| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2007 08:28:46 PM |
| Object: |
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890601/posts
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise on Abortion if Elected
President
Life News ^ | 9/3/07 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 09/03/2007 12:57:48 PM PDT by wagglebee
Portsmouth, NH (LifeNews.com) -- Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend and told voters
that the she won't soften her hard-core pro-abortion views if she's
elected president. That could cause her problems as a recent poll
showed extreme pro-abortion views are a turnoff to women voters.
Clinton promised she would bring change as president but also vowed
she would never compromise on her pro-abortion views.
"Ultimately, to bring change, you have to know when to stand your
ground, and when to find common ground," she said. "You need to know
when to stick to principles and fight, and know when to make
principled compromises."
Clinton didn't back down from those pro-abortion views in an August
speech to leaders at Planned Parenthood.
There, she pledged continuing support for the nation's largest
abortion business and bragged of her 100 percent voting record with
that organization.
"I'm very proud of our partnership, of working together over so many
years on behalf of reproductive freedom and health care and
fundamental Constitutional rights and values," she said.
"[W]hen I'm president, I will devote my very first days in office to
reversing these ideological, anti-science, anti-prevention policies
that this administration has put into place," she said of President
Bush's pro-life policies.
Last month, the respected Polling Company firm conducted a survey with
600 women voters of both parties from August 15-20.
The poll revealed that Hillary's positions on abortion were at odds
with a majority of American women.
Some 64 percent of women voters would be less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion
ban -- a measure Clinton voted against on four occasions.
Sixty-eight percent of women voters are less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who supports taxpayer-funded abortion --
something Hillary Clinton adamantly supports.
And 73 percent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote
for a presidential candidate who voted against a law that would have
made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18
years of age across state lines to get an abortion without her
parents' knowledge.
Clinton twice voted against a Congressional bill to do just that.
"Clinton needs women voters to win, yet her extreme abortion policies
remain out of step with the majority of American women," Marjorie
Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told
LifeNews.com about the poll.
"The feminist lobby may support her radical positions, but in the real
and bigger world of women voters, Clinton's extremism fails to
translate into votes. Hillary needs more in common with women voters
than anatomy," Dannenfelser added.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Sep 2007 10:54:47 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 2:27 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:05 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:22 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:12 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A
Pearlstein) wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be
like being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a
matter betweenp atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human
person.
That's a known falsehood. A lie.
In your unsupported opinion.
No, pro-liar, your claim is a lie. According to the laws of
states and nations worldwide, a human being's life starts at
birth.
The laws of states and nations worldwide have no monopoly on
defining personhood.
*Neither do you*
Never said I did; I'm here attempting to persuade.
Maybe on these pages...but
elsewhere you fight to get the
power of law to agree with
your religious views
And how would I do that in our democratic society without persuading
my fellow citizens? Your tinfoil hat is starting to show. (And catch
up on your reading ... my argument is nonreligious.)
The abortion argument is a religious argument.
Rubbish. It has nothing to do with religion, it has everything
to do with protecting the life of those already conceived
and entitled to be born. Only garbage murder their own
children, born and unborn.
Anti-Choice advocates want to impose their religious views on others.
Duh. People have a choice *before* they conceive a child,
they should exercise that right and get fixed if they don't want
children. However, if there *are* those who say they believe in
a God of Creation, then they have no excuse for killing their own
baby, which makes it difficult to understand why so many jews,
even those who claim to be religious, are in favour of it.
In fact many of these abortion mills are run by the jew, one
of whom got himself offed on the way home from, of all places
the synagogue.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Sep 2007 08:16:26 AM |
|
|
On 11 Sep., 23:03, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:05 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
snip
Never said I did; I'm here attempting to persuade.
Maybe on these pages...but
elsewhere you fight to get the
power of law to agree with
your religious views
And how would I do that in our democratic society without persuading
my fellow citizens? Your tinfoil hat is starting to show. (And catch
up on your reading ... my argument is nonreligious.)-
But, just like religious arguments, it is unsupported by any objective
fact.
S
kjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Sep 2007 10:46:02 PM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 9:12 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
That's a known falsehood. A lie.
In your unsupported opinion.
No, pro-liar, your claim is a lie. According to the laws of states and
nations worldwide, a human being's life starts at birth.
Tell it to all those people in prison convicted of murdering
a pregnant women * and* her unborn child.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
Your OPINION is not particularly relevant.
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
Which means what?
Consult a dictionary ... each of those words is there.
Free will is a fiction.
Thus, your criterion is meaningless. :-)
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
Thus, all eggs are persons. All sperm are persons.
Already rebutted below.
Claiming it doesn't make it so.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes.
And a vastly different sense than applies to newborns.
In your unsupported opinion.
As opposed to YOUR unsupported opinion?
Your argument can be summarized as: A fetus is a person just becaus
eyou say so and regardless of any fact or law.
Stamp your feet and wail.
You're doing just fine at that all by yourself.
A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
Another falsehood.
In your unsupported opinion.
No, pro-liar. Fact.
You are a moron.
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
14 Sep 2007 09:12:02 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
On Sep 6, 9:12 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
That's a known falsehood. A lie.
In your unsupported opinion.
No, pro-liar, your claim is a lie. According to the laws of states and
nations worldwide, a human being's life starts at birth.
Tell it to all those people in prison convicted of murdering
a pregnant women * and* her unborn child.
Sentenced according to laws which say that a human being's life starts at
birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
14 Sep 2007 03:19:53 PM |
|
|
On 14 Sep., 05:46, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 9:12 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:00 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like=
being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp at=
ient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
That's a known falsehood. A lie.
In your unsupported opinion.
No, pro-liar, your claim is a lie. According to the laws of states and
nations worldwide, a human being's life starts at birth.
Tell it to all those people in prison convicted of murdering
a pregnant women * and* her unborn child.
Are the=EDr any doctors in prison for murder because they performed an
abortion? According to your reasoning wouldn't the foetus be a person
no matter what the reason the pregnancy was terminated? Clearly the
law disagrees with you.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:06:52 PM |
|
|
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
A fetus isn't a person any more than a rib-eye steak is a person.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:25:17 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
.
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 04:20:35 PM |
|
|
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
A fetus isn't a person any more than a rib-eye steak is.
Are you one of those fetus fuckers? Those creeps who riffle through the trash
cans of abortion clinics and then takes a dead fetus home and fucks it. Shame
on you!
Yours in Christ,
GW
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 04:39:55 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 1:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
Are you *sure* your name isn't Cohen?? You appear
to be obsessed with the words "Lying" and "liar".
BTW How many children do *you* have or are children
considered an inconvenience who don't deserve to see
the light of day?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwenyth Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 07:47:37 AM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 4:39 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
Are you *sure* your name isn't Cohen?? You appear
to be obsessed with the words "Lying" and "liar".
They are the best descriptors I can come up with for a lying coward
such as yourself, liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 08:27:50 AM |
|
|
On 10-Sep-2007, Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:39 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be
like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp
atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human
person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
Are you *sure* your name isn't Cohen?? You appear
to be obsessed with the words "Lying" and "liar".
They are the best descriptors I can come up with for a lying coward
such as yourself, liar.
It *does* take a *colossal* moron to try to blame other people for
having no other choice when being honest about her behavior.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 09:08:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:47:37 -0700, Gwenyth Bennet
<bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:39 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
Are you *sure* your name isn't Cohen?? You appear
to be obsessed with the words "Lying" and "liar".
They are the best descriptors I can come up with for a lying coward
such as yourself, liar.
Yes.
These morons have redefined words so thay mean something else. And
then assume everybody else uses the new meanings.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:40:19 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 3:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
You and Chimpy are the only liars here, as your unmarked deletions
prove.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:44:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:40:19 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying, liar.
You and Chimpy are the only liars here, as your unmarked deletions
prove.
You're lying again, liar.
Because whatever you pretend, a fetus isn't a human being YET.
Your first line was a lie.
It was not necessary to read any further.
What puzzles me, is that you liars know you don't fool anybody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 04:48:41 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 1:44 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:40:19 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:34 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:25:17 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
[unmarked deletion of 25 lines of argument]
A fetus isn't a person [...]
Another LIEberal who deletes 25 lines of reasoned argument (without
marking the deletion) and posts, "Nuh-uh".
Stop lying,
THat's 1.
liar.
That's 2.
You and Chimpy are the only liars here, as your unmarked deletions
prove.
You're lying again,
That's 3.
liar.
That's 4.
Because whatever you pretend, a fetus isn't a human being YET.
Your first line was a lie.
That's 5.
It was not necessary to read any further.
What puzzles me, is that you liars
That's 6.
Get some mental help before it's too late.
know you don't fool anybody.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 12:09:49 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 12:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
What does 'innocent' have to do with it?
Why do you say both 'human' and 'person'? What's the distinction?
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons.
You're excluding those adult humans who can't reason well or can't
reason at all, including those who were disabled in service to country
or who are under anesthesia or even asleep, although you never say
just how well or how often a person must reason to be a 'reasoning
individuality.'
And it's not clear where you got this 'free-willed' stuff or what it
means.
But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons.
What does 'Western history' have to do with what purports to be a
logical argument? You might recall that 'almost without exception in
Western history' until quite recently, and still with many exceptions,
women have not been fully regarded as persons.
Your whole argument depends on this 'almost without exception in
Western history' stuff, which you haven't shown to be relevant.
The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
To me, it seems woefully undemonstrated. Your sole premise is: 'all
who possess reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.' That
premise fails when applied to infants. But you want to include
infants -- as the only way to wiggle towards zygotes -- so you switch
gears and babble about 'Western history.'
Accept that your premise has failed. Accept that you need to abort
that failed premise and begin looking around for a new one.
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Your argument is inane. In effect, you're saying this: "Western
society, by and large, and then only relatively recently, has accepted
infants as persons. We don't know why that happened, or at least I
won't say why. I'll just attribute it to 'potential,' because
'potential' the only way I'll be able get to zygotes."
That's no argument at all.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
That doesn't follow. There are degrees of potential. Even if your
reliance on 'potential' followed from your premise, which it doesn't,
you need to show that the 'potential' of a zygote to achieve your
premise is comparable to that of an infant. You haven't, and haven't
even tried.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
That's not at all clear to reasoning, free-willed individualities who
apply even a smattering of logic. See above.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
You haven't helped yourself there. Although you accept that there are
degrees of potential, and that such degrees are important, you still
haven't made the relevant comparison, which is comparing the potential
of a zygote to that of an infant.
Not that such a comparison would help, even if you could make it
successfully. Your argument failed before you ever got to where such
a comparison would matter.
:-)
Jenny
(who always seeks to be helpful and hopes to have been of service)
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 12:55:33 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 12:09 pm, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
What does 'innocent' have to do with it?
It's open to debate whether it's wrong to kill guilty persons.
Why do you say both 'human' and 'person'? What's the distinction?
It may be possible to be a person without being human, e.g.,
intelligent space aliens.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons.
You're excluding those adult humans who can't reason well
Where did I say "well"?
or can't
reason at all, including those who were disabled in service to country
or who are under anesthesia or even asleep, although you never say
just how well or how often a person must reason to be a 'reasoning
individuality.'
It doesn't have to be 100% of the time.
And it's not clear where you got this 'free-willed' stuff
Never heard of it? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+will%22
or what it means.
free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to
remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by
external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
[Middle English fre wil, translation of Late Latin l berum arbitrium :
Latin l berum, neuter of l ber, free + Latin arbitrium, will.]
But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons.
What does 'Western history' have to do with what purports to be a
logical argument? You might recall that 'almost without exception in
Western history' until quite recently, and still with many exceptions,
women have not been fully regarded as persons.
Your whole argument depends on this 'almost without exception in
Western history' stuff, which you haven't shown to be relevant.
If you want to reject the personhood of newborns, feel free. I see no
practical need to rebut such a fringe position.
The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
To me, it seems woefully undemonstrated. Your sole premise is: 'all
who possess reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.' That
premise fails when applied to infants. [...]
Wrong. What fails in the case of newborns is 'all who are persons
possess reasoning free-willed individuality,' which is explicitly not
my premise nor my claim.
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Your argument is inane. In effect, you're saying this: "Western
society, by and large, and then only relatively recently, has accepted
infants as persons. We don't know why that happened, or at least I
won't say why. I'll just attribute it to 'potential,' because
'potential' the only way I'll be able get to zygotes."
So why in your view should infants be accepted as persons (assuming
you think they should be)?
That's no argument at all.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
That doesn't follow. There are degrees of potential. Even if your
reliance on 'potential' followed from your premise, which it doesn't,
you need to show that the 'potential' of a zygote to achieve your
premise is comparable to that of an infant. You haven't, and haven't
even tried.
A significant fraction of zygotes make it to infanthood, ergo their
potentials are not qualitatively different.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
That's not at all clear to reasoning, free-willed individualities who
apply even a smattering of logic. See above.
See above.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
You haven't helped yourself there. Although you accept that there are
degrees of potential, and that such degrees are important, you still
haven't made the relevant comparison, which is comparing the potential
of a zygote to that of an infant.
Now I have.
Not that such a comparison would help, even if you could make it
successfully. Your argument failed before you ever got to where such
a comparison would matter.
Nope ... what happened was you confused 'all crows are black' with
'all black things are crows.' Shame about that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:32:09 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is void of logic as both clearly
aren't that "something".
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 03:44:08 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 10:01:29 PM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:28:13 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 10:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
06 Sep 2007 11:09:21 PM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
07 Sep 2007 01:15:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
[restore Ray's deceptive deletion:]
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
[end restoration of Ray's deceptive deletion]
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did, as the text you deceptively deleted makes clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
08 Sep 2007 12:56:25 AM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 03:00:17 PM |
|
|
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong ... needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 08:14:34 PM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live."
Those are your words, pro-liar. Obviously you cannot be trusted to
tell the truth about anything.
.. needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
1) Your claim is complete *****.
2) The woman did not cause the fetus to need her body.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Sep 2007 04:01:32 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live."
Those are your words, pro-liar. Obviously you cannot be trusted to
tell the truth about anything.
Obviously you cannot be trusted to understand the phrase "in and of
itself."
.. needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
1) Your claim is complete *****.
2) The woman did not cause the fetus to need her body.
Sure she did, by having sex, just like I cause a piano to fall by
pushing it out a window.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Sep 2007 04:48:01 PM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live."
Those are your words, pro-liar. Obviously you cannot be trusted to
tell the truth about anything.
Obviously you cannot be trusted to understand the phrase "in and of
itself."
Which apparently means that everything else you write is worthless
garbage and completely meaningless.
.. needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
1) Your claim is complete *****.
2) The woman did not cause the fetus to need her body.
Sure she did, by having sex,
And you caused yourself to owe me $20,000 by posting your drivel.
Pay up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 03:03:45 PM |
|
|
M_P wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A
Pearlstein) wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be
like being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a
matter betweenp atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human
person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the
right to life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If
there is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your
will to donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the
right to be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body
since it does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong ... needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
Nonsense...that's created from your religious world
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
