| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eden" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 12:07:07 AM |
| Object: |
Five Pro-Abortion Dodges - Part I |
By Todd M. Aglialoro
Crisis
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/aglialoro.htm
In that passage from Orthodoxy so familiar that it is
almost now cliché, G. K. Chesterton wrote that there
are a thousand angles at which a man may fall but only
one at which he stands. By this he argued for the
unique, enduring character of orthodox Church doctrine,
of the one, true, upstanding strand of Right Teaching.
Though the same tired heresies may reappear to contest
it—mutated, renamed, warmed-over—the old, wild truth
remains standing, "reeling but erect."
This well-worn lesson takes on a new freshness, I
think, when applied to the culture war. The wild truths
that inform Christian ethics—our insistence on a moral
universe, on a real human nature with its own
teleology, on the transcendent significance of human
acts and human relationships—also reel but remain erect
in the face of perennial challenges. We are not gods.
Moral truth is something we discover, not invent. From
the Garden of Eden to the Supreme Court of the United
States, we have fought the same battle under different
banners.
In what is probably the modern culture battle par
excellence, the fight against abortion, we see
displayed with perfect clarity the principle of a
single upright truth (that directly killing an unborn
child is an evil and a crime) being contested by a
rotation of errors; taking turns or working in tandem,
passing in and out of fashion, each seizing upon the
vocabulary, events, and moods of the cultural moment
until the next comes along to supplant it.
In some cases cultural developments render one of them
obsolete. In the years shortly after Roe v. Wade,
abortion debates inevitably featured three words the
pro-abortion side considered a trump card: "blob of
tissue." This factually empty but sound-bite–perfect
catchphrase made a great impact with its implication
that the fetus was roughly equivalent to a ball of
snot. Which put abortion about on par with picking your
nose: bad form, a messy affair that ought to be kept
private, but nothing to get overly excited about.
Of course, advances in the study of human embryology,
most notably the window to the womb afforded by the
sonogram, all but pulled the teeth from the "blob of
tissue" canard. The 1980 film The Silent Scream, an
ultrasound depiction of an abortion at eleven weeks,
provided a chilling, graphic look at abortion's inner
workings. And today, expectant mothers keep pictures
of their "blobs of tissue" on the refrigerator. They
make copies and stuff them into Christmas cards.
So that particular line was no longer viable. But it
wouldn't be the last. More would follow, and we who are
engaged in the culture have surely heard most of them.
However, even for those who have heard them all, I
think it can be valuable to gather them up and define
them; to identify their originators, exemplars, and
champions; to understand their appeal; and to consider
how to counter them. Let us now look, then, at five (a
nice number, though by no means exhaustive) of
history's most insidious pro-abortion arguments.
1. 'Don't Say the "A" word': NARAL
Names are important to propagandists. One could hardly
imagine, for example, Planned Parenthood enjoying the
status it does had it not in 1942 dropped "American
Birth Control League" in favor of its current
benevolent-sounding moniker. What if Greenpeace had
instead called itself "Vegan Freaks Against Ambergris"?
Would society still look on that organization in the
indulgently tolerant way it does today? Would Bono
still play its benefit concerts? There are some things
we are just never meant to know.
Early last year, in a calculated PR move, the National
Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) changed its name
to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Amazingly, the new name is
even more cumbersome than the old. "NARAL" juts out at
the front like "Nokia" before "Sugar Bowl." But this
name change was not about streamlining signage and
business cards. It was an attempt to deflect notice
from the singular object of NARAL's 30-plus years of
existence—unlimited access to abortion-on-demand—and
toward broader, more high-minded, and less gruesome
concepts of gender equality and personal
self-determination. The change was timed to coincide
with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign depicting the
new-and-improved NARAL not so much as an advocate of
"abortion rights" as a defender of women's suffrage,
satellite TV, and 31 Flavors.
Semantic games have always been part of the battle, of
course. No one—no one, mind you—is "pro-abortion."
Folks are "pro-choice," "pro–reproductive rights," or,
slightly more courageously, "pro–abortion rights." In
each case, even the last, the emphasis is steered away
from the repugnant reality of abortion itself—a sure
loser in focus groups time and time again. Whenever we
debate abortion or write a letter to the editor, we
engage in a struggle for the linguistic high ground.
But NARAL's gambit takes things to a new level. By all
accounts, abortion's popularity is waning steadily.
Recent polls show high school and college students
reporting pro-life leanings in growing numbers. The
pro-life side's rare propaganda advantage in the
partial-birth abortion debate has riveted public
attention with clinically graphic descriptions of the
violence abortion inflicts on the unborn.
Clearly, the long-term survival strategy, from NARAL's
perspective, is to make the abortion debate about
anything but abortion.
It can be wearying sometimes, but the counter-strategy
is continually to return the debate to where it
belongs: the humanity of the unborn child and his right
to life. It may also be effective to ask just why
abortion is so repugnant to so many.
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 06:14:32 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:55:25 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:38:10 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:42:52 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:14:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:00:22 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
Irrelevant. She is not allowed the right of self-ownership.
Please deal with that, you fucking coward.
So we go from slavery to being not allowed the right of
self-ownership.
Same thing.
Why are you so fucking stupid?
Why don't you look up both things in a dictionary
I have. If you are denied the right of self-ownership, THEN
SOMEONE OWNS YOU! YOU ARE A SLAVE TO THAT PERSON!
Fucking. Moron.
Self-ownership is a term that would even go back to a person
like John Locke. You know Locke, right? The man who Thomas Jefferson
so liked that he borrowed a lot of the sentiments of the Second
Treatise on Civil Government and put them in the Declaration of
Independence.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 01:10:44 PM |
|
|
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Politically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ispso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
When forced to work as a slave on a plantation (as in 1840s Carolinas,
for instance):
The woman is not free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can not buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Politically, nearly every right that the pregnant woman of today has
would be revoked were she to be transplanted back into the 1840s as a
slave.
Girl scout cookies. She wasn't allowed to buy girl scout cookies,
either. Don't forget that. After all, these meaningful examples of
yours should include girl scout cookies.
(1) The woman has, in most instances, already *made* her choice.
But she hasn't. Just having sex doesn't mean anything. Only
some flagrant non sequitur could link it.
It blows the heck out of my mind that I live in a world wherein
someone could think that sex and pregnancy could only be linked by a
"flagrant non sequitor."
A girl below the age of consent cannot under any circumstances
give consent to sex, yet she can be forced to carry a fetus
to term without her consent. An adult woman can consent
to sex and need not consent to a pregnancy.
That's all well and good.
Translation: "Good point"
And with thermal imaging technology, we can
now "see" differences in temperature.
LOL! And then there are those "girl scout cookies."
But if we open our eyes in a
dark room, we can't see a thing. By your logic, therefore, eyes are
not for seeing.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! The mind of the Right Wing.
(1a) The fetus has had no opportunity yet to make a choice or, in this
case, to have a choice made for it.
That's irrelevant, though.
Not in the framework of his question. Did you read the original
question, or did you just jump in to push the
abortion-rights-at-all-costs rhetoric down my throat?
Intersexual babies have no consent in the mother or
doctor deciding for them to cut off their penis and
turn them into a female, having given no consent to
this mutilation. If a fetus has rights and given the
title of human being, and if a woman can be forced
to carry this titled human, then it legalizes rape.
If a fetus can be in a female without her consent
so can anyone.
Are you kidding me? Do you really want a response to this load of
baloney?
Translation: "You got me there."
If a man has sex with a girl below the age of consent
he should give this as a legal argument. All he has to
say is, I want equal protection of the law.
You've got to be kidding me. Nobody could hold positions this insane
and be serious.
(2) Okay, I hear you say that the woman may be raped, it may be a
result of incest, or some other such argument. (I find it interesting
that these are always presented as two *distinct* reasons for
abortion. As if incest is not included as rape. If not--if the
incest was *consensual*, then this argument holds no water, and should
revert to approach (1). The worry of incestual inbreeding only should
arise upon the practice of incest within multiple generations in the
same branch of the family tree.) The argument goes that the woman
doesn't want this fetus, so why should she be forced to be an
incubator for it? Why should she be forced into a nine-month slavery
to carry something she is not responsible for?
In this instance, a simple "balancing of rights" should be made.
The fetus has no rights.
Not according to the original question.
The question was posited assuming that the fetus had rights. As such,
I answered it.
Thus legalizing rape.
Faulty premises, faulty logic, and faulty conclusion. Would you like
them all pointed out?
YEAH. Do you know someone who can do it? Because YOU sure can't do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 01:56:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:10:44 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Let me rephrase, for those of you who have a hard time understanding
English:
"As a result of her biological condition, no rights have been taken
from her."
Politically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ispso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
When forced to work as a slave on a plantation (as in 1840s Carolinas,
for instance):
The woman is not free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can not buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Politically, nearly every right that the pregnant woman of today has
would be revoked were she to be transplanted back into the 1840s as a
slave.
Girl scout cookies. She wasn't allowed to buy girl scout cookies,
either. Don't forget that. After all, these meaningful examples of
yours should include girl scout cookies.
Good response! Shows that your brain is still working. Now, if you
could stand up and let it have some air, it might think logically,
too.
(1) The woman has, in most instances, already *made* her choice.
But she hasn't. Just having sex doesn't mean anything. Only
some flagrant non sequitur could link it.
It blows the heck out of my mind that I live in a world wherein
someone could think that sex and pregnancy could only be linked by a
"flagrant non sequitor."
A girl below the age of consent cannot under any circumstances
give consent to sex, yet she can be forced to carry a fetus
to term without her consent. An adult woman can consent
to sex and need not consent to a pregnancy.
That's all well and good.
Translation: "Good point"
And with thermal imaging technology, we can
now "see" differences in temperature.
LOL! And then there are those "girl scout cookies."
But if we open our eyes in a
dark room, we can't see a thing. By your logic, therefore, eyes are
not for seeing.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! The mind of the Right Wing.
Oooh...that's right, a vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Sssssshh...they'll
hear you.
Seriously, good job. You don't want to address the argument itself,
poke fun at it. Ascribe it to a larger "Plan" of some sort. That'll
impress people.
(1a) The fetus has had no opportunity yet to make a choice or, in this
case, to have a choice made for it.
That's irrelevant, though.
Not in the framework of his question. Did you read the original
question, or did you just jump in to push the
abortion-rights-at-all-costs rhetoric down my throat?
Intersexual babies have no consent in the mother or
doctor deciding for them to cut off their penis and
turn them into a female, having given no consent to
this mutilation. If a fetus has rights and given the
title of human being, and if a woman can be forced
to carry this titled human, then it legalizes rape.
If a fetus can be in a female without her consent
so can anyone.
Are you kidding me? Do you really want a response to this load of
baloney?
Translation: "You got me there."
Intersexual babies... yeah, that's a great argument for abortion.
The parallels are sparklingly clear.
You know what, with babies, someone acts in parens patriae. Normally
the parents themselves, sometimes a guardian. In all respects,
though, the decisions made by the parent/guardian are done with the
best interests of the child in mind. It is the rare case where an
abortion is performed with the best interests of the child in mind.
So I'm afraid that analogy kind of, well, sucks.
If a man has sex with a girl below the age of consent
he should give this as a legal argument. All he has to
say is, I want equal protection of the law.
You've got to be kidding me. Nobody could hold positions this insane
and be serious.
(2) Okay, I hear you say that the woman may be raped, it may be a
result of incest, or some other such argument. (I find it interesting
that these are always presented as two *distinct* reasons for
abortion. As if incest is not included as rape. If not--if the
incest was *consensual*, then this argument holds no water, and should
revert to approach (1). The worry of incestual inbreeding only should
arise upon the practice of incest within multiple generations in the
same branch of the family tree.) The argument goes that the woman
doesn't want this fetus, so why should she be forced to be an
incubator for it? Why should she be forced into a nine-month slavery
to carry something she is not responsible for?
In this instance, a simple "balancing of rights" should be made.
The fetus has no rights.
Not according to the original question.
The question was posited assuming that the fetus had rights. As such,
I answered it.
Thus legalizing rape.
Faulty premises, faulty logic, and faulty conclusion. Would you like
them all pointed out?
YEAH. Do you know someone who can do it? Because YOU sure can't do it.
See above.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 07:12:08 PM |
|
|
Alberich wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:10:44 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Let me rephrase, for those of you who have a hard time understanding
English:
"As a result of her biological condition, no rights have been taken
from her."
So if you were required to endure a similar level of hardship and risks
as are involved in pregnancy to maintain a life, yet could still buy
and sell etc, no rights of yours would be infringed?
Or is this one of those things that only ever seem to apply to pregnant
women?
- Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 08:17:25 PM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2006 17:12:08 -0800, "Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com>
wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:10:44 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Let me rephrase, for those of you who have a hard time understanding
English:
"As a result of her biological condition, no rights have been taken
from her."
So if you were required to endure a similar level of hardship and risks
as are involved in pregnancy to maintain a life, yet could still buy
and sell etc, no rights of yours would be infringed?
I believe no rights of mine would have been infringed. Although it
would be very odd to imagine such a situation.
Or is this one of those things that only ever seem to apply to pregnant
women?
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 02:20:23 PM |
|
|
In article <b7u8121h4ri1bnvr5qa323pec702v5t4qu@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:10:44 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave
of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Let me rephrase, for those of you who have a hard time understanding
English:
"As a result of her biological condition, no rights have been taken
from her."
So it was padding.
Politically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ispso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
When forced to work as a slave on a plantation (as in 1840s Carolinas,
for instance):
The woman is not free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can not buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Politically, nearly every right that the pregnant woman of today has
would be revoked were she to be transplanted back into the 1840s as a
slave.
Girl scout cookies. She wasn't allowed to buy girl scout cookies,
either. Don't forget that. After all, these meaningful examples of
yours should include girl scout cookies.
Good response! Shows that your brain is still working. Now, if you
could stand up and let it have some air, it might think logically,
too.
Logic doesn't seem to be a part of this. You are saying that women
being forced to give birth isn't the same as slavery because, lets see,
today, "woman can buy, sell, and transfer all securities."
(1) The woman has, in most instances, already *made* her choice.
But she hasn't. Just having sex doesn't mean anything. Only
some flagrant non sequitur could link it.
It blows the heck out of my mind that I live in a world wherein
someone could think that sex and pregnancy could only be linked by a
"flagrant non sequitor."
A girl below the age of consent cannot under any circumstances
give consent to sex, yet she can be forced to carry a fetus
to term without her consent. An adult woman can consent
to sex and need not consent to a pregnancy.
That's all well and good.
Translation: "Good point"
And with thermal imaging technology, we can
now "see" differences in temperature.
LOL! And then there are those "girl scout cookies."
But if we open our eyes in a
dark room, we can't see a thing. By your logic, therefore, eyes are
not for seeing.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! The mind of the Right Wing.
Oooh...that's right, a vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Sssssshh...they'll
hear you.
Take a look around you. The Right Wing is deteriorating along with the
country.
Seriously, good job. You don't want to address the argument itself,
poke fun at it. Ascribe it to a larger "Plan" of some sort. That'll
impress people.
What argument?
(1a) The fetus has had no opportunity yet to make a choice or, in this
case, to have a choice made for it.
That's irrelevant, though.
Not in the framework of his question. Did you read the original
question, or did you just jump in to push the
abortion-rights-at-all-costs rhetoric down my throat?
Intersexual babies have no consent in the mother or
doctor deciding for them to cut off their penis and
turn them into a female, having given no consent to
this mutilation. If a fetus has rights and given the
title of human being, and if a woman can be forced
to carry this titled human, then it legalizes rape.
If a fetus can be in a female without her consent
so can anyone.
Are you kidding me? Do you really want a response to this load of
baloney?
Translation: "You got me there."
Intersexual babies... yeah, that's a great argument for abortion.
The parallels are sparklingly clear.
You know what, with babies, someone acts in parens patriae. Normally
the parents themselves, sometimes a guardian.
That is a big assumption.
In all respects,
though, the decisions made by the parent/guardian are done with the
best interests of the child in mind.
Even though they may not be in the best interest of the child.
It is the rare case where an
abortion is performed with the best interests of the child in mind.
Every abortion is with best interests of the child in mind and I doubt
you can prove otherwise.
So I'm afraid that analogy kind of, well, sucks.
"You got me there" is not an analogy.
If a man has sex with a girl below the age of consent
he should give this as a legal argument. All he has to
say is, I want equal protection of the law.
You've got to be kidding me. Nobody could hold positions this insane
and be serious.
(2) Okay, I hear you say that the woman may be raped, it may be a
result of incest, or some other such argument. (I find it interesting
that these are always presented as two *distinct* reasons for
abortion. As if incest is not included as rape. If not--if the
incest was *consensual*, then this argument holds no water, and should
revert to approach (1). The worry of incestual inbreeding only should
arise upon the practice of incest within multiple generations in the
same branch of the family tree.) The argument goes that the woman
doesn't want this fetus, so why should she be forced to be an
incubator for it? Why should she be forced into a nine-month slavery
to carry something she is not responsible for?
In this instance, a simple "balancing of rights" should be made.
The fetus has no rights.
Not according to the original question.
The question was posited assuming that the fetus had rights. As such,
I answered it.
Thus legalizing rape.
Faulty premises, faulty logic, and faulty conclusion. Would you like
them all pointed out?
YEAH. Do you know someone who can do it? Because YOU sure can't do it.
Still looking...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 02:55:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:20:23 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <b7u8121h4ri1bnvr5qa323pec702v5t4qu@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:10:44 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bfr8129uqqpc6qmuuaggs74db64fg91mdb@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 02:11:06 -0800, "nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alberich wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:39:00 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:14:24 GMT, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:57:50 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:07:07 GMT, Eden
<banmilk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Why does the fetus have rights, and the woman has none?
No anti-choicer ever answers that. They always run away. They never
want to deal with the fact that their line of thought makes a slave
of
the woman--a mere vessel without rights which must carry the fetus no
matter what.
There are several possible answers to that question.
None of which will ever be able to escape the fact that denial
of abortion rights makes a slave of the woman.
As long as you want to use emotionally-charged words rather than
consider my specific response to his challenge, this discussion will
go nowhere.
Translation: I cannot refute the fact that forcing a girl to
carry a fetus against her will, is no different than forcing
her to work on a plantation without any consent in the
matter.
When pregnant:
The woman is still free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can still buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can still buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Biologically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ipso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
Biologically? You are now talking of "biological rights?" List some
"biological rights."
Let me rephrase, for those of you who have a hard time understanding
English:
"As a result of her biological condition, no rights have been taken
from her."
So it was padding.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Politically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ispso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
When forced to work as a slave on a plantation (as in 1840s Carolinas,
for instance):
The woman is not free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can not buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Politically, nearly every right that the pregnant woman of today has
would be revoked were she to be transplanted back into the 1840s as a
slave.
Girl scout cookies. She wasn't allowed to buy girl scout cookies,
either. Don't forget that. After all, these meaningful examples of
yours should include girl scout cookies.
Good response! Shows that your brain is still working. Now, if you
could stand up and let it have some air, it might think logically,
too.
Logic doesn't seem to be a part of this. You are saying that women
being forced to give birth isn't the same as slavery because, lets see,
today, "woman can buy, sell, and transfer all securities."
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
<snip>
(1a) The fetus has had no opportunity yet to make a choice or, in this
case, to have a choice made for it.
That's irrelevant, though.
Not in the framework of his question. Did you read the original
question, or did you just jump in to push the
abortion-rights-at-all-costs rhetoric down my throat?
Intersexual babies have no consent in the mother or
doctor deciding for them to cut off their penis and
turn them into a female, having given no consent to
this mutilation. If a fetus has rights and given the
title of human being, and if a woman can be forced
to carry this titled human, then it legalizes rape.
If a fetus can be in a female without her consent
so can anyone.
Are you kidding me? Do you really want a response to this load of
baloney?
Translation: "You got me there."
Intersexual babies... yeah, that's a great argument for abortion.
The parallels are sparklingly clear.
You know what, with babies, someone acts in parens patriae. Normally
the parents themselves, sometimes a guardian.
That is a big assumption.
Legally, that is what is assumed. If we're talking about slavery and
rights, I assumed you wanted a legal approach.
In all respects,
though, the decisions made by the parent/guardian are done with the
best interests of the child in mind.
Even though they may not be in the best interest of the child.
Legally, that is the standard.
It is the rare case where an
abortion is performed with the best interests of the child in mind.
Every abortion is with best interests of the child in mind and I doubt
you can prove otherwise.
I doubt you can prove that every abortion is done with the best
interests of the child in mind. I can imagine that if you surveyed
one hundred random adults and asked them if they would rather have ben
killed before they were born, or have had the life they've lived, you
won't find that 100 would have preferred to be aborted.
<snip>
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 06:14:46 PM |
|
|
Politically, not one single right that the woman had three months
before her pregnancy is ispso facto revoked because she has become
pregnant.
When forced to work as a slave on a plantation (as in 1840s Carolinas,
for instance):
The woman is not free to travel, both interstate and intrastate.
The woman can not buy, sell, lease, and transfer all manner of real
property.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all securities.
The woman can not buy, sell, and transfer all manner of goods.
Politically, nearly every right that the pregnant woman of today has
would be revoked were she to be transplanted back into the 1840s as a
slave.
Girl scout cookies. She wasn't allowed to buy girl scout cookies,
either. Don't forget that. After all, these meaningful examples of
yours should include girl scout cookies.
Good response! Shows that your brain is still working. Now, if you
could stand up and let it have some air, it might think logically,
too.
Logic doesn't seem to be a part of this. You are saying that women
being forced to give birth isn't the same as slavery because, lets see,
today, "woman can buy, sell, and transfer all securities."
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
<snip>
(1a) The fetus has had no opportunity yet to make a choice or, in
this
case, to have a choice made for it.
That's irrelevant, though.
Not in the framework of his question. Did you read the original
question, or did you just jump in to push the
abortion-rights-at-all-costs rhetoric down my throat?
Intersexual babies have no consent in the mother or
doctor deciding for them to cut off their penis and
turn them into a female, having given no consent to
this mutilation. If a fetus has rights and given the
title of human being, and if a woman can be forced
to carry this titled human, then it legalizes rape.
If a fetus can be in a female without her consent
so can anyone.
Are you kidding me? Do you really want a response to this load of
baloney?
Translation: "You got me there."
Intersexual babies... yeah, that's a great argument for abortion.
The parallels are sparklingly clear.
You know what, with babies, someone acts in parens patriae. Normally
the parents themselves, sometimes a guardian.
That is a big assumption.
Legally, that is what is assumed. If we're talking about slavery and
rights, I assumed you wanted a legal approach.
In all respects,
though, the decisions made by the parent/guardian are done with the
best interests of the child in mind.
Even though they may not be in the best interest of the child.
Legally, that is the standard.
No it isn't.
It is the rare case where an
abortion is performed with the best interests of the child in mind.
Every abortion is with best interests of the child in mind and I doubt
you can prove otherwise.
I doubt you can prove that every abortion is done with the best
interests of the child in mind.
The person who decides what is in the best interest of the child is the
mother. Not you. They do what they feel is best. How can you say
otherwise?
I can imagine that if you surveyed
one hundred random adults and asked them if they would rather have ben
killed before they were born, or have had the life they've lived, you
won't find that 100 would have preferred to be aborted.
LOL! Except that today they are conscience and aware. A fetus is
neither. According to the "pro-life," abortion is tantamount to
murder, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 08:32:41 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished, this
debate is ongoing.
[..]
I doubt you can prove that every abortion is done with the best
interests of the child in mind.
The person who decides what is in the best interest of the child is the
mother. Not you. They do what they feel is best. How can you say
otherwise?
Because it's false. Nowhere are parents allowed to have the final say on
what is best for the child.
I can imagine that if you surveyed
one hundred random adults and asked them if they would rather have ben
killed before they were born, or have had the life they've lived, you
won't find that 100 would have preferred to be aborted.
LOL! Except that today they are conscience and aware. A fetus is
neither. According to the "pro-life," abortion is tantamount to
murder, right?
It's very similar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
12 Mar 2006 08:52:08 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
14 Mar 2006 08:13:18 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery, that's pro-choice rhetoric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 10:40:52 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery, that's pro-choice rhetoric.
You insist that a woman may be forced to provide the use of
her body and she should suffer for the benefit of the fetus.
What's that if not slavery?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
14 Mar 2006 08:32:31 PM |
|
|
I-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
n article <121eu1t800s3sd3@news.supernews.com>,
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
you are.
that's pro-choice rhetoric.
you are lying again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.5 - not licensed for commercial use:
www.pgp.com
iQEVAwUBRBd8p1njJVksN2VkAQgdKwf+JpuO81R4+qW0NwqtDRG3w86rwiaoJk1s
oh4p/0Rg6NZoU6r3WNcXzTYFQDB+HOz4xRWeEC463ejz3fx7aw+KmQlpvkNsKYvf
OKClYdotypTFtwbJC+0QPPFeItjwbbWqWelrN88ZRI8l8bZwkNvK8gCiX1HmoPB0
NIPPVc+r+3n/qaHCRuY/pV21U2j6skh28YcOTN8FIdGByWCt4o3DnWaX6YsXLczW
lZmFh9t5tgLiRNp1rHUAkdwDuyVol7vT/56zbiJRkIeCm9Wg6yUS97KJET9hfJQP
VwcUc0WdMvTwd7Fgv78xK/umzZoznz1aVfySyg/dGqlgqnDa4iRifQ==
=bYto
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
14 Mar 2006 08:21:03 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:13:18 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
Yes they are--they want abolrtion to be outlawed.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 02:59:56 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:vfue12dfhst7lkmsstdfsmrtm6j53n81o8@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:13:18 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
Yes they are--they want abolrtion to be outlawed.
Were people who argued for the rights of slaves arguing for slavery also?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 09:18:00 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:59:56 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:vfue12dfhst7lkmsstdfsmrtm6j53n81o8@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:13:18 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
Yes they are--they want abolrtion to be outlawed.
Were people who argued for the rights of slaves arguing for slavery also?
They argued for the end of slavery. You are arguing to
institute slavery for women.
IOW: you need to come up with an analogy that isn't false.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 11:45:18 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:4c0j125en1bbr1nv6uamj5l938ig2pt4a2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:59:56 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:vfue12dfhst7lkmsstdfsmrtm6j53n81o8@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:13:18 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
Yes they are--they want abolrtion to be outlawed.
Were people who argued for the rights of slaves arguing for slavery also?
They argued for the end of slavery.
Which resulted in hardship and loss of rights to slave-owners, but they
adapted.
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
You need to use analogies that hold up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 11:57:18 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
By demanding the abject sercitude and suffering of women.
You need to use analogies that hold up.
It's not an analogy, dimwit. You demand involuntary servitude.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 03:45:08 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:4c0j125en1bbr1nv6uamj5l938ig2pt4a2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:59:56 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:vfue12dfhst7lkmsstdfsmrtm6j53n81o8@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:13:18 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:0in912pepdrvb3749k69bcpoo08fr5sd24@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:32:41 -0800, "Dutch"
<no@email.com> let us all know that:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
No, I'm saying that it isn't slavery because it doesn't fit what
society holds as slavery.
And it isn't what society holds as criminal or immoral. So it isn't
either or those.
You're begging the question. The debate over slavery is finished,
No it isn't; some still want abortion to be outlawed.
Nobody is arguing for slavery,
Yes they are--they want abolrtion to be outlawed.
Were people who argued for the rights of slaves arguing for slavery also?
They argued for the end of slavery.
Which resulted in hardship and loss of rights to slave-owners, but they
adapted.
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
They want to demand the involuntary servitude of women
You need to use analogies that hold up.
After you
- Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 05:17:35 PM |
|
|
"Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
[..]
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
They want to demand the involuntary servitude of women
Taking responsibility for acts of procreation is not servitude. Stop using
stupid pro-choice propaganda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 11:57:52 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
They want to demand the involuntary servitude of women
Taking responsibility for acts of procreation is not servitude.
"Sex is a crime".
Stop using
stupid pro-choice propaganda.
Stop using anti-sex puritan propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 07:09:05 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
[..]
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
They want to demand the involuntary servitude of women
Taking responsibility for acts of procreation is not servitude.
Let's see if you take responsibility for the deaths of women you'd cause by
forcing pregnancies to term.
Requiring someone to use their body to serve the needs of another is involuntary
servitude, consensual sex is not a crime, and others opinions regarding 'taking
responsibility', including yours, do not make a woman yours to command.
Stop using stupid pro-choice propaganda.
Stop trying to use women to support what you claim are 'children'. There are
plenty of children where you can support and save their lives yourself, you
don't have to kill or harm anyone to do it, and probably nobody would object if
you did.
- Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Major anti-choice dodge |
16 Mar 2006 07:32:47 PM |
|
|
"Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
"Frank O'Dwyer" <batsignal1@gmail.com> wrote
Dutch wrote:
[..]
Pro-life are arguing for an end to abortions, not for slavery.
They want to demand the involuntary servitude of women
Taking responsibility for acts of procreation is not servitude.
Let's see if you take responsibility for the deaths of women you'd cause
by forcing pregnancies to term.
I didn't create the risk of pregnancy in sex, it already existed.
Requiring someone to use their body
Nobody put a gun to anyone's head making them engage in high-risk behaviour,
th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
