shouldn't be
freed because they were only 3/5 of a person. Circular.
It's a legal designation, not a medical one. Since the question is whether
that legal designation should be changed, you can't use the argument that
the designation cannot be changed because...this is currently the
designation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:58:46 AM |
|
|
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:04:14 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 02:39:35 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
And she's been on this newsgroup for over 7 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 03:00:35 AM |
|
|
Sergeant America wrote:
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
And she's been on this newsgroup for over 7 years.
Have you ever thought that these people do it for attention? I can't
think of why else you would spend your life contradicting the obvious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:53:50 PM |
|
|
In article <yEj_d.5859$b_6.4762@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
You were the one who (falsely) claimed that DNA was an issue! I just
played along with your strawman. Good to see that you at least recognise
and acknowledge *your* intruduction of DNA into the issue to be a
strawman. ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:37:45 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3e29898c3093c98c360@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <yEj_d.5859$b_6.4762@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
You were the one who (falsely) claimed that DNA was an issue!
It is an issue. Indeed, it's the only issue that atheists can address, come
to think of it; it is the DNA that defines what an organism will be, maps
the development and the parameters of the organism.
Now me, I could talk about 'spirit', but that just opens up another can of
worms.
I just
played along with your strawman. Good to see that you at least recognise
and acknowledge *your* intruduction of DNA into the issue to be a
strawman. ;-))
No. Your dismissal of it and claim that 'adults have various versions of DNA
in their bodies". That is simply not factual, y'know. Every single cell in
the human body is a version of the DNA that was first formed at the time of
conception, and each healthy cell got its instructions regarding which genes
to turn on and off from the programing contained in that orginal, and
unique, set. Which, by the way, is why that human is different from Mom and
Dad both, why my daughter may never be able to have children because she is
0- and her husband is A+ and she miscarried and wasn't able to get the
shot....
They are not the same. This child inside is a self contained human life,
that WILL, if it doesn't die first, become a human adult. That alone really
ought to make you think twice about blithely killing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:33:07 PM |
|
|
In article <tUl_d.7344$mq2.1269@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3e29898c3093c98c360@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <yEj_d.5859$b_6.4762@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
You were the one who (falsely) claimed that DNA was an issue!
It is an issue.
It was irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which, if I recall
correctly, was the issue of whether or not the embryo/foetus is a
person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 02:46:25 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <tUl_d.7344$mq2.1269@trnddc08>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3e29898c3093c98c360@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <yEj_d.5859$b_6.4762@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7a19099de0198c34c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xD5_d.8752$oa6.7857@trnddc07>,
says...
No, because the appendix has exactly the same DNA as the body it comes
from.
Most adults have various versions of DNA in their bodies. Which part of
their body are you comparing the DNA of the appendix to?
Boy, what a strawman that is.
You were the one who (falsely) claimed that DNA was an issue!
It is an issue.
It was irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which, if I recall
correctly, was the issue of whether or not the embryo/foetus is a
person.
Holy cow. You're a lost cause!
Don't waste any more time with this ignoramus, DianaC. That is, unless
you're a sadist that enjoys causing her to humiliate herself.
Out of my own good nature I've trying to point out for some time how
ludicrously ignorant she is but she just won't listen. :^)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
