| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ben Kaufman" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2007 10:04:57 AM |
| Object: |
Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: How to count chickens before they've hatched |
23 Nov 2007 09:49:26 PM |
|
|
In article <4fudk35j1is1gethok9bvltm11otoi2tr3@4ax.com>, spaXm-mXe-anXd-
paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com says...
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
In the counting your chickens before they've hatched department, if an
ovum is a full human being then:
+ An omelet qualifies as a bucket of fried chicken
+ A grape seed qualifies as a bottle of vintage champagne
+ New Year Day qualifies as Christmas Eve
+ The Indy 500 ought to be over after the first lap
(actually, I can agree with that one)
+ Most sports games should officially end right after the coin toss.
(whoa, there's another I can agree with.)
+ All boxing matches should be called after the first punch.
+ The multi-billion-year-old primordial goo that creationists scoff at,
ought to count as fully developed homo sapien sapiens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 01:26:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:04:57 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
The government will have to license any event that might result in
fertilization and the products thereof will acquire legal standing.
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 02:01:10 PM |
|
|
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47472732.1788654829@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:04:57 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups
can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the
first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
The government will have to license any event that might result in
fertilization and the products thereof will acquire legal standing.
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
And identical twins must therefore be considered a single person with
two bodies, doubtless often liable to be prosecuted for bigamy and
various tax and other legal irregularities. [If one of a pair of
monozygotic twins commits a crime, perhaps both must be locked up?]
On the other hand, cases of chimeric individuals derived from more
than one fertilized egg must represent two separate people hiding in
a single body, no doubt with other odd legal ramifications. Any
crime such a person commits is presumably automatically also a
conspiracy...]
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
24 Nov 2007 10:38:59 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:01:10 -0500, mel turner wrote:
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47472732.1788654829@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:04:57 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups
can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the
first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
The government will have to license any event that might result in
fertilization and the products thereof will acquire legal standing.
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
And identical twins must therefore be considered a single person with
two bodies, doubtless often liable to be prosecuted for bigamy and
various tax and other legal irregularities. [If one of a pair of
monozygotic twins commits a crime, perhaps both must be locked up?]
On the other hand, cases of chimeric individuals derived from more
than one fertilized egg must represent two separate people hiding in
a single body, no doubt with other odd legal ramifications. Any
crime such a person commits is presumably automatically also a
conspiracy...]
cheers
Not to mention the whole, "harboring a fugitive" thing....
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 02:50:45 PM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 2:26 pm, (William Wingstedt)
wrote:
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
Approximately half of all "conceptions" are naturally aborted. Will
the state have to bring criminal charges against nature or God every
time one fertilized egg is lost?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 07:29:04 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, Sasha <KTBpylon@gmail.com> bloodied us up with
this:
On Nov 23, 2:26 pm, (William Wingstedt)
wrote:
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
Approximately half of all "conceptions" are naturally aborted. Will
the state have to bring criminal charges against nature or God every
time one fertilized egg is lost?
At the very least, the state of Colorado will be buried in death
certificates.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
24 Nov 2007 12:15:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:29:04 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, Sasha <KTBpylon@gmail.com> bloodied us up with
this:
On Nov 23, 2:26 pm, (William Wingstedt)
wrote:
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
Approximately half of all "conceptions" are naturally aborted. Will
the state have to bring criminal charges against nature or God every
time one fertilized egg is lost?
At the very least, the state of Colorado will be buried in death
certificates.
....And don't they have laws about illegal/improper disposal of a
corpse?
They are going to have some interesting, legal arguments, if they are
daft enough to introduce any such laws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
07 Dec 2007 02:34:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:15:06 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:29:04 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, Sasha <KTBpylon@gmail.com> bloodied us up with
this:
On Nov 23, 2:26 pm, (William Wingstedt)
wrote:
A missed period will require registration and any subsequent discharge
will become evidence for a criminal investigation into the cause.
Approximately half of all "conceptions" are naturally aborted. Will
the state have to bring criminal charges against nature or God every
time one fertilized egg is lost?
At the very least, the state of Colorado will be buried in death
certificates.
...And don't they have laws about illegal/improper disposal of a
corpse?
They are going to have some interesting, legal arguments, if they are
daft enough to introduce any such laws.
They're well beyond daft enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 08:10:05 PM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 10:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
And every woman who miscarries can then be charged with murder.
Great.
In other news government is STOOPID religiously....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 08:04:51 PM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 8:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 10:56:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:04:51 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
The United states is a republic.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
23 Nov 2007 10:58:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:56:29 -0500, in alt.atheism
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in
<ukbfk311js8eaj45v3vf7md87beg42jqvl@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:04:51 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
If Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life and other anti-abortion groups can
wrangle 76,000 signatures in the next six months, theirs could be the first
state in the nation to vote on whether a fertilized egg should legally be
considered a person. ......
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1686729,00.html
Ben
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
The United states is a republic.
Republics and democracy are not exclusive of each other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
04 Dec 2007 10:49:17 AM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 9:04 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 01:13:58 AM |
|
|
"Sasha" <KTBpylon@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:7a2ffb34-b5d9-47ec-aa93-3f5c462cf2ee@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 9:04 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
It wouldn't bother him in the slightest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
07 Dec 2007 02:34:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:13:58 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Sasha" <KTBpylon@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:7a2ffb34-b5d9-47ec-aa93-3f5c462cf2ee@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 9:04 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
It wouldn't bother him in the slightest.
Then may he get raped by multitudes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 11:48:56 AM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 8:49 am, Sasha <KTBpy...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:04 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is democracy in action.
Democracy means going with the will of the people, whether or not
you agree with them.
Michael
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
The people have the power.
And they will have to live with the consequences of their choices.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
04 Dec 2007 01:43:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:49:17 -0800, Sasha wrote:
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
Other examples abound; 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution
cannot very easily be altered but if you can persuade people that the
meaning of the words isn't what it used to be, you have effectively
amended the Constitution without a vote.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
04 Dec 2007 02:14:52 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 09:44:32 AM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:icsbj2bsfhb8$.z240tdwlbo4a.dlg@40tude.net...
Michael wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice
versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
Uh, charming :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 12:52:30 PM |
|
|
On Dec 5, 10:44 am, "Robibnikoff"
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
Uh, charming :P
My wife thinks so - I used that as my part of the wedding vow. Man,
I'm smooth. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
07 Dec 2007 02:35:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:44:32 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:icsbj2bsfhb8$.z240tdwlbo4a.dlg@40tude.net...
Michael wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice
versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
Uh, charming :P
They're boldly advancing forward to the bronze age.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 07:29:13 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote
Michael wrote:
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice
versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
Uh, charming :P
These conservatives just make me sick. I can't imagine how empty and
pathetic their lives must be that they are able to say love is
meaningless, and that producing children is the *only* reason two people
should be allowed to share their lives. But that's exactly what they're
trying to make the legal definition of marriage in the US.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
10 Dec 2007 04:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:29:13 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote
Michael wrote:
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice
versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other, but today it is being redefined to mean a
mating of two people for no other purpose than to fulfill the basic
animal function of breeding.
Uh, charming :P
These conservatives just make me sick.
They're anything but conservative. Flaming rabid nutcase bronze age
liberals is what they are. {Sick is a rational response to insanity}
I can't imagine how empty and
pathetic their lives must be
They're theists. Q.E.D.
that they are able to say love is
meaningless, and that producing children is the *only* reason two people
should be allowed to share their lives.
Psychopaths like that should be encouraged not to breed and remove
themselves from the world's misery post haste.
But that's exactly what they're
trying to make the legal definition of marriage in the US.
For others. They're 'above' any such moralistic foolishness.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Drive to give rights to fertilized ova |
05 Dec 2007 11:49:29 AM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 12:14 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
Michael wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Good luck to you if "the people" ever want something awful, like
making rape legal.
A more common approach is to changing the meaning of
words, so that things that were once illegal become legal (or vice versa).
Recent example is the effort to change the meaning of "marriage" -- don't
change laws, change *meaning*.
You're correct. Marriage used to mean the joining together of two
people who love each other
Where did it used to mean just that?
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
