| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 08:14:31 PM |
| Object: |
Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women' when the
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
for mothers and their pre-born baby girls. Those of us who are 'pro-
life' respect women too much to dismiss these lives as irrelevant.
Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions Australia Officials Complain
Canberra, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- Officials in Australia are
concerned about a new kit that can be used to determine the sex of an
unborn child. They say that allowing someone to more easily identify
the gender of a baby could lead to abortions if the sex of the baby
isn't what his or her parents desire.
The mail order kit uses a DNA test to determine the gender of the
unborn baby at six weeks into the pregnancy and it can be ordered over
the Internet for under $500.
The Pink or Blue Early Test Kit claims to be 99 percent accurate and
it uses a finger ***** of blood from the mother to determine the sex
of the child. Results can be obtained online after processing.
A member of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which regulates
drugs on the island nation, said it can't stop people there from
ordering the kits but it is looking into them.
"The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) are aware of
it and is seeking advice from the human genetics advisory committee,"
an official told the Advertiser newspaper.
Meanwhile, Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott, who has been outspoken
against abortion and tried to prevent sales of the dangerous RU 486
abortion drug, has asked the federal government to look into the kit.
"I have to say, speaking as a citizen rather than as a health
minister, I tend to view kids should be regarded as a gift to be
cherished rather than as a commodity," Abbott told News Limited.
"Abortion is tragic and I think abortion for sex selection is
something which should be avoided. It doesn't strike me as something
that people ought to be doing."
Australian Family Association spokesman Gabrielle Walsh called on the
government there to block sales of the kit.
"Sex selection in terms of family planning is of grave concern, more
baby girls are aborted under these conditions than boys -- it is a
terrible idea," she told the newspaper.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
13 May 2007 12:34:37 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women'
Compared to you pro-liar lunatics Jack the Ripper was pro-woman.
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
Childbirth is ten times as likely to kill a woman as is an abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
13 May 2007 02:04:37 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 1:34 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women'
Compared to you pro-liar lunatics Jack the Ripper was pro-woman.
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
Childbirth is ten times as likely to kill a woman as is an abortion.
How many women in the United States gave birth in the year 2006?
How many women in the United States died as a result of childbirth in
the year 2006?
What we are going to see is that Fischer doesn't know the answers, and
he just likes to throw around unsupported figures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
13 May 2007 03:42:10 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 12:04 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:34 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women'
Compared to you pro-liar lunatics Jack the Ripper was pro-woman.
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
Childbirth is ten times as likely to kill a woman as is an abortion.
How many women in the United States gave birth in the year 2006?
How many women in the United States died as a result of childbirth in
the year 2006?
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
What we are going to see is that Fischer doesn't know the answers, and
he just likes to throw around unsupported figures.
He's a brick short of a load and obviously hates children.
If he cared about women he would do something about all
those babies killed in the womb because they are female.
Only cowards murder those who can't defend themselves.
These tarts have obviously never heard of adoption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
13 May 2007 04:58:21 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 4:42 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On May 13, 12:04 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:34 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women'
Compared to you pro-liar lunatics Jack the Ripper was pro-woman.
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
Childbirth is ten times as likely to kill a woman as is an abortion.
How many women in the United States gave birth in the year 2006?
How many women in the United States died as a result of childbirth in
the year 2006?
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
I realize that Fischer has serious mental issues, but neither you nor
I can help him. He is not going to get help, he is going to continue
his very childish actions in this newsgroup. I totally agree with
what you said.
What we are going to see is that Fischer doesn't know the answers, and
he just likes to throw around unsupported figures.
He's a brick short of a load and obviously hates children.
Absolutely, and he has shown he supports and/or favors the chopping up
and/or crushing of the fetus skull. How someone can rejoice in that
and not see how it's barbaric, only demonstrates just how sick and
twisted he really is. I knew that he had mental problems before, but
until I found out he actually votes for and/or supports those who chop
up a fetus and/or crushes the skull of a fetus....I had no idea how
sick he really was. Now, he has gone from weird, to sicko..to scarey.
If he cared about women he would do something about all
those babies killed in the womb because they are female.
Only cowards murder those who can't defend themselves.
These tarts have obviously never heard of adoption.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pinch" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
26 May 2007 01:57:24 PM |
|
|
On May 13, 4:42 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On May 13, 12:04 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:34 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
How can these so-called liberals call themselves 'pro-women'
Compared to you pro-liar lunatics Jack the Ripper was pro-woman.
fact is that all these abortion policies lead to higher death rates
Childbirth is ten times as likely to kill a woman as is an abortion.
How many women in the United States gave birth in the year 2006?
How many women in the United States died as a result of childbirth in
the year 2006?
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
What the hell do you think mandated childbirth is, you ignorant *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
26 May 2007 07:33:31 PM |
|
|
On 26 May 2007 11:57:24 -0700, Pinch <pinch@cheerful.com> wrote:
On May 13, 4:42 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On May 13, 12:04 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
How many women in the United States died as a result of childbirth in
the year 2006?
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
What the hell do you think mandated childbirth is, you ignorant *****?
I don't think her Master will allow her to answer that truthfully.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
13 May 2007 03:05:51 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It's a common tactic of the "pro-life" frauds and liars to misrepresent
this as meaning pregnancy is what is meant by "slavery", which is
obviously not the case.
--
I am free to think any way I please. I Corinthians 6:12. - Jim Staal
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 03:19:59 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question, it is the body and
soul of another conceived human being. If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child. And where is the father of her child?
What about *his* rights? Did he consent to the murder of his
child? Have either of them never heard of adoption?
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
It's a common tactic of the "pro-life" frauds and liars to misrepresent
this as meaning pregnancy is what is meant by "slavery", which is
obviously not the case.
--
I am free to think any way I please. I Corinthians 6:12. - Jim Staal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 05:08:48 AM |
|
|
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant. Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
They aren't. They are providing a needed service to their patient.
It's a common tactic of the "pro-life" frauds and liars to misrepresent
this as meaning pregnancy is what is meant by "slavery", which is
obviously not the case.
--
I am free to think any way I please.
Please validate your source before you quote from it.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 05:19:14 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the questions
are???
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion procedures. If
you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is), you
couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't a
human being.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
They aren't. They are providing a needed service to their patient.
Actually they are, the procedure is barbaric. There are doctors who refuse
to do it.
There are doctors who have morals and values, and will not do the procedure
and they can NOT be forced to.
It's a common tactic of the "pro-life" frauds and liars to misrepresent
this as meaning pregnancy is what is meant by "slavery", which is
obviously not the case.
--
I am free to think any way I please.
Please validate your source before you quote from it.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 12:48:11 PM |
|
|
In article <feidnWqz_KA-R9fbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
cites please.
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 05:33:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:19:14 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<feidnWqz_KA-R9fbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com> wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the questions
are???
Yes, it is the only question. All else is an irrelevant side issue.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to.
He mentioned on as if it was something more than a figment of his
imagination.
You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Prove you don't owe me $1000.00. Please process a wire transfer
immediately.
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
No, no such 'studies' have ever been provided. Nothing beyond some
exercise in logic completely lacking an any factual material that was
not ambiguous at best.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion procedures.
Not at all. It is a fact under the law.
If
you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is), you
couldn't possibly justify abortions.
I have never made any attempt to justify abortion. It is not
necessary since it is a simple medical procedure to remedy an unwanted
medical condition. Does an appendectomy need justification?
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't a
human being.
It is not a lie. A fetus has none of the rights or protections
extended by society to human beings.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
As he defines it. Having an abortion can easily be a mark of taking
personal responsibility.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
No, it is not. She is the only person involved since her body is
directly involved.
The father does not need to even be alive.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
No, it is not.
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
As wording in special laws concerning special circumstances. Such
laws can define anything as anything for the purposes of those
particular laws. The blanket statement that a fetus is a child is
wrong.
Of course, the word 'child' is rather overworked since a 90 year old
man can be a child to his 110 year old mother.
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
Fine. Exactly how is a fetus adopted?
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
They aren't. They are providing a needed service to their patient.
Actually they are, the procedure is barbaric.
In your opinion. In mine it is one of the major medical procedures
offered in the 20th century. And continues to be so in the 21st.
There are doctors who refuse
to do it.
So what? It is frequently viewed as a necessary part of ob-gyn
training.
There are doctors who have morals and values, and will not do the procedure
and they can NOT be forced to.
Irrelevant. If they won't others will.
It's a common tactic of the "pro-life" frauds and liars to misrepresent
this as meaning pregnancy is what is meant by "slavery", which is
obviously not the case.
--
I am free to think any way I please.
Please validate your source before you quote from it.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 08:01:08 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of
being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the
questions are???
Who are you?!
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you
work in law enforcement.
Do I have to prove I didn't kill someone?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion
procedures.
Incorrect. A human being is the section of human life from birth to death.
If you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the
fetus is),
And it isn't...
you couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't a
human being.
Actually, let's back up some.
Do you believe that sperm are human beings? Ova?
Where does "human being" begin?
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
Unless the father-to-be is providing for the fetus' wellbeing (providing
nourishment through the umbilicus), then the father-to-be has no say.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
It's only discrimination if the father-to-be can also carry the fetus.
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
And several states once considered born black people to be "property".
Tell me, Osprey, are born black people "property"?
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
You can put a fetus up for adoption?!
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
They aren't. They are providing a needed service to their patient.
Actually they are, the procedure is barbaric. There are doctors who
refuse to do it.
There are doctors who refuse to do many things. So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 08:10:52 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H82dnQLnTubjndbbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're
being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal
of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of
being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the
questions are???
Who are you?!
Somebody who you can't deal with, here or outside the newsgroup.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you work
in law enforcement.
Yep, I do. And he doesn't have to prove a soul does exist. It comes down to
faith, and I know people from ALL walks of life who have faith in God.
If you can't understand that...you're lost.
Do I have to prove I didn't kill someone?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
No, I don't debate nor argue my faith. If you don't believe in God, that's
totally on you.
I do, and if you can't accept that...too bad.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion procedures.
Incorrect. A human being is the section of human life from birth to
death.
No, I was correct.
If you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is),
And it isn't...
It is.
you couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't a
human being.
Actually, let's back up some.
Do you believe that sperm are human beings? Ova?
Without conception? No, they are just a human cell.
Where does "human being" begin?
Conception.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
I completely and totally sympathise with any woman who goes through this.
While I couldn't possibly imagine what she is going through, I understand if
she makes this choice.
Fact though: The abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the rape.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
Unless the father-to-be is providing for the fetus' wellbeing (providing
nourishment through the umbilicus), then the father-to-be has no say.
That's just the discrimination talking, a lot of you view a father as a
walking pay-check and/or just a sperm donar.
Some people have more consideration than that.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
It's only discrimination if the father-to-be can also carry the fetus.
It's discrimination period.
I'll give you an example, and I expect you to disagree because you are a
bigot and discriminate against men.
Three of the most common reasons women have abortions
a) She doesn't want to be a mother
b) She is in school, and having a child will cause her to have to quit and
she can't accomplish her goals
c) She can't afford to raise a child
Now, she has an option.
Have the child and struggle
or
Kill the unborn child and be rid of it.
Now, lets look at the father...
A father tells the woman straight up front, and he does use protection, he
doesn't want any children.
She gets pregnant.
He can have the same exact reasons for not wanting to support a child as I
mentioned above.
a) He doesn't want to be a father
b) He is in school, and having to support a child will cause him to have to
quit and he can't accomplish his goals
c) He can't afford to raise a child
What are his choices if she decides to take him for support?
Pay
or
Go to jail
Does he have a choice to just walk away, like she does?
Nope
She gets a priviledge he doesn't get, simply because she is a woman.
"DISCRIMINATION"
You will of course disagree, and usually bigots like you will say something
stupid like "he should have kept his ***** in his pants".
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
And several states once considered born black people to be "property".
Tell me, Osprey, are born black people "property"?
Are we talking about black people now?
Oh, o.k, you wish to change the subject..I understand..like I said, you
can't actually deal with me. This is common for you.
No, I do not consider black people property, unless they are in the
military...and like all people in the military..black, white,
chinese..ect... They are property of the U.S. Government.
G.I. (Government Issue)
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
You can put a fetus up for adoption?!
You can arrange for that prior to the birth.
We are living in a pro death culture where sticking a pair
of scissors into the brain of an innocent baby in the womb
is normal by the standards of the scum of the world.
Why are these "doctors" allowing themselves to be a party
to such barbarism, didn't they take an oath to "do no harm"?
They aren't. They are providing a needed service to their patient.
Actually they are, the procedure is barbaric. There are doctors who
refuse to do it.
There are doctors who refuse to do many things. So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 05:37:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:10:52 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<waydnbbyLtZAn9bbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com> wrote:
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you work
in law enforcement.
Yep, I do. And he doesn't have to prove a soul does exist. It comes down to
faith, and I know people from ALL walks of life who have faith in God.
If you can't understand that...you're lost.
If I have faith gravity does not exist does that mean I can flap my
arms and fly?
If not, why. since faith seems to determine reality?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
No, I don't debate nor argue my faith. If you don't believe in God, that's
totally on you.
I do, and if you can't accept that...too bad.
Believe whatever you like. The problem arises when you try to
convince other people of this.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 08:42:36 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H82dnQLnTubjndbbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're
being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the
removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of
being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the
questions are???
Who are you?!
Somebody who you can't deal with, here or outside the newsgroup.
Non-sequitur.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you
work in law enforcement.
Yep, I do. And he doesn't have to prove a soul does exist. It comes
down to faith, and I know people from ALL walks of life who have faith
in God.
If you can't understand that...you're lost.
That's fine if it's faith. However, it doesn't prove anything to me.
Do I have to prove I didn't kill someone?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided
for you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
No, I don't debate nor argue my faith. If you don't believe in God,
that's totally on you.
I do, and if you can't accept that...too bad.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion procedures.
Incorrect. A human being is the section of human life from birth to
death.
No, I was correct.
No, you weren't.
If you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is),
And it isn't...
It is.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
you couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't
a human being.
Actually, let's back up some.
Do you believe that sperm are human beings? Ova?
Without conception? No, they are just a human cell.
So, do you feel okay with the murder of human life?
Where does "human being" begin?
Conception.
Why?
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
I completely and totally sympathise with any woman who goes through this.
While I couldn't possibly imagine what she is going through, I
understand if she makes this choice.
Fact though: The abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the rape.
No, but it won't continue it either. Try to imagine having to raise the
product of a rapist for the next 18 years.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
Unless the father-to-be is providing for the fetus' wellbeing
(providing nourishment through the umbilicus), then the father-to-be
has no say.
That's just the discrimination talking, a lot of you view a father as a
walking pay-check and/or just a sperm donar.
Up until birth, the father-to-be is not providing 100% for the life of
the baby-to-be.
Some people have more consideration than that.
And some people think the earth is flat. Please try to stay on topic.
You're talking to ME, not "some people."
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
It's only discrimination if the father-to-be can also carry the fetus.
It's discrimination period.
Incorrect. Discrimination is the attack on one group of otherwise equal
people.
Since the situation is not equal, there is no discrimination.
I'll give you an example, and I expect you to disagree because you are a
bigot and discriminate against men.
Three of the most common reasons women have abortions
a) She doesn't want to be a mother
b) She is in school, and having a child will cause her to have to quit
and she can't accomplish her goals
c) She can't afford to raise a child
d) The pregnancy is such a health risk that the mother-to-be will die or
be irreparably harmed.
Now, she has an option.
Have the child and struggle
or
Kill the unborn child and be rid of it.
Now, lets look at the father...
A father tells the woman straight up front, and he does use protection,
he doesn't want any children.
She gets pregnant.
He can have the same exact reasons for not wanting to support a child as
I mentioned above.
a) He doesn't want to be a father
b) He is in school, and having to support a child will cause him to have
to quit and he can't accomplish his goals
c) He can't afford to raise a child
What are his choices if she decides to take him for support?
Pay
or
Go to jail
Support means that the fetus has been born and there is now a baby. If
the father takes the baby, then the mother must "Pay" or "Go to jail".
Does he have a choice to just walk away, like she does?
Nope
If she has the abortion, then he can.
She gets a priviledge he doesn't get, simply because she is a woman.
Nope. You're comparing apples to oranges. The woman has more say
because she's in a DIFFERENT situation than the man.
"DISCRIMINATION"
You will of course disagree, and usually bigots like you will say
something stupid like "he should have kept his ***** in his pants".
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
And several states once considered born black people to be "property".
Tell me, Osprey, are born black people "property"?
Are we talking about black people now?
Well, you're the one that is trying to say that men carry fetuses to term...
Oh, o.k, you wish to change the subject..I understand..like I said, you
can't actually deal with me. This is common for you.
No, I do not consider black people property, unless they are in the
military...and like all people in the military..black, white,
chinese..ect... They are property of the U.S. Government.
G.I. (Government Issue)
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
You can put a fetus up for adoption?!
You can arrange for that prior to the birth.
So, it's not a factor prior to live birth.
You can't go into an adoption office and say that you want a fetus in
the 4th month of pregnancy and expect to get it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 08:51:31 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z5qdnfXegMuul9bbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H82dnQLnTubjndbbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here is
the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then you're
being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the removal
of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position of
being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the
questions are???
Who are you?!
Somebody who you can't deal with, here or outside the newsgroup.
Non-sequitur.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you
work in law enforcement.
Yep, I do. And he doesn't have to prove a soul does exist. It comes down
to faith, and I know people from ALL walks of life who have faith in God.
If you can't understand that...you're lost.
That's fine if it's faith. However, it doesn't prove anything to me.
No one is responsible for proving it to you. Read about Thomas, in the
bible...and it's explained there perfectly..what it's all about.
Do I have to prove I didn't kill someone?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided for
you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
No, I don't debate nor argue my faith. If you don't believe in God,
that's totally on you.
I do, and if you can't accept that...too bad.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion
procedures.
Incorrect. A human being is the section of human life from birth to
death.
No, I was correct.
No, you weren't.
Yes, I was...unless you think the unborn is a dog or something.
If you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is),
And it isn't...
It is.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
No, I'm dead right. I don't have to lie to myself and others to justify
abortion. You do, and those in your ilk.
you couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus isn't a
human being.
Actually, let's back up some.
Do you believe that sperm are human beings? Ova?
Without conception? No, they are just a human cell.
So, do you feel okay with the murder of human life?
Depends...self-defense, capitol punishment, war???
If someone is coming at me, and I'm in iminent danger or someone in my
family is...they are going to die, if I have the means and ability to do
that.
I recognize that by "law" abortion is not "murder". Does that mean the law
is right? I'm sure you will say it is, it's part of the main reason you and
those in your ilk can NOT say the fetus is a human being.
Where does "human being" begin?
Conception.
Why?
Would you be here without conception?
Nope
You had to start somewhere.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
I completely and totally sympathise with any woman who goes through this.
While I couldn't possibly imagine what she is going through, I understand
if she makes this choice.
Fact though: The abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the rape.
No, but it won't continue it either. Try to imagine having to raise the
product of a rapist for the next 18 years.
Is it the childs fault?
The child can get love, unconditional love, from someone else. I'm not
suggesting women be forced to carry their unborn to term, if she was
raped..so don't put words in my mouth.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
Unless the father-to-be is providing for the fetus' wellbeing (providing
nourishment through the umbilicus), then the father-to-be has no say.
That's just the discrimination talking, a lot of you view a father as a
walking pay-check and/or just a sperm donar.
Up until birth, the father-to-be is not providing 100% for the life of the
baby-to-be.
Like I said, you have no consideration for a father.
Some people have more consideration than that.
And some people think the earth is flat. Please try to stay on topic.
Oh I love that one...after all the times you try to change the topic. Can I
use that line against you, next time you try to change the topic???
You're talking to ME, not "some people."
and YOU have no consideration for a father.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
It's only discrimination if the father-to-be can also carry the fetus.
It's discrimination period.
Incorrect. Discrimination is the attack on one group of otherwise equal
people.
Since the situation is not equal, there is no discrimination.
It's discrimination, but I don't expect you to believe that since you have
shown you have no respect or consideration to fathers.
I'll give you an example, and I expect you to disagree because you are a
bigot and discriminate against men.
Three of the most common reasons women have abortions
a) She doesn't want to be a mother
b) She is in school, and having a child will cause her to have to quit
and she can't accomplish her goals
c) She can't afford to raise a child
d) The pregnancy is such a health risk that the mother-to-be will die or
be irreparably harmed.
Now, she has an option.
Have the child and struggle
or
Kill the unborn child and be rid of it.
Now, lets look at the father...
A father tells the woman straight up front, and he does use protection,
he doesn't want any children.
She gets pregnant.
He can have the same exact reasons for not wanting to support a child as
I mentioned above.
a) He doesn't want to be a father
b) He is in school, and having to support a child will cause him to have
to quit and he can't accomplish his goals
c) He can't afford to raise a child
What are his choices if she decides to take him for support?
Pay
or
Go to jail
Support means that the fetus has been born and there is now a baby. If
the father takes the baby, then the mother must "Pay" or "Go to jail".
Read above and think about it. You're not getting the point.
Does he have a choice to just walk away, like she does?
Nope
If she has the abortion, then he can.
"If SHE decides to walk away and LET HIM out of it"
You're not getting it.
She gets a priviledge he doesn't get, simply because she is a woman.
Nope. You're comparing apples to oranges. The woman has more say because
she's in a DIFFERENT situation than the man.
"DISCRIMINATION"
You will of course disagree, and usually bigots like you will say
something stupid like "he should have kept his ***** in his pants".
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
And several states once considered born black people to be "property".
Tell me, Osprey, are born black people "property"?
Are we talking about black people now?
Well, you're the one that is trying to say that men carry fetuses to
term...
I get to use your line..
"Please try to stay on topic"
Damn, in the same post too. Well, I did say you are a hypocrite..that
didn't take long. Here we are talking about the unborn child, and you tried
to change the topic on me.
Oh, o.k, you wish to change the subject..I understand..like I said, you
can't actually deal with me. This is common for you.
No, I do not consider black people property, unless they are in the
military...and like all people in the military..black, white,
chinese..ect... They are property of the U.S. Government.
G.I. (Government Issue)
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
You can put a fetus up for adoption?!
You can arrange for that prior to the birth.
So, it's not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes, it can be a factor prior to birth.
You can't go into an adoption office and say that you want a fetus in the
4th month of pregnancy and expect to get it.
You can go and make arrangements to give up the unborn child prior to birth,
it's done many times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 08:31:15 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z5qdnfXegMuul9bbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H82dnQLnTubjndbbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1pll43l9qesl65jumk7mgpmubk4muoqcq5@4ax.com...
On 16 May 2007 01:19:59 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1179303599.336778.202580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:42:10 -0700, wrote:
None. If you pay any attention to what the moron Fischer
says you are as barmy as he is. He considers pregnancy
to be "slavery" which means that there are millions of slaves
in the world, even in the U.S.
Don't know about Fisher, but if the "slavery" referred to here
is the
usual application of the term by the pro-choice side, then
you're being
more than a tad dishonest representing it as you do.
It is not _pregnancy_ which is equated to slavery; it is the
removal of
the mother's right to control her own body, to be in a position
of being
_told_ that she must carry a fetus she doesn't want.
It is not *her* body that is the question
It is the only question.
No, it's not the "only" question. Who are you to decide what the
questions are???
Who are you?!
Somebody who you can't deal with, here or outside the newsgroup.
Non-sequitur.
, it is the body and
soul
Prove a soul exists.
He doesn't have to. You can't prove it doesn't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Come on, Osprey. You say you
work in law enforcement.
Yep, I do. And he doesn't have to prove a soul does exist. It comes
down to faith, and I know people from ALL walks of life who have
faith in God.
If you can't understand that...you're lost.
That's fine if it's faith. However, it doesn't prove anything to me.
No one is responsible for proving it to you. Read about Thomas, in the
bible...and it's explained there perfectly..what it's all about.
I've read the Bible. It doesn't prove anything to me, just as Harry
Potter doesn't prove that magic exists.
Do I have to prove I didn't kill someone?
And numerous times, studies, references, ect... have been provided
for you..only for you to snip and ignore them.
Well, I don't snip, except for brevity purposes. Post them for me.
No, I don't debate nor argue my faith. If you don't believe in God,
that's totally on you.
I do, and if you can't accept that...too bad.
of another conceived human being.
A fetus is not a human being.
This is what you have to believe in order to accept abortion
procedures.
Incorrect. A human being is the section of human life from birth to
death.
No, I was correct.
No, you weren't.
Yes, I was...unless you think the unborn is a dog or something.
Changing the subject, I see. A human being is the section of "HUMAN
life" from birth to death.
If you believed that the fetus is a human being (which the fetus is),
And it isn't...
It is.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
No, I'm dead right. I don't have to lie to myself and others to justify
abortion. You do, and those in your ilk.
Sorry, but you just lied to yourself and others.
you couldn't possibly justify abortions.
It's part of your cult, that has to accept the lie that a fetus
isn't a human being.
Actually, let's back up some.
Do you believe that sperm are human beings? Ova?
Without conception? No, they are just a human cell.
So, do you feel okay with the murder of human life?
Depends...self-defense, capitol punishment, war???
If someone is coming at me, and I'm in iminent danger or someone in my
family is...they are going to die, if I have the means and ability to do
that.
I recognize that by "law" abortion is not "murder". Does that mean the
law is right? I'm sure you will say it is, it's part of the main reason
you and those in your ilk can NOT say the fetus is a human being.
Just as you can NOT say that you are a corpse.
Where does "human being" begin?
Conception.
Why?
Would you be here without conception?
Nope
You had to start somewhere.
Right. And would you be here without sperm?
Nope.
You had to start somewhere.
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
I completely and totally sympathise with any woman who goes through
this.
While I couldn't possibly imagine what she is going through, I
understand if she makes this choice.
Fact though: The abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the rape.
No, but it won't continue it either. Try to imagine having to raise
the product of a rapist for the next 18 years.
Is it the childs fault?
Is it the mother's fault?
The child can get love, unconditional love, from someone else. I'm not
suggesting women be forced to carry their unborn to term, if she was
raped..so don't put words in my mouth.
Yet you later provide a list that doesn't include all the reasons
someone might have an abortion.
Conception is not voluntary and sex is not illegal. What
you think someone should or should not do is entirely irrelevant and
immaterial.
And where is the father of her child?
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant.
Unless the father-to-be is providing for the fetus' wellbeing
(providing nourishment through the umbilicus), then the father-to-be
has no say.
That's just the discrimination talking, a lot of you view a father as
a walking pay-check and/or just a sperm donar.
Up until birth, the father-to-be is not providing 100% for the life of
the baby-to-be.
Like I said, you have no consideration for a father.
So, the father-to-be IS providing 100% for the life of the fetus?!
Some people have more consideration than that.
And some people think the earth is flat. Please try to stay on topic.
Oh I love that one...after all the times you try to change the topic.
Can I use that line against you, next time you try to change the topic???
You're talking to ME, not "some people."
and YOU have no consideration for a father.
What about *his* rights?
He has none.
That's discrimination.
It's only discrimination if the father-to-be can also carry the fetus.
It's discrimination period.
Incorrect. Discrimination is the attack on one group of otherwise
equal people.
Since the situation is not equal, there is no discrimination.
It's discrimination, but I don't expect you to believe that since you
have shown you have no respect or consideration to fathers.
So, it's equal?!
I'll give you an example, and I expect you to disagree because you
are a bigot and discriminate against men.
Three of the most common reasons women have abortions
a) She doesn't want to be a mother
b) She is in school, and having a child will cause her to have to
quit and she can't accomplish her goals
c) She can't afford to raise a child
d) The pregnancy is such a health risk that the mother-to-be will die
or be irreparably harmed.
Now, she has an option.
Have the child and struggle
or
Kill the unborn child and be rid of it.
Now, lets look at the father...
A father tells the woman straight up front, and he does use
protection, he doesn't want any children.
She gets pregnant.
He can have the same exact reasons for not wanting to support a child
as I mentioned above.
a) He doesn't want to be a father
b) He is in school, and having to support a child will cause him to
have to quit and he can't accomplish his goals
c) He can't afford to raise a child
What are his choices if she decides to take him for support?
Pay
or
Go to jail
Support means that the fetus has been born and there is now a baby.
If the father takes the baby, then the mother must "Pay" or "Go to jail".
Read above and think about it. You're not getting the point.
Does he have a choice to just walk away, like she does?
Nope
If she has the abortion, then he can.
"If SHE decides to walk away and LET HIM out of it"
You're not getting it.
That's because you're being needlessly diversionary.
She gets a priviledge he doesn't get, simply because she is a woman.
Nope. You're comparing apples to oranges. The woman has more say
because she's in a DIFFERENT situation than the man.
"DISCRIMINATION"
You will of course disagree, and usually bigots like you will say
something stupid like "he should have kept his ***** in his pants".
Did he consent to the murder
Not if you are speaking English and talking about anywhere
abortion is
legal. Murder requires an illegal component. Without this illegal
component an act can no more be murder than a hamburger can be a
hamburger without meat or a cow be a cow without four legs and bovine
DNA.
It is impossible for a legal act to be illegal - it simply cannot
happen, To talk as if it can is to dishonestly foster a lie and
deception, as well as clearly indicating the audience is too dumb to
know what is being said.
of his
child?
No child exists before live birth.
Except SEVERAL states do accept terms like "unborn child".
And several states once considered born black people to be "property".
Tell me, Osprey, are born black people "property"?
Are we talking about black people now?
Well, you're the one that is trying to say that men carry fetuses to
term...
I get to use your line..
"Please try to stay on topic"
I am on topic. You're the one claiming it's discrimination and it can
ONLY be discrimination if the man and the woman were equal in their
fetus carrying abilities.
Damn, in the same post too. Well, I did say you are a hypocrite..that
didn't take long. Here we are talking about the unborn child, and you
tried to change the topic on me.
a·nal·o·gy /əˈnælədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[uh-nal-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a
comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
Oh, o.k, you wish to change the subject..I understand..like I said,
you can't actually deal with me. This is common for you.
No, I do not consider black people property, unless they are in the
military...and like all people in the military..black, white,
chinese..ect... They are property of the U.S. Government.
G.I. (Government Issue)
Have either of them never heard of adoption?
Not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes it is a factor.
You can put a fetus up for adoption?!
You can arrange for that prior to the birth.
So, it's not a factor prior to live birth.
Yes, it can be a factor prior to birth.
You know, we can just keep contradicting each other if you want.
You can't go into an adoption office and say that you want a fetus in
the 4th month of pregnancy and expect to get it.
You can go and make arrangements to give up the unborn child prior to
birth, it's done many times.
You can't adopt a fetus, Osprey, no matter how much you try to call it a
"baby".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 12:40:19 PM |
|
|
On 16-May-2007, DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote:
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
And birth control failure, and changes of circumstance...?
I could go on but these sickos are too busy wallowing in
their fascism to pay real attention.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Sex Test Could Lead to Abortions |
16 May 2007 12:44:05 PM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7mH2i.19909$5Z6.13338@trndny05...
On 16-May-2007, DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote:
If she had
control of her body, she should have had more control *before*
she conceived a child.
Irrelevant.
No, it's relevant because he is addressing personal responsibility.
And, in cases such as rape....?
And birth control failure, and changes of circumstance...?
I could go on but these sickos are too busy wallowing in
their fascism to pay real attention.
Susan
One of your own, ilk, made this statement just yesterday...
From: No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <878xbplcb7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:39:52 EDT
Date: 15 May 2007 19:41:48 -0700
"Reduced to infantile name calling"
You call people sicko's just because they don't agree with choice of
abortion???
Look in the mirror hun, before you call others "sicko".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
