| 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: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 02:31:22 AM |
|
|
One more thing...
In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Then why don't they?
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 08:27:08 AM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in news:tagutcow-
1203052008060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
One more thing...
In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Then why don't they?
ask them.
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:39:42 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns961860272FC47keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in news:tagutcow-
1203052008060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
One more thing...
In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Then why don't they?
ask them.
Since when are pro-lifers the authority on their own motives and
interests? Nevertheless, despite being slightly phased about being asked
rather than told about my motives, I'll take a swing at it...
I imagine if I ask a pro-lifer why they don't *force* women to abort,
they'd say they don't do it because abortion is murder. Is this the answer
you wanted me to get?
What light does this shed on the original statement "and, of course, the
same mindset which could deny women this right could use the same
misogynist reasoning to force women to abort"?
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway? After all, it's
only a pregnancy, it's only "reproductive-process entities."
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:46:19 AM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1303050516260001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns961860272FC47keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow- 1203052008060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
One more thing...
In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Then why don't they?
ask them.
Since when are pro-lifers the authority on their own motives and
interests?
much can be determined from the lies they would respond with.
Nevertheless, despite being slightly phased about being
asked rather than told about my motives, I'll take a swing at it...
I imagine if I ask a pro-lifer why they don't *force* women to abort,
they'd say they don't do it because abortion is murder. Is this the
answer you wanted me to get?
i never want someone to be lied to.
What light does this shed on the original statement "and, of course,
the same mindset which could deny women this right could use the
same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort"?
it doesn't as the original statement is self-evient.
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
apparently you have no issue with force.
After all, it's only a pregnancy, it's only "reproductive-process
entities."
is "reproductive-process entities" a quote of somethign you wrote
earlier?
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 03:29:51 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns961881EC6B1A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1303050516260001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
[...]
What light does this shed on the original statement "and, of course,
the same mindset which could deny women this right could use the
same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort"?
it doesn't as the original statement is self-evient.
Tell you what, why don't you take everything you think you know about
abortion, throw it in the trash, and start over again. You've been
hammering away at this for fifteen years and have changed no minds- you've
probably failed even to make anyone *think*- and you're only going to
succeed in wasting more time the longer you debate abortion while clinging
to this faulty premise.
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
Answer the question. If you think forcing women to abort their
pregnancies is anything other than a nusiance or an inconvenience, please
tell me why.
apparently you have no issue with force.
Neither do you. The entire government is based on force; it can force me
into getting an education, going to jury duty, pay taxes, prohibit me from
doing an uncountable number of misdemeanors and felonies. Many Western
countries still have a mandatory year of military service if they don't
have a draft.
To be pro-life, however, gives no more indication of one's attitude
towards force than does adherence to any other belief. Pro-life says the
fetus is a human being with a right to life, and if we act in good
conscience we will protect that life. The goal for pro-lifers is for a
woman not to have an abortion, not to *force* that woman not to have an
abortion. If pro-life laws are indeed essentially about force, than just
about every law is about force. Waving that magic wand of a word- "women"-
doesn't change the issue at all, no matter how laden it is with a subtext
of victimazation and subjugation.
The defining characterization of pro-choicers is not their attitude
towards force, but rather their belief in what the unborn life *isn't*, or
by what rights it- or any of us- *don't* have. Hey, John Kerry ran on a
platform of *forcing* taxpayers to pay for abortions, and he's
"pro-choice"! Last time conscience clauses were discussed here,
pro-choicers were unanimously opposed to them.
After all, it's only a pregnancy, it's only "reproductive-process
entities."
is "reproductive-process entities" a quote of somethign you wrote
earlier?
It's Craig Chilton's term for a fetus; apparently none of the available
terms were euphemistic enough for his liking.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 04:16:37 PM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns961881EC6B1A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you take everything you think you
know about abortion, throw it in the trash, and start over
again. You've been hammering away at this for fifteen years
and have changed no minds
how do you know it wasn't exactly the arguments i have posted which
convinced anti-choicers to abandon that stance and, instead, suppport
the choice position?
specifically, if you've been around for 15 years, then you know that
dan king changed his position from anti- to pro-choice. others did too.
as i recall, dan credited my arguments, in part, for his enlightenment.
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
Answer the question. If you think forcing women to abort their
pregnancies is anything other than a nusiance or an inconvenience,
please tell me why.
i think it is exactly as bad as preventing women from aborting. anyone
who has any respect for women would share that view. forcing women to
abort a pregnacy is the same as preventing women from aborting a
pregnancy.
apparently you have no issue with force.
Neither do you.
misrepresenting my abortion position gains you nothing.
To be pro-life, however, gives no more indication of one's
attitude towards force than does adherence to any other belief.
of course it does. in my opinion, there is no excuse for holding the
anti-choice position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:40:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1110752197.125183.60550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns961881EC6B1A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you take everything you think you
know about abortion, throw it in the trash, and start over
again. You've been hammering away at this for fifteen years
and have changed no minds
how do you know it wasn't exactly the arguments i have posted which
convinced anti-choicers to abandon that stance and, instead, suppport
the choice position?
Because, apart from verbatim quotes from other people and minor
restatements of well-worn pro-choice chestnuts- the only arguments from
you are silly little children's games like obsessively asking people to
apologize for lying and demanding they restore deleted quoted text.
specifically, if you've been around for 15 years, then you know that
dan king changed his position from anti- to pro-choice. others did too.
as i recall, dan credited my arguments, in part, for his enlightenment.
Ah yes, that mythic guy-what-changed-his-opinion-on-abortion. Perhaps
back then you actually made and engaged in arguments more than just
restating your position over and over again. ("I believe in the death
penalty" is a mere profession of belief, not in-and-of-itself an argument
*for* the death penalty.)
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
Answer the question. If you think forcing women to abort their
pregnancies is anything other than a nusiance or an inconvenience,
please tell me why.
i think it is exactly as bad as preventing women from aborting. anyone
who has any respect for women would share that view. forcing women to
abort a pregnacy is the same as preventing women from aborting a
pregnancy.
Good Lord, you're evading the question. I ask you why forcing a woman to
have an abortion is bad and you simply "restate your position"- rather
than make an argument- that it is so. Which factors involved make forced
abortion as bad as forced birth? That is, worse than forcing a person to
go to jury duty.
And I'm not intimidated by phrases like "anyone who has any respect for
women..." I'm already "worse than a rapist" (another poster), so I've got
nothing to lose.
apparently you have no issue with force.
Neither do you.
misrepresenting my abortion position gains you nothing.
Ah, so you're an anarchist! Smash the state, baby!
You know, it would have been a great deal more helpful if- instead of
simply denying my statment with no explanation given- you had dealt
critically with the argument that followed (which you clipped... you would
go into conniptions if I did the same thing!) Are you even *reading* my
posts, or just scanning them for actionable keyphrases.
To be pro-life, however, gives no more indication of one's
attitude towards force than does adherence to any other belief.
of course it does.
Again, it would be more helpful if you would try *explaining why* instead
of simply stating this as fact! First define your terms; start off by
trying to give a definition- in your own words- of 'pro-life'. Then
explain how a profession of being pro-life gives any more indication of
ones attitude towards force than a profession of (just about) any other
cause.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 01:05:36 PM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1603050016540001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <1110752197.125183.60550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns961881EC6B1A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Tell you what, why don't you take everything you think you
know about abortion, throw it in the trash, and start over
again. You've been hammering away at this for fifteen years
and have changed no minds
how do you know it wasn't exactly the arguments i have posted which
convinced anti-choicers to abandon that stance and, instead, suppport
the choice position?
Because, apart from verbatim quotes from other people and minor
restatements of well-worn pro-choice chestnuts- the only arguments
from you are silly little children's games like obsessively asking
people to apologize for lying and demanding they restore deleted
quoted text.
i see you are feeling so insecure about your now clearly false claim that
you attack me.
you'll feel better if you don;t post any such claims for me to question
you about.
specifically, if you've been around for 15 years, then you know that
dan king changed his position from anti- to pro-choice. others did
too. as i recall, dan credited my arguments, in part, for his
enlightenment.
Ah yes, that mythic
what "mythic?"
i named an individual who actively posted to the abortion newsgroups for
years.
are you so empty of data that you attack others for your ignorance?
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
Answer the question. If you think forcing women to abort their
pregnancies is anything other than a nusiance or an inconvenience,
please tell me why.
i think it is exactly as bad as preventing women from aborting.
anyone who has any respect for women would share that view. forcing
women to abort a pregnacy is the same as preventing women from
aborting a pregnancy.
Good Lord, you're evading the question.
now you're just lying.
apparently you have no issue with force.
Neither do you.
misrepresenting my abortion position gains you nothing.
Ah, so you're an anarchist! Smash the state, baby!
your misrepresentations have nothing to do with anarchy. rather they are
the result of yoru limited ability to deal with concepts.
To be pro-life, however, gives no more indication of one's
attitude towards force than does adherence to any other belief.
of course it does.
Again, it would be more helpful if you would try *explaining why*
when you ask to be treated as an imbicile, i admit i haven't always
complied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: to break the display case, you must use force |
16 Mar 2005 09:25:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns961B8F521A004keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1603050016540001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <1110752197.125183.60550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
how do you know it wasn't exactly the arguments i have posted which
convinced anti-choicers to abandon that stance and, instead, suppport
the choice position?
Because, apart from verbatim quotes from other people and minor
restatements of well-worn pro-choice chestnuts- the only arguments
from you are silly little children's games like obsessively asking
people to apologize for lying and demanding they restore deleted
quoted text.
i see you are feeling so insecure about your now clearly false claim that
you attack me.
Maybe you did. But the reason I gave- your nonexistant capacity for
originality- is the reason I have difficulty believing it.
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway?
that's your strawman.
Answer the question. If you think forcing women to abort their
pregnancies is anything other than a nusiance or an inconvenience,
please tell me why.
i think it is exactly as bad as preventing women from aborting.
anyone who has any respect for women would share that view. forcing
women to abort a pregnacy is the same as preventing women from
aborting a pregnancy.
Good Lord, you're evading the question.
now you're just lying.
So what were do doing when you failed to answer my question both times? I
didn't ask you what it's "exactly as bad as", I asked you WHY it's bad--
why it's 'worse than jury duty', as I said in the part you elided.
apparently you have no issue with force.
Neither do you.
misrepresenting my abortion position gains you nothing.
Ah, so you're an anarchist! Smash the state, baby!
your misrepresentations have nothing to do with anarchy. rather they are
the result of yoru limited ability to deal with concepts.
Let me spell it out: do you or do you not believe in a police force and a
criminal justice system, and- if you do- how does this *not* mean you
"have no issue with force."
This pisses me off. You're incapable of comprehending what I say
*explicitly*, yet somehow you feel qualified to tell me where my unspoken
interests and motivations lie in this issue. Am I to believe you reach
your conclusions independently, or that you're parroting them from
somebody else?
If you and Paul Anderson and Ray Fisher were really concerned about
people 'misrepresenting your positions', you would *explain* them, you
would *defend* them. Instead, it's just an autistic scrawl of 'apologize
for your misrepresentations', 'stop lying about my position' blah blah
blah. At least explain *how* you think I'm lying, geez.
Read some of Plato's Socratic dialogues. Socrates was always taking
people's positions and trying to extrapolate them, trying to push them to
some sort of crisis point-- an "ideaological eschatology" of sorts. Yet
somehow everybody knew better than to say something asinine like
"Apologize for lying about my position!"
To be pro-life, however, gives no more indication of one's
attitude towards force than does adherence to any other belief.
of course it does.
Again, it would be more helpful if you would try *explaining why*
when you ask to be treated as an imbicile, i admit i haven't always
complied.
Look, I pull you away from your script and all the pilfered grandiosity
of "Restating My Abortion Position" goes to pot. You even have more typos;
pretty soon you'll be back to writing sentences like "just go back in
tghis thread to the first post where you lied you can tell which one that
was by my response which commented on your lie."
Keegan: I understand your dumbass position perfectly-- I understand that
it's completely meaningless. And it's meaningless because you can only
restate it; you're unable to defend it. Whenever I try to challenge you
(by "you" I refer to the triune non-Personality of KeeganFisherAnderson)
on your beliefs, you immediately, reflexively accuse me of lying. If it's
such a wonderful position, don't immediately shove it back into its glass
display case whenever anybody wants to examine it; take it out of it's
case and let everyone see it for what it is.
Ponder these two apposite Nietzsche quotes:
"To prove a conviction is quite senseless; rather, it is important to
prove that one has a right to be so convinced."
"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it
is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions."
Also, think about what the t.a poster Cleopatra might have meant by this.
"Anyway, as I'm sure you've noted, not a one of these clowns can think
conceptually. Abstract thinking is foreign to these sloganeering parrots
(Pro-Choice, Squawk! - Pro-Choice, Squawk!; A woman's body, Screech!, A
woman's Body, Screech!), so the minute you draw an analogy to illustrate
anything, what few neurons they do have remaining in those mushy skulls
start misfiring and they faint dead away due to the heavy duty you imposed
on their enormous intellects. Like, tell one of 'em bowling balls
generally sink in ponds and they'll come back and ask you what bowling
balls have to do with ponds, or better yet tell you they don't have a
bowling ball so what's the relevance!"
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: to break the display case, you must use force |
16 Mar 2005 11:00:04 PM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1603051501490001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns961B8F521A004keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i see you are feeling so insecure about your now clearly false claim
that you attack me.
Maybe you did. But the reason I gave- your nonexistant capacity for
originality- is the reason I have difficulty believing it.
if that is your excuse for your misrepresentation, i forgive you.
[..]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: to break the display case, you must use force |
16 Mar 2005 09:40:31 PM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
This pisses me off. You're incapable of comprehending
*LIE*
what I say
*explicitly*, yet somehow you feel qualified to tell me where my unspoken
interests and motivations lie in this issue. Am I to believe you reach
your conclusions independently, or that you're parroting them from
somebody else?
*YOU LIE*
If you and Paul Anderson
**LIE**
and Ray Fisher were really concerned about
people 'misrepresenting your positions', you would *explain* them, you
would *defend* them.
!!***WHY DO YOU HATE ???*****
Instead, it's just
* YOU JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN'S BODIES *
an autistic scrawl of 'apologize
for your misrepresentations', 'stop lying about my position' blah blah
blah. At least explain *how* you think I'm lying, geez.
Hey Robert! Stop right there. I want some of that hot explanation action
too you know!
I was just thinking moments before you posted this about how when I had
just joined this NG, I was accused of **lying** and **hatred** before
I'd actually written anything. It all makes sense now.
I guess there's something of the tactics of wartime about it . Like a
cunning noise chamber / chinese water torture/ disorientation strategy.
I'd say good cop/bad cop but I can't work out who the good cop is. I
guess they're all too transparent to play good cop. I'd call it
Kafkaesque, but that implies too much intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: to break the display case, you must use force |
17 Mar 2005 02:24:27 AM |
|
|
In article <4238fc33$0$8745$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
This pisses me off. You're incapable of comprehending
*LIE*
*smirk* I notice you thoughtfully deleted where I exposed your lie.
what I say
*explicitly*, yet somehow you feel qualified to tell me where my unspoken
interests and motivations lie in this issue. Am I to believe you reach
your conclusions independently, or that you're parroting them from
somebody else?
*YOU LIE*
Argumentum ad hominem.
If you and Paul Anderson
**LIE**
Pro-LIE Propaganda. Of course, lies and propaganda are the only things
the Pro-LIE position has.
and Ray Fisher were really concerned about
people 'misrepresenting your positions', you would *explain* them, you
would *defend* them.
!!***WHY DO YOU HATE ???*****
Instead, it's just
* YOU JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN'S BODIES *
What a woman CHOOSES to do with her body is none of your business! How
can I hammer this through your thick skull? *NONE* of your business!
an autistic scrawl of 'apologize
for your misrepresentations', 'stop lying about my position' blah blah
blah. At least explain *how* you think I'm lying, geez.
Hey Robert! Stop right there. I want some of that hot explanation action
too you know!
I was just thinking moments before you posted this about how when I had
just joined this NG, I was accused of **lying** and **hatred** before
I'd actually written anything. It all makes sense now.
I guess there's something of the tactics of wartime about it . Like a
cunning noise chamber / chinese water torture/ disorientation strategy.
I get the impression that it goes along with the ulterior motive
arguments-- furtive attacks on the idea of a human being as a creature
that can look beyond its solipsistic bubble, its moist little subterranean
desires, and can be concerned about The World Out There. I do think the
end result is to effect a moral "disorientation." The word "lie" does seem
awfully depleted by this point, doesn't it?
I'd say good cop/bad cop but I can't work out who the good cop is. I
guess they're all too transparent to play good cop. I'd call it
Kafkaesque, but that implies too much intelligence.
To be honest, I'm never really sure how much these discussions really
have to do with abortion in reality, and I worry that they've succeeded in
reducing me to those protracted "POST EVIDENCE OR RETRACT" usenet
exchanges waged between parties who think being boring is smart. I think I
would find the same tactics used in an argument about pretty much anything
just as irritating, only with abortion I have an emotional investment, and
they try to exploit that to jerk me around in circles. Perhaps a broader
question would be why the pro-choice movement is so effective at
pied-pipering these dead souls from every walk of life.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: to break the display case, you must use force |
17 Mar 2005 03:36:42 AM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
To be honest,
Cite. No, you can't cite so you just spew hate.
I'm never really sure how much
"How much?" More pro-lie "how muchness", I see. WOMEN are *not* your slaves.
these discussions really
have to do with abortion in reality, and I worry that they've succeeded in
reducing me to those protracted "POST EVIDENCE OR RETRACT" usenet
exchanges waged between parties who think being boring is smart.
POST EVIDENCE OR RETRACT THAT *LIE*
I think I would find the same tactics used in an argument about pretty much anything
just as irritating, only with abortion I have an emotional investment,
What unborn child??? There is no PERSON in abortion. Can you show me
their drivers licence or a recent utility bill? Or even a photograph
taken with Michael Jackson? No?? Why must you *lie*??
and
they try to exploit that to jerk me around in circles. Perhaps a broader
question would be why the pro-choice movement is so effective at
pied-pipering these dead souls from every walk of life.
Because they have virtually no self esteem, and the pro-abortion
position is the ultimate expression of a lack of respect for yourself or
others. It is the refuge of the broken and those damaged by life. I mock
them, but really they are as much victims of the culture of death as the
innocent lives they show such contempt for.
I've been reading your essays again, Always a new insight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 03:50:43 PM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
Waving that magic wand of a word- "women"-
doesn't change the issue at all, no matter how laden it is with a subtext
of victimazation and subjugation.
Well put. The same people that posit abortion as tool of female equality
and empowerment simultaneously play up to the redundant patronising
stereotype of women who choose to have abortions as an oppressed
underclass. I do believe that Cleopatra once talked about the
infantilization of women, and how the pro-abortion movement fuels it.
How true.
Ever noticed how much sweaty testosterone fuelled machismo swagger there
is in the language of Patrick Chilfischer? Ever noticed how much
alpha-male posturing there is in the way they bellow "women are NOT your
slaves". Weird, eh?
You, Robert, wrote in an essay about how these people suck the debate
onto their ground. CHOICE is that great meaningless, illusory word that
their argument revolves around. If these women had any CHOICE it would
not be necessary to paint them as victims.
There are two equally incorrect and equally inaccurate generalisations
of women who have abortions. One is that all women who have abortions
are victims, driven to abortion out of desperation, the other is of this
triumphal uberclass of liberated females having great sex with loads of
great guys and taking charge of her body. The truth is somewhere in
between. It is merely fair to say that some women are more culpable than
others, and that it is a male dominated society that is considerably to
blame, but these psychopaths who paint electing to kill your child as a
joyful expression of self determination are sick fantasists and liars to
boot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:57:42 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
Waving that magic wand of a word- "women"-
doesn't change the issue at all, no matter how laden it is with a subtext
of victimazation and subjugation.
Well put. The same people that posit abortion as tool of female equality
....are largly a fabrication of anti-choice propagandists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 03:58:11 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
Waving that magic wand of a word- "women"-
doesn't change the issue at all, no matter how laden it is with a subtext
of victimazation and subjugation.
Well put. The same people that posit abortion as tool of female equality
and empowerment simultaneously play up to the redundant patronising
stereotype of women who choose to have abortions as an oppressed
underclass. I do believe that Cleopatra once talked about the
infantilization of women, and how the pro-abortion movement fuels it.
How true.
Ever noticed how much sweaty testosterone fuelled machismo swagger there
is in the language of Patrick Chilfischer? Ever noticed how much
alpha-male posturing there is in the way they bellow "women are NOT your
slaves". Weird, eh?
You, Robert, wrote in an essay about how these people suck the debate
onto their ground. CHOICE is that great meaningless, illusory word that
their argument revolves around. If these women had any CHOICE it would
not be necessary to paint them as victims.
There are two equally incorrect and equally inaccurate generalisations
of women who have abortions. One is that all women who have abortions
are victims, driven to abortion out of desperation, the other is of this
triumphal uberclass of liberated females having great sex with loads of
great guys and taking charge of her body. The truth is somewhere in
between. It is merely fair to say that some women are more culpable than
others, and that it is a male dominated society that is considerably to
blame, but these psychopaths who paint electing to kill your child as a
joyful expression of self determination are sick fantasists and liars to
boot.
Exactly who paints killing children as "a joyful expression of self
determination"?
--
"you made a typo and i fixed it." moaned liar and hypocrite james g
keegan jr. as he tried to excuse what he erroneously defines as forgery.
<2mt7lk$qt9@usenet.rpi.edu>
"Fixed it for you" My reply to liar and hypocrite james g keegan jr.
when I corrected a typo he made. <iJvpd.5261$gs2.223@news01.roc.ny> He
foolishly and ignorantly considers that post a forgery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 04:45:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:58:11 +0000, Frank Dwyer wrote:
[...]
ahhh, there you are, forger frankie, begging for my attention again.
---
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 04:57:26 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:58:11 +0000, Frank Dwyer wrote:
[...]
ahhh, there you are, forger frankie, begging for my attention again.
There you are, jester jimmy, hiding from your past by lying in the present.
--
"you made a typo and i fixed it." moaned liar and hypocrite james g
keegan jr. as he tried to excuse what he erroneously defines as forgery.
<2mt7lk$qt9@usenet.rpi.edu>
"Fixed it for you" My reply to liar and hypocrite james g keegan jr.
when I corrected a typo he made. <iJvpd.5261$gs2.223@news01.roc.ny> He
foolishly and ignorantly considers that post a forgery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 05:10:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:57:26 +0000, Frank Dwyer wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:58:11 +0000, Frank Dwyer wrote:
[...]
ahhh, there you are, forger frankie, begging for my attention again.
There you are, jester jimmy,
but you knew where i was, forger frankie. of course you also suggested
just a day ago you were going to ignore me, but we both know that's far
beyond your abilities.
heck, if i can make you hate yourself a bit less, i'm happy to help.
---
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 06:50:27 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
of course you also suggested just a day ago you were going to ignore me,
Another lie from usenet's most reviled poster.
What I said, jester, was that I'll stop responding to your little
off-topic threads.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, which would come as no surprise
to anyone, this thread isn't off-topic (at least until you felt
compelled to participate in it, rather than just start it)
but we both know that's far beyond your abilities.
Since you're obviously very frightened of me, feverently clicking any
post I make in the hope you can chime in with one of your 14 year old
quips, I'll stop responding to you completely...
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 08:17:18 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:nd5Zd.405$5x3.183
@news02.roc.ny:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
of course you also suggested just a day ago you were going to ignore me,
Another lie from usenet's most reviled poster.
What I said, jester, was that I'll stop responding to your little
off-topic threads.
since i haven't posted any off-topic threads, i'll smply say sorry, i must
have erred. it seems consistent with your style that you'd weasel out of
making a claim not to respond to me.
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 12:27:28 PM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
And what's so bad about forcing women to abort, anyway? After all, it's
only a pregnancy, it's only "reproductive-process entities."
Good point. By their criteria, forced abortions would be about analagous
to speed limits or restrictions or restrictions on carbon emissions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 10:57:52 AM |
|
|
In article <tagutcow-1203052008060001@user-
0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com>, says...
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
Then why don't they?
Some do. Some people force women to get abortions, just as some people
force women to continue pregnancies. The force might be physical, legal.
financial or emotional (or a combination of those) but it's still force.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 10:15:43 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys, without taking any responsibility for their
actions. If women don't want children, then they shouldn't let these
promiscuous men USE them to satisfy their own lusts and women shouldn't
pretend that men wanting to have sex with them is love by any means, or they
shouldn't be whores and sluts for their own selfish sexual lusts as well,
and begin to have some respect for themselves, so they wouldn't be in the
position to KILL what their own actions have caused the consequences
thereof. So it appears that YOU just want to USE women for your own selfish
lusts, because all you care about is having sex and not about the
consequences of that action.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort
i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:39:15 PM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> writes:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys, without taking any responsibility for their
actions. If women don't want children, then they shouldn't let these
promiscuous men USE them to satisfy their own lusts and women shouldn't
pretend that men wanting to have sex with them is love by any means, or they
shouldn't be whores and sluts for their own selfish sexual lusts as well,
and begin to have some respect for themselves, so they wouldn't be in the
position to KILL what their own actions have caused the consequences
thereof. So it appears that YOU just want to USE women for your own selfish
lusts, because all you care about is having sex and not about the
consequences of that action.
So call the cops, Mrs. God, if you really believe your own religious
insanity. (I share a lot of Jim's opinion, in this instance, so maybe you'd
better call my local PD as well. 713 308-8000 is where you can find them. Be
sure and tell them you're God, okay?)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 8, San Antonio 0 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 14 vs. Cincinnati, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 08:10:10 AM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as
nothing more than breeding stock.
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child,
this is an abortion discussion. it has nothing to do with killing children.
no children are involved.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:12:46 PM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys, without taking any responsibility for
their actions. If women don't want children, then they shouldn't let
these promiscuous men USE them to satisfy their own lusts and women
shouldn't pretend that men wanting to have sex with them is love by any
means, or they shouldn't be whores and sluts for their own selfish
sexual lusts as well, and begin to have some respect for themselves, so
they wouldn't be in the position to KILL what their own actions have
caused the consequences thereof. So it appears that YOU just want to
USE women for your own selfish lusts, because all you care about is
having sex and not about the consequences of that action.
Sounds like you are speaking from experience, loser.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:43:12 AM |
|
|
In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,
says...
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,
Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy. The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:42:10 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9f892e1caf2e2f98c300@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,
says...
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,
Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.
How do you know?
You are into that, too?
The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))
And, what that means to you is kill it if you do not want it even if it
means killing it after it is born, right?
"God save the Queen", or would you be against that, too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 12:07:05 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9f892e1caf2e2f98c300@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <Pd8Zd.2764$aS5.1399@trndny05>,
says...
Anyone who permits and supports women to murder their own child, simply
wants to use women as sex toys,
Infanticide has nothing to do with a woman chooing not to continue her
pregnancy.
How do you know?
Well, she *is* a woman, and could be a parent too, for all you know.
You are into that, too?
You're into trying to smear her by asking such a question.
The issue in talk.abortion is women choosing whether or not
to contune their pregnancies, so your comment above is off topic here!
;-))
And, what that means to you is kill it if you do not want it even if it
means killing it after it is born, right?
That's your defective imagination. Quit assigning it to anyone else.
"God save the Queen", or would you be against that, too?
Is there anything that you're NOT against? (Besides your insanity, of
course.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 8, San Antonio 0 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 14 vs. Cincinnati, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
