| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2006 09:59:10 PM |
| Object: |
Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/12006g.asp
(AgapePress) - From a study published in the July issue of the Journal
of Medical Ethics comes the realization that women want to know about
all the possible risks related to elective medical procedures,
especially abortion.
The findings came from 187 women who were administered brief surveys
that asked them to state their preferences for information regarding
elective medical procedures. The women also ranked their informational
preferences for alternative treatments and complication rates as well
as the level of severity of various complications. Based on the
rankings, 95 percent of patients want to know about all the risks of a
procedure, and 69 percent want to know about all alternative treatments
-- not just the ones their doctors recommend.
In ranking the severity of complications, women pinned mental health
problems as very serious, which is especially important since abortion
has been linked to an increase in suicidal behavior, clinical
depression and substance abuse, among other mental problems.
Dr. David Reardon, co-author of the study and director of the Elliot
Institute, explained that the study "demonstrates that women have a
high level of interest in being informed of any risk that is
statistically associated with the procedure, including psychological
risks."
Therefore, Reardon believes the study opposes doctors withholding
information about the risks of abortion simply because they believe
future studies will eventually disqualify earlier findings.
"Our study shows that most women don't want doctors to screen which
information they are told about risks," Reardon said. "They want to
judge the evidence for themselves.
"They clearly prefer to be fully informed about all possible
complications," he continued, "even if abortion providers insist that
the causal links between abortion and these statistically linked
complications have yet to be fully proven to the abortionist's
satisfaction."
.
|
|
| User: "Marty" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 10:06:01 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
The Bible is clear about abortion and why she has no right to her own body..
Here are some passages from the Bible that prove it:
Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating
man,
both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two
genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man:
"...the
LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that
he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam
(Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God
created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically
been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern
interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status.
"...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old
Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In
Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her:
"...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In
ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by
naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version
(KJV),
New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the
term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to
thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term
"master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of
their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as
he
desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he
took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with
3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many;
Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash,
Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in
sexual
intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go
in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably
this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in
the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at
her owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that
he
bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is
frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although
other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to
be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which
have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye
to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot
is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of
the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple
rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low
status of the young women.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These
were
sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this
verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as
saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this
bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two
concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz:
1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam:
60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish
boys at
birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he
said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them
upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a
daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important,
were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in
the
Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father.
At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet
thy
neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his
manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his *****, nor any thing
that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and
a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and
maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife,
male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns.
The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve:
and in
the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given
him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her
children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A
slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There
is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction.
After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would
remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the
woman was consulted on this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she
shall not
go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave.
Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years,
a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with
restitution
in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17
deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a
property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to
marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his
daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money
to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the
father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to
marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and
one
hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow,
the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their
act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been
deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he
shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon
him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts
of
unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year
all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the
Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to
a
boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is
unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child:
then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then
she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having a
baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as
polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse
with
his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy
neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man
that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth
adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a
man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an
affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married
men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not
commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male
neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5
shekels if
a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto
five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of
silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of
silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of
one
month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their
fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt
thou number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced
to
perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest
prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the
floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required
the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her
abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:11:28 AM |
|
|
Marty <martywilson5@gmail.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
The Bible is clear about abortion and why she has no right to her own body..
Here are some passages from the Bible that prove it:
I notice that not one single quote is from the new testament.
Why do you hate Jesus?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Animal" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:29:25 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45712720$0$34501$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Marty <martywilson5@gmail.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
The Bible is clear about abortion and why she has no right to her own body..
Here are some passages from the Bible that prove it:
I notice that not one single quote is from the new testament.
Why do you hate Jesus?
\
Are you kidding? Jesus loved people.
Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell and the rest just use his name to raise
$$!
You must have "the wrong Jesus"
Then, there's that song by Depeche Mode
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/depeche+mode/personal+jesus_20039367.html
Few of the assholes who are religious know that U2 (who have been a band since
1977) are committed Christians.
They just hate Bono because he's a "lefty".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "penny " |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
03 Dec 2006 02:02:43 AM |
|
|
On 02 Dec 2006 07:11:28 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Marty <martywilson5@gmail.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
The Bible is clear about abortion and why she has no right to her own body..
Here are some passages from the Bible that prove it:
I notice that not one single quote is from the new testament.
Why do you hate Jesus?
How can one hate Jesus when he did not exist.
Jesus is a symbol, a myth based on Pagan mythology . Many of today's
theologians have accepted this fact.
The Canadian Tom Harpur has accepted the fact that Jesus was a myth
and it has not changed his faith in god or religion. He feels that
"the power of God as the Christ within our own consciousness is the
best proof of the authenticity of true Christianity."
I think that's rather lovely , and I'm an agnostic/atheist.
You should try reading Tom Harpur's book, The Pagan Christ. It's
excellent. BTW , I'm an agnostic/atheist.
Reading the bible literally as you do is not good for your well-being.
Penny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 11:16:18 PM |
|
|
Marty wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Animal" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 11:26:57 PM |
|
|
"ArthurP" <arthurpaliden@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165036578.310427.200260@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Marty wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
You were replying to J Young, not me.
My nephew has 2 kids, 27 years old and a highly respectable young man.. And in
1978 when he was a bulge in his mom's gut (my sister-in-law), he was the reason
why my brother and his wife weren't allowed to be married in the Catholic
church.
They were married at Toronto's old City Hall in a civic ceremony, despite the
decades of respect and worship my sister-in-law and her French Canadian /
Belgian French family had paid to the local Diocese.
Did the Church somehow believe that my nephew was human garbage because he was
born out of wedlock?
I think so. Why else would they have refused my brother to marry his wife in
1978?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:16:51 AM |
|
|
Animal wrote:
"ArthurP" <arthurpaliden@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165036578.310427.200260@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Marty wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
You were replying to J Young, not me.
My nephew has 2 kids, 27 years old and a highly respectable young man.. And in
1978 when he was a bulge in his mom's gut (my sister-in-law), he was the reason
why my brother and his wife weren't allowed to be married in the Catholic
church.
They were married at Toronto's old City Hall in a civic ceremony, despite the
decades of respect and worship my sister-in-law and her French Canadian /
Belgian French family had paid to the local Diocese.
Did the Church somehow believe that my nephew was human garbage because he was
born out of wedlock?
I think so. Why else would they have refused my brother to marry his wife in
1978?
My father was once told by a 'man of the cloth' that the reason I
almosted died twice when a child was because he studied Paleontology
and believed that the would was older that defined in the Bible. We
stopped going to church soon afterward.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 11:24:22 PM |
|
|
ArthurP wrote:
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
Slaughtering pre-born babies in their mother's womb is violent.
Picketing outside an abortion mill is only voicing one's opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:14:22 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<1165037062.041806.270490@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented J Young
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Slaughtering pre-born babies
There is no such thing as a "pre-born babies."
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with
Kuwait." -- Bush's Ambassador April Glaspie, giving Saddam Hussein
the greenlight to invade Kuwait.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:11:52 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
Slaughtering pre-born babies in their mother's womb is violent.
No, it's just more of your hate-filled lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 11:35:35 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
Slaughtering pre-born babies in their mother's womb is violent.
Picketing outside an abortion mill is only voicing one's opinion.
And blowing one up is ....
And killing a doctor is ....
And killing bystanders is ....
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:06:00 AM |
|
|
ArthurP wrote:
J Young wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
Why is it that you Pro-Lifers so violent. I would have thought that
killing was somewhat, you know, Anti-Life.
Slaughtering pre-born babies in their mother's womb is violent.
Picketing outside an abortion mill is only voicing one's opinion.
And blowing one up is ....
And killing a doctor is ....
And killing bystanders is ....
You are talking about such a SMALL SMALL MINORITY of wackos who have
taken things to the extreme. How you are phrasing things is no
different than those who accused all muslims of supporting muslim
terrorist, or being terrorist themselves.
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1165039559.962976.41330@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
[..]
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock, not that you'd grasp
that concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:45:34 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets. The reality is that you're just like idiot
heishman, except maybe not as smart.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Animal" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:04:56 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets. The reality is that you're just like idiot
heishman, except maybe not as smart.
That's probably why gun aficionados never give their virgin bride a Desert Eagle
mark XIX as a wedding present.
It's best to start with an older mark VII. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:49:57 AM |
|
|
In article <4571210e$0$34501$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets.
why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
of course you'll run away without ever supporting your lie; just like
your image, osprey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:28:22 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets.
why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
What "lie", pervert?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 08:45:36 AM |
|
|
In article <45712b16$0$34575$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of
you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets.
why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
====begin restore unmarked deletiuon
of course you'll run away without ever supporting your lie; just like
your image, osprey.
=== end restore unmarked deletion
What "lie", pervert?
keep running away little puppy, just like osprey. you anti-choicers
are all the same
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 11:08:46 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <45712b16$0$34575$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all of
you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets.
why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
What "lie", pervert?
keep running away little puppy,
I didn't think you'd be able to find any. You'ee just a pathetic
little loser who shits and runs away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 11:52:39 AM |
|
|
In article <4571b31e$0$34578$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <45712b16$0$34575$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ArthurP wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that practically all if not all
of
you
pro-lifers spout all these absolutes never having had to make the
decision between the life to the unborn and the life of the
mother.
And I am sure that many pro-choicers haven't had to make that
decision
either.
the difference, of course, is that one group would enslave woman,
treating them no better than breeding stock,
And you argue that men should be enslaved, treated like little more
than walking wallets.
why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
====begin restore unmarked deletiuon
of course you'll run away without ever supporting your lie; just like
your image, osprey.
=== end restore unmarked deletion
What "lie", pervert?
keep running away little puppy,
==begin restore unmarked deletion
keep running away little puppy, just like osprey. you anti-choicers
are all the same
"What I proposed would allow a woman to end
her pregnancy at any time for any reason,
but would place restrictions on the methods."
<rayCJBvtr....@netcom.com>
"Any method that allows saving the life of the fetus without
placing the mother at significant additional risk."
<rayCJE1K1....@netcom.com>
===end restore unmarked deletion
I didn't think
indeed. anti-choice cowards like you rarely do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:27:46 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
You are talking about such a SMALL SMALL MINORITY of wackos who have
taken things to the extreme. How you are phrasing things is no
different than those who accused all muslims of supporting muslim
terrorist, or being terrorist themselves.
Then why, like the Muslim community, do you all blindly rush to their
support and make excuses for their actions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 12:49:06 AM |
|
|
ArthurP wrote:
osprey wrote:
You are talking about such a SMALL SMALL MINORITY of wackos who have
taken things to the extreme. How you are phrasing things is no
different than those who accused all muslims of supporting muslim
terrorist, or being terrorist themselves.
Then why, like the Muslim community, do you all blindly rush to their
support and make excuses for their actions.
Of course I could ask you to support your statement...but we both know
that you can't do that. And we both know that I am not making any
excuses for their actions or supporting them at all. So why do you
want to go that route and lie?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 10:14:18 PM |
|
|
Marty wrote:
Please note that the origianl Bible, Emperor Constintine - The Council
of Nicaea, was a government publication and that the next major
translation, the King James Bible, was also a governent work project
and we all know how truthful government publications are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marty" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 10:22:10 PM |
|
|
"ArthurP" <arthurpaliden@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165032858.626432.184440@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marty wrote:
Please note that the origianl Bible, Emperor Constintine - The Council
of Nicaea, was a government publication and that the next major
translation, the King James Bible, was also a governent work project
and we all know how truthful government publications are.
\
Sorry man. I'm not a Bible beater.
I just found a really neat website quoting the book of ancient fables which
proves that fundamentalist Christian beliefs are full of as much ***** as they
are of irony.
Personally, I sacrifice a burnt offering to Zeus before I buy a lottery ticket.
It gives me luck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArthurP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
01 Dec 2006 10:48:49 PM |
|
|
Marty wrote:
"ArthurP" <arthurpaliden@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165032858.626432.184440@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marty wrote:
Please note that the origianl Bible, Emperor Constintine - The Council
of Nicaea, was a government publication and that the next major
translation, the King James Bible, was also a governent work project
and we all know how truthful government publications are.
\
Sorry man. I'm not a Bible beater.
I just found a really neat website quoting the book of ancient fables which
proves that fundamentalist Christian beliefs are full of as much ***** as they
are of irony.
Personally, I sacrifice a burnt offering to Zeus before I buy a lottery ticket.
It gives me luck.
If you never win try this instead:
According to Plato (Republic 565d-e), a particular clan would gather on
the mountain to make a sacrifice every eight years to Zeus Lykaios, and
a single morsel of human entrails would be intermingled with the
animal's. Whoever ate the human flesh was said to turn into a wolf, and
could only regain human form if he did not eat again of human flesh
until the next eight-year cycle had ended. [Wikipedia]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arved Sandstrom" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
03 Dec 2006 04:36:41 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
[ SNIP ]
What makes you think that people who wish abortion to be retained as a
medical option have any objection to full disclosure of information? In
general, that is - I'm sure you can always find a few people who are as
shady on the pro-choice side as the people are on the pro-life side.
For example, I'm pro-choice with caveats. I think abortion should absolutely
be an option for minors, all women who have been raped, and in cases where
the mother's life is at risk. In all of these cases I have no problem with
all the people involved getting as much information as they ask for, and
more.
In other cases, I tend to be realistic. People have sex for recreational
purposes, and they often don't wish to have kids as a result of it. Despite
one's best efforts with condoms, contraceptives and so forth, stuff happens.
Or it may be as a simple as the woman wasn't on the pill, the man had no
condoms, and both are intoxicated. I'd much rather keep abortion open as an
option in this general scenario, because there is no wish to have a child,
and very likely it's not a situation that a child should be born into.
But under all circumstances, I personally have no problem with information
being provided freely and in great quantities.
I do have an issue with "shock" information. Other elective procedures don't
mandate a barrage of visuals best left for med school anatomy classes, nor
do they require that the prospective patient be bombarded with a mass of
statistics on the dangers of the procedure. With everything except abortion,
it seems, there is a balanced presentation of pros and cons. What you
characters want is all cons and no pros.
As one example, there's no doubt in my mind that abortion is an emotionally
traumatic event, with lasting consequences. And women considering abortion
should be advised that there is an increased risk of them having mental
health issues afterwards. What you pro-life types tend to ignore is that
women who choose to have an abortion are very likely in a mentally taxing
situation anyway (and hence subsequent mental health problems may be related
to any of a number of causes, not specifically the abortion). Also, how
exactly do you know what the woman's mental state was *before* she had the
abortion? Do all women who have abortions have a long history of seeing a
psychiatrist? I doubt it.
On the subject of statistics, let me leave you with one final observation.
Take this initial statement, and assume that it's true (and it may well be):
"women who have abortions have a higher subsequent risk of some mental
health problems". Tell me if you can figure out why this conclusion -
"abortion is linked to a greater risk of mental illnesses" - is
statistically and logically flawed. If you can't, you either never took
statistics or you're wilfully blind.
As a final note, I reject your group's usurpation of the label "pro-life". I
think you'll find that the majority of people who are pro-abortion to some
degree (pro-choice is not a bad label) are very "pro-life", and IMHO
generally more so than you characters. You know why? Because you types don't
strike me as being particularly interested in the quality of life of the
child - your job stops when the unaborted baby enters the world, and if it
so happens that the baby's mother is a 15 year-old crack-addicted
non-school-going prostitute, that's just a detail - the important thing is
that God's law was not defied.
AHS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
03 Dec 2006 05:35:08 PM |
|
|
Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
[ SNIP ]
What makes you think that people who wish abortion to be retained as a
medical option have any objection to full disclosure of information?
Jon Young is a troll and a shameless liar. There is no lie too evil
that he won't use it to attack his enemies. He hates anything which
permits people to ignore his religion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arved Sandstrom" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
04 Dec 2006 04:35:36 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45735f2c$0$34540$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165031950.240012.175110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
[ SNIP ]
What makes you think that people who wish abortion to be retained as a
medical option have any objection to full disclosure of information?
Jon Young is a troll and a shameless liar. There is no lie too evil
that he won't use it to attack his enemies. He hates anything which
permits people to ignore his religion.
Or to be more precise, his interpretation of a religion.
The hypocrisy inherent in the OP's statement is that there isn't a chance
that he (or any of his ilk) are actually interested in sharing _all_ the
information.
AHS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 04:08:29 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in news:1165031950.240012.175110@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study
The biggest risk is being nagged at by an ***** without a uterus.
--
Doc Smartass
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." -- Relf's Law
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 01:10:28 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision?
Because you think that your shameless lies are "sharing information".
Do you tell women that childbirth is ten times as likely to kill them
as is abortion?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Risks: Women Want to Know, Says Study |
02 Dec 2006 09:46:32 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Why is it that we pro-lifers are the ones who wish to share with women
*all* the information available to her before she makes that fatal
decision? What are the so called 'pro-choicers' trying to hide?
Why is it that you pro-lifers are so concerned about the possible
risks of legal abortion but don't accept that banning abortions
just forces desperate women to seek illegal abortions which are
even riskier?
Why is it that you pro lifers oppose abortion on the basis of a
belief in the sanctity of life but support the death penalty?
Are you all like fishermen who consider the small ones unfair so
you toss them back so you can kill them when they are bigger?
Why is is that so many of you pro life types are so opposed to
women aborting unwanted pregnancies, but you don't give a damn
about the welfare of the babies that result from unwanted
pregnancies?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
