| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2005 03:54:54 AM |
| Object: |
Christofascist Alito lying again |
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Yes, George W. Bush is a mass murdering Christian butcher. GET OVER IT!!!
.
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
16 Nov 2005 10:07:42 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was being
anti-Democrat.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY. Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body," laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
16 Nov 2005 06:41:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:07:42 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Depending on whose life is being discussed.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was being
anti-Democrat.
It seems to have been forgotten that a pregnant woman is a living
person.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
It is her body that is carrying the foetus.
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body," laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
Non sequitur.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 04:22:11 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:k7jmn1plfvg3pmr1u654urarpuks6q0a4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:07:42 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Depending on whose life is being discussed.
Not really. What innocent life does Bush advocate deliberately taking?
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life
is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was
being
anti-Democrat.
It seems to have been forgotten that a pregnant woman is a living
person.
Not at all. We're not talking about pregnancies that are a threat to the
life of the mother. Almost no one opposes abortion in that - rare - case.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
It is her body that is carrying the foetus.
So? If some unwanted person is in your home, invited by you, can you just
kill them if they are obviously no threat to either your life or property?
No!
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body,"
laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
Non sequitur.
Hardly. The fact that a woman does not have the right to engage in
prostitution (or sell her organs) proves that there is no absolute right
to do whatever one wants with one's own body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 09:00:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:22:11 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:k7jmn1plfvg3pmr1u654urarpuks6q0a4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:07:42 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Depending on whose life is being discussed.
Not really. What innocent life does Bush advocate deliberately taking?
The people of Iraq, the American soldiers, the soldiers of the
American allies, the soldiers of Iraq killed in an illegitimate war
made possible by Bush's lies.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life
is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was
being
anti-Democrat.
It seems to have been forgotten that a pregnant woman is a living
person.
Not at all. We're not talking about pregnancies that are a threat to the
life of the mother. Almost no one opposes abortion in that - rare - case.
You do oppose a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a
pregnancy. It is her life and her body not yours.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
It is her body that is carrying the foetus.
So? If some unwanted person is in your home, invited by you, can you just
kill them if they are obviously no threat to either your life or property?
No!
The analogy is absurd. A house is not a person's body. Your remark
"invited by you" reveals a lot about your attitude toward women. If
you were consistent it would mean that you approve of abortion in
cases in which the woman had no intention of becoming pregnant; but I
doubt that.
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body,"
laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
Non sequitur.
Hardly. The fact that a woman does not have the right to engage in
prostitution (or sell her organs) proves that there is no absolute right
to do whatever one wants with one's own body.
Absolute rights are not being discussed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 11:24:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:00:38 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:22:11 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:k7jmn1plfvg3pmr1u654urarpuks6q0a4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:07:42 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Depending on whose life is being discussed.
Not really. What innocent life does Bush advocate deliberately taking?
The people of Iraq, the American soldiers, the soldiers of the
American allies, the soldiers of Iraq killed in an illegitimate war
made possible by Bush's lies.
You forgot those whom he sentenced to death in Texas.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life
is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was
being
anti-Democrat.
It seems to have been forgotten that a pregnant woman is a living
person.
Not at all. We're not talking about pregnancies that are a threat to the
life of the mother. Almost no one opposes abortion in that - rare - case.
You do oppose a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a
pregnancy. It is her life and her body not yours.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
It is her body that is carrying the foetus.
So? If some unwanted person is in your home, invited by you, can you just
kill them if they are obviously no threat to either your life or property?
No!
The analogy is absurd. A house is not a person's body. Your remark
"invited by you" reveals a lot about your attitude toward women. If
you were consistent it would mean that you approve of abortion in
cases in which the woman had no intention of becoming pregnant; but I
doubt that.
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body,"
laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
Non sequitur.
Hardly. The fact that a woman does not have the right to engage in
prostitution (or sell her organs) proves that there is no absolute right
to do whatever one wants with one's own body.
Absolute rights are not being discussed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 10:04:38 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:00:38 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
[...]
The people of Iraq, the American soldiers, the soldiers of the
American allies, the soldiers of Iraq killed in an illegitimate war
made possible by Bush's lies.
You forgot those whom he sentenced to death in Texas.
Once again you say something not because it is true but because
it serves your agenda. Only courts of law can sentence anyone to
death.
r
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 03:58:19 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
[...]
It seems to have been forgotten that a pregnant woman is a living
person.
Not at all. We're not talking about pregnancies that are a threat to the
life of the mother. Almost no one opposes abortion in that - rare - case.
You haven't been paying attention. The law that congress
passed to outlaw the mythical "partial birth abortion" was
found unconstitutional because it made NO PROVISION
for the health/safety or life of the woman.
So you just broke the 9th commandment.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
It is her body that is carrying the foetus.
So? If some unwanted person is in your home, invited by you, can you just
kill them if they are obviously no threat to either your life or property?
False analogy. A zygote/embryo/ and early term fetus isn't a
person. You've offered no argument or evidence to the contrary.
How come?
No!
Science has prov en
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body,"
laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
Non sequitur.
Hardly. The fact that a woman does not have the right to engage in
prostitution (or sell her organs) proves that there is no absolute right
to do whatever one wants with one's own body.
Straw man. You are the only one mentioning "absolute rights."
The fact is a woman does have a right to an abortion, which
shows that your analogy is bunk.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 08:45:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:07:42 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Bush is pro-life.
Utter *****.
You acuse Fred of lying, but this is quite over-the-top deliberate
deception on your behalf.
Bush is, at the very least, responsible for 131 executed prisoners.
His signature appears on their death warrants.
And the number of deaths that he is responsible for in Iraq, and
elswhere in the world are countless, but easily exceed 10,000.
"Pro-life"???
Get a grip on reality, if you can.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was being
anti-Democrat.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?" The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Bush is cleary, and provably "pro-death", by any sane measure.
STOP LYING for your beloved Emporer, and murderer-in-cheif.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: "Unpleasant Truth" cannot recognise reality, or
truth, if it hit the lying murder-supporting scumbag square between
the eyes.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her own
body" since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY. Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being. You are anti-science.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body," laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 09:59:52 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Bush is cleary, and provably "pro-death", by any sane measure.
STOP LYING for your beloved Emporer, and murderer-in-cheif.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: "Unpleasant Truth" cannot recognise reality, or
truth, if it hit the lying murder-supporting scumbag square between
the eyes.
Not exactly the poster boy for rational, ethical debate, are ya?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
16 Nov 2005 08:17:22 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
Since you introduced the phrase leftist scum like the nazi
bootlicker you are...See? I can do that too.
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazi s" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Hypocritical, you mean? I notice you didn't question its
accuracy though.
Bush is pro-life.
LOL! Someone who was itching to start a war long before
he became president can hardly be called pro-life. What you
mean is anti-abortion.
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Funny, you sound exactly like Fried Rice! You were saying something
about hypocrisy...?
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-aboli tionist was being
anti-Democrat.
Well you see, sonny, the anti-abortionists cannot and do not show that
their opinions are true. And yet they wish their opinions to be
superior to the opinions of the people actually involved in the
decision. They want to enforce their opinions by Big Government police
power. And apparently, so do you.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?"
What in the world does this have to do with Bush?
?The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Hahahahahahaha! You condemn Rice and yet practice identical tactics.
You must secretly admire him. In any event, like Rice, you can't
rationally argue for your conclusions. You just make assertions and pin
labels on things, hoping against hope that they will stick.
But even a casual examination shows them to be irrational (which is why
you can't argue rationally for those conclusions). For example how
could the mis-named "partial birth abortion" be any worse than any
other sort of abortion to an anti-abortionist? You show that you think
there is a differenceand this blows your rationalization for your
anti-abortionist stance out the window.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her own
body"
Sure it does.
since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
And it is a baby...when?
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being.
Oh now you're lying. A fertilized human egg is hardly
a human being. Disagree? Then cite the things that a
zygote and and real baby have in common. Can you do
it? That is your burden of proof because there is no way
that anyone would ever mistake a zygote for a real baby.
A zygote has no brain, no arms or legs or bones or
organs, has never had a thought or an emotion, felt pain
or pleasure. A zygote is smaller than this -> . So if you
claim a zygote and a baby are the same thing, it is your
job to show they are. I don't think you can do it and so
I predict you will not even try. Instead you will probably
call me a lot of names and make even more assertions
that you can't back up. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. LOL!
You are anti-science.
LOL! You calling anyone anti-science is like a Nazi calling
someone anti-Semitic.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body," laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
You are confused. The widespread laws against prostitution
were enacted after 1917 as a patriotic move to keep WWI
enlistees free of social diseases. It had nothing to do with a
womans body.
So lets see your "rational" arguments against abortion. Or
would you care to admit that you don't have any that will
stand up to examination?
I'm waiting. b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 05:07:33 AM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132172242.485694.105630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
Since you introduced the phrase leftist scum like the nazi
bootlicker you are...See? I can do that too.
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazi s" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Hypocritical, you mean? I notice you didn't question its
accuracy though.
Sure I did - in what followed.
Bush is pro-life.
LOL! Someone who was itching to start a war long before
he became president can hardly be called pro-life. What you
mean is anti-abortion.
No, I mean pro-life. Saddam killed over 1,000,000 of his own people.
Taking him out saved many lives. He should have been taken out in the
first Gulf War.
Why are you a Saddamite?
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life
is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Funny, you sound exactly like Fried Rice! You were saying something
about hypocrisy...?
What hypocrisy? We're consistent in that I'm pro-life and Rice is
pro-death. His hypocrisy - and insanity - comes from calling pro-life
people (pro-death) "Nazis."
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-aboli tionist was
being
anti-Democrat.
Well you see, sonny, the anti-abortionists cannot and do not show that
their opinions are true. And yet they wish their opinions to be
superior to the opinions of the people actually involved in the
decision. They want to enforce their opinions by Big Government police
power. And apparently, so do you.
Slavery was ended by enforcing the opinions of the abolitionists by Big
Government. And that is Big Government's prime role - to protect the
innocent from those who seek to kill them, whether it be Islamofascist
terrorists or slaves or the viable unborn.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of Americans be an
"extremist?"
What in the world does this have to do with Bush?
That was a reference to Alito. But in general, most people want more
restrictions on abortion, not fewer. And a huge majority want a
prohibition on partial birth abortion. The pro-abortion left wants
abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time - including up to the
moment of birth.
?The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Hahahahahahaha! You condemn Rice and yet practice identical tactics.
You must secretly admire him. In any event, like Rice, you can't
rationally argue for your conclusions. You just make assertions and pin
labels on things, hoping against hope that they will stick.
Nope. Just giving like for like.
But even a casual examination shows them to be irrational (which is why
you can't argue rationally for those conclusions). For example how
could the mis-named "partial birth abortion" be any worse than any
other sort of abortion to an anti-abortionist? You show that you think
there is a differenceand this blows your rationalization for your
anti-abortionist stance out the window.
That's where I part company with many pro-lifers. I do not attribute the
same value to an unborn child at every stage of development. I do not
consider a fertilized egg a full fledged person. Instead, like many
thoughtful pro-lifers, I consider its status to rise as it develops. Once
it is viable outside the mother, however, the debate is over.
But unlike the pro-abortion side, I do not consider it totally without
value at any stage. It is a miraculous creation of human life. To
dismiss it as a "worthless blob" as others have in this forum, diminishes
us all. It is no coincidence that the incidence of child abuse has soared
along with the wide spread acceptance of abortion for pure convenience.
We should do everything possible to encourage reverence for life at all
stages and make abortion as rare as possible. If someone did to a lowly
animal what is routinely done to the unborn would risk a terrorist attack
from PETA.
I guess when it comes to abortion, I'm the real moderate. But if I had to
choose, I would much prefer the radical pro-life side to the radical
pro-abortion side.
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body"
Sure it does.
Nope. There is another human being involved.
since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
And it is a baby...when?
Certainly by the time it can live outside the mother's womb. That's
generally in the 7th month, sometimes sooner. If the pro-abortion side
were really just pro-choice, they would oppose abortion after viability.
But they don't. Even before then, at some stages at least, it has at
least the value of an animal. Try to do to an animal what abortionists do
to the unborn and see how long you stay our of jail.
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being.
Oh now you're lying. A fertilized human egg is hardly
a human being. Disagree?
Then what species is it?
Then cite the things that a
zygote and and real baby have in common. Can you do
it? That is your burden of proof because there is no way
that anyone would ever mistake a zygote for a real baby.
A zygote has no brain, no arms or legs or bones or
organs, has never had a thought or an emotion, felt pain
or pleasure. A zygote is smaller than this -> . So if you
claim a zygote and a baby are the same thing, it is your
job to show they are. I don't think you can do it and so
I predict you will not even try. Instead you will probably
call me a lot of names and make even more assertions
that you can't back up. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. LOL!
OK. I'm willing to compromise. No prohibition of aborting zygotes. But
once it's recognizable as at least a primate - distinct head, arms, legs,
etc. on a sonogram, Roe v. Wade no longer applies and whatever laws the
PEOPLE, as expressed by their elected representatives, make stand. Deal?
You are anti-science.
LOL! You calling anyone anti-science is like a Nazi calling
someone anti-Semitic.
(If there were such a thing as "a woman's right over her own body,"
laws
against prostitution would be unconstitutional.)
You are confused. The widespread laws against prostitution
were enacted after 1917 as a patriotic move to keep WWI
enlistees free of social diseases. It had nothing to do with a
womans body.
The principle still stands. If the constitution granted a woman complete
autonomy over her body, anti-prostitution laws would be unconstitutional.
So lets see your "rational" arguments against abortion. Or
would you care to admit that you don't have any that will
stand up to examination?
I'm waiting. b
I just made them. I'm waiting to see if you would accept my deal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian-hater Frederic L. Rice lying again |
17 Nov 2005 09:54:17 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132172242.485694.105630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11nlbbqdvp0gv7d@corp.supernews.com...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1314902
The mass murdering butcher's latest suggestion for a Supreme Court
Nazi has been trying to deny he's an anti-woman Christian extremist
who states that woman have no rights over their own bodies.
Since YOU introduced the word Nazi, like the leftist scum you are, ...
Since you introduced the phrase leftist scum like the nazi
bootlicker you are...See? I can do that too.
You calling Bush or Alito "Nazis" is like a Nazi calling someone
anti-Semitic.
Hypocritical, you mean? I notice you didn't question its
accuracy though.
Sure I did - in what followed.
Bush is pro-life.
LOL! Someone who was itching to start a war long before
he became president can hardly be called pro-life. What you
mean is anti-abortion.
No, I mean pro-life.
Well then you are wrong.
Saddam killed over 1,000,000 of his own people.
Got a citation for that figure? Regardless, that ain't why Bush
invaded Iraq. Republican adminstrations are well known for
supporting despots who kill their own people, as long as they
are "anti-communist." For instance, Reagan supported Pol Pot.
And ironically, he also supported Saddam.
Taking him out saved many lives.
Taking him out destroyed many lives, REAL lives,
not the hypothetical "lives" you speculate about here.
He should have been taken out in the
first Gulf War.
Tell that to George's daddy, who was the one who blew
it.
Why are you a Saddamite?
The same reason you are a child molester. See? I can do
that too. So want to drop the interrogation fallacies?
Alito may be pro-life. In any case, the suspicion that he is pro-life is
the reason pro-death Nazis like you oppose him.
Funny, you sound exactly like Fried Rice! You were saying something
about hypocrisy...?
What hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy of condemning Rice while embracing his
tactics. But maybe you just allowed him to polarize
you.
We're consistent in that I'm pro-life and Rice is
pro-death.
You're consistent in that you both rely on logical
fallacies.
His hypocrisy - and insanity - comes from calling pro-life
people (pro-death) "Nazis."
But it is your fault that you take that moron
seriously.
Being pro-life is no more anti-woman than being pro-abolitionist was being
anti-Democrat.
Well you see, sonny, the anti-abortionists cannot and do not show that
their opinions are true. And yet they wish their opinions to be
superior to the opinions of the people actually involved in the
decision. They want to enforce their opinions by Big Government police
power. And apparently, so do you.
Slavery was ended by enforcing the opinions of the abolitionists by Big
Government.
Ah no. Slavery was ended by Constitutional ammendment (the 13th)
There was no law passed that would toss thousands of people
in prison every year as anti-abortionists advocate.
And that is Big Government's prime role - to protect the
innocent from those who seek to kill them,
whether it be Islamofascist
terrorists or slaves or the viable unborn.
So you believe that if they aren't viable, they aren't
innocent? This problem can be directly attributed to
assuming that a fertilized egg is a human being.
Because if you want to say that a fertilized egg
doesn't have the same status as viable fetus then you
have to make some human beings worth less than other
human beings. I deal with this issue in more detail
later.
How can someone who holds the views of the majority of A mericans be an
"extremist?"
What in the world does this have to do with Bush?
That was a reference to Alito. But in general, most people want more
restrictions on abortion, not fewer.
Alito didn't say he wanted more restrictions on
abortion. He said he found no right to abortion in the
Constitution. Regardless, do you have a cite for your
above claim, regards what "most people want"?
And a huge majority want a
prohibition on partial birth abortion.
There is no "partial birth abortion" in the medical
literature.
The pro-abortion left wants
abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time - including up to the
moment of birth.
I could just as easily say that you and the other anti-
abortionists don't want abortion for any reason or at
any time, up to and including contraception, and it
would be just as accurate as what you said here.
?The real extremists are the pro-death, pro-infanticide
(a.k.a. "partial birth abortion") Nazis like you.
Hahahahahahaha! You condemn Rice and yet practice identical tactics.
You must secretly admire him. In any event, like Rice, you can't
rationally argue for your conclusions. You just make assertions and pin
labels on things, hopin g against hope that they will stick.
Nope. Just giving like for like.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth.'But I say to you, do not resist him who
is evil, but whoever slaps on your right cheek, turn to him
the other also." -- Matthew 5:38-39
But even a casual examination shows them to be irrational (which is why
you can't argue rationally for those conclusions). For example how
could the mis-named "partial birth abortion" be any worse than any
other sort of abortion to an anti-abortionist? You show that you think
there is a difference and this blows your rationalization for your
anti-abortionist stance out the window.
That's where I part company with many pro-lifers.
So you're not a "pro-lifer" then.
I do not attribute the
same value to an unborn child at every stage of development.
Really?
I do not
consider a fertilized egg a full fledged person.
Note you refer to "unborn child." A child is a
full fledged person, by definition.
Instead, like many
thoughtful pro-lifers, I consider its status to rise as it develops.
What?? I don't think *any* so called "pro-life" group
agrees with you. They ALL tout conception as the
beginning of personhood. Can you cite any such group
that advocates viability as the demarcation point?
Rather yours is the pro-choice position.
Once
it is viable outside the mother, however,
the debate is over.
You won't allow it?
But unlike the pro-abortion side, I do not consider it totally without
value at any stage.
Come on. What spokesperson for the pro-choice side ever
said anything like that. You are just setting up a
straw man to knock down. In fact anti-abortionists
would call YOU pro-abortionist.
It is a miraculous creation of human life. To
dismiss it as a "worthless blob" as others
have in this forum, diminishes
us all.
I just did a google search of this forum for the past
year and there was only one hit on the phrase
"worthless blob" and that was yours. See for yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/867co
It is no coincidence that the incidence of child abuse has soared
along with the wide spread acceptance of abortion for pure convenience.
Let's assume your claim of soaring child abuse is true
(though you've offered no evidence that it is) for the
sake of illustration. How do you know abortion was the
cause? Just because X preceeds Y doesn't mean X caused
Y. If that was true then we could say the sun rises
because roosters crow.
Furthermore, abortion didn't start in 1973 with Roe v.
Wade. Abortion was common even when it was illegal.
But more to the point, abortion *was legal* in this
country until the mid to late 19th century.
So did child abuse *decrease* after abortion was outlawed
in the mid 1800's?
Hardly.
If anything it increased dramatically. Take child labor
for example. In 1900 4% of all non-agricultural jobs
were held by children between 10 and 15 years old
(700,000 jobs). Children, working 60 hours a week in
Pennsylvania coal mines; from sun up to sun down in
Southern textile mills.* A popular quatrain of the day
went:
The golf links lie so near the mill
That nearly every day
The laboring children can look out
and see the men at play
So I could just as easily say it is no coincidence that
child abuse increased dramatically after abortion was
outlawed. But it would be a post hoc fallacy.
* Source: Furnas, J. C. The Americas A Social History
of the United States 1587 - 1914. 1st. ed., New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1969. p. 842-845
We should do everything possible to encourage reverence for life at all
stages and make abortion as rare as possible.
If someone did to a lowly
animal what is routinely done to the unborn would risk a terrorist attack
from PETA.
Apples and oranges. Animals have sentience. Zygotes,
embryos and fetuses (until late in pregnancy) do not.
I guess when it comes to abortion, I'm the real moderate.
Actually anti-abortionists would call you a baby
killer. And frankly, your position-- that a z/e/f is a
human being and that human beings having less value at
earlier stages--is untenable. How are you defining
"human being" anyway?
But if I had to
choose, I would much prefer the radical pro-life side to the radical
pro-abortion side.
1. Someone radically pro life would support NO killing
for any reason and that clearly isn't true of most of
the people you would so label. These people are
radically anti-abortion.
2. Pro-abortion is also inaccurate because these people don't
advocate abortion as the solution but wish to allow women
( who they will never come in contact with) to have it as
an option. They are pro-choice.
3. The result of outlawing abortion will not be to end abortion
but to put thousands of women and others in prison. Should
not the persons advocating this be expected to rationally
justify this drastic consequence?
Abortion has nothing to do with any so-called "woman's right over her
own
body"
Sure it does.
Nope. There is another human being involved.
Who sez so?
since the baby she is carrying IS NOT HER BODY.
And it is a baby...when?
Certainly by the time it can live outside the mother's womb. That's
generally in the 7th month, sometimes sooner. If the pro-abortion side
were really just pro-choice, they would oppose abortion after viability.
They support Roe v. Wade and what does Roe v. Wade say?
(Note "c" below):
8} (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end
of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its
effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of
the pregnant woman's attending physician.
9} (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately
the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting
its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it
chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that
are reasonably related to maternal health.
10} (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the
State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of
human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and
proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in
appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of
the life or health of the mother.
But they don't.
They don't? So maybe I ought to lump you and everyone
on the anti-abortion side all together and assume you
all agree?
Even before then, at some stages at least, it has at
least the value of an animal.
A non sentient entity should not have the value of a
sentient entity.
Try to do to an animal what abortionists do
to the unborn and see how long you stay our of jail.
You're kidding. Ever see a mink in a leg trap? Ever see
how chickens who produce your breakfast live? Ever been
to a cosmetics testing lab?
On the other hand a zygote, embryo, fetus has no
consciousness and cannot feel anything. The human
nervous system doesn't begin to develop synapses until
the third trimester of fetal development. Prior to a having
a nervous system capable of transmitting electrochemical
impulses from one neuron to another, the fetus has
never had a thought, felt an emotion, or pain, or
pleasure.
Ergo apples and oranges.
Science has proven
it is a distinctly separate human being.
Oh now you're lying. A fertilized human egg is hardly
a human being. Disagree?
Then what species is it?
Same species as the sperm and egg it came from: human.
But being human doesn't mean a sperm or egg is a human
_being_, right? Distinguish between "human" (species)
and "a human" (a person).
A zygote is human. It is not "a" human (being). Acorns are not
oak trees.
Contd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
