| 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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
27 Sep 2007 02:10:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:26 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 12:06 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:18:38 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1190675722.121377.299100@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entireabortionissue is a matter of opinion.
That's true and is the main reason for leaving the abortion decission up to
individual women
and not let this be dictated by legislatures
Should we also leave the decision to lynch up to individual lynchers
and not let that be dictated by legislatures?
If people want to lynch THEMSELVES? Sure.
We're not advocating that one woman make the decision for another
woman, only that she be allowed to make the decision for HERSELF.
Correction: herself and the unborn human to be killed.
Sorry, but it has no right to the use of her body without her prior
explicit consent.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
27 Sep 2007 02:16:09 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 2:10 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:26 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 12:06 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:18:38 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1190675722.121377.299100@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entireabortionissue is a matter of opinion.
That's true and is the main reason for leaving the abortion decission up to
individual women
and not let this be dictated by legislatures
Should we also leave the decision to lynch up to individual lynchers
and not let that be dictated by legislatures?
If people want to lynch THEMSELVES? Sure.
We're not advocating that one woman make the decision for another
woman, only that she be allowed to make the decision for HERSELF.
Correction: herself and the unborn human to be killed.
Sorry, but it has no right to the use of her body without her prior
explicit consent.
Wrong, because 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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
27 Sep 2007 06:43:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:09 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:10 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:26 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 12:06 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:18:38 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1190675722.121377.299100@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entireabortionissue is a matter of opinion.
That's true and is the main reason for leaving the abortion decission up to
individual women
and not let this be dictated by legislatures
Should we also leave the decision to lynch up to individual lynchers
and not let that be dictated by legislatures?
If people want to lynch THEMSELVES? Sure.
We're not advocating that one woman make the decision for another
woman, only that she be allowed to make the decision for HERSELF.
Correction: herself and the unborn human to be killed.
Sorry, but it has no right to the use of her body without her prior
explicit consent.
Wrong, because an unborn human is created in his mother's body and
needing her resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions
Unless she voluntarily EXPLICITLY gave it permission to use her body,
it has no such right. (While sex may be implicit permission, it's not
explicit permission.) Need DOES NOT constitute right in our society.
If it did there would be no poor people.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
01 Oct 2007 04:39:53 PM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 6:43 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:09 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:10 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:26 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 12:06 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:18:38 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1190675722.121377.299100@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entireabortionissue is a matter of opinion.
That's true and is the main reason for leaving the abortion decission up to
individual women
and not let this be dictated by legislatures
Should we also leave the decision to lynch up to individual lynchers
and not let that be dictated by legislatures?
If people want to lynch THEMSELVES? Sure.
We're not advocating that one woman make the decision for another
woman, only that she be allowed to make the decision for HERSELF.
Correction: herself and the unborn human to be killed.
Sorry, but it has no right to the use of her body without her prior
explicit consent.
Wrong, because an unborn human is created in his mother's body and
needing her resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions
Unless she voluntarily EXPLICITLY gave it permission to use her body,
it has no such right.
Or so you claim.
(While sex may be implicit permission, it's not
explicit permission.) Need DOES NOT constitute right in our society.
If it did there would be no poor people.
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
01 Oct 2007 07:02:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:53 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:43 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Wrong, because an unborn human is created in his mother's body and
needing her resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions
Unless she voluntarily EXPLICITLY gave it permission to use her body,
it has no such right.
Or so you claim.
Quote the law that gives any human being the right to the unallowed
use of another human being's body.
(While sex may be implicit permission, it's not
explicit permission.) Need DOES NOT constitute right in our society.
If it did there would be no poor people.
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
Then man has the right to use God in any way we see fit.
Oops.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 02:51:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 7:02 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:53 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:43 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Wrong, because an unborn human is created in his mother's body and
needing her resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions
Unless she voluntarily EXPLICITLY gave it permission to use her body,
it has no such right.
Or so you claim.
Quote the law that gives any human being the right to the unallowed
use of another human being's body.
Straw man. I never said there was currently such a law. My argument is
about natural rights not legal rights.
(While sex may be implicit permission, it's not
explicit permission.) Need DOES NOT constitute right in our society.
If it did there would be no poor people.
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
Then man has the right to use God in any way we see fit.
Oops.
Go right ahead and use God in any way you see fit. Let me know how
that turns out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 11:12:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:51:41 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:02 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:53 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:43 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Wrong, because an unborn human is created in his mother's body and
needing her resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions
Unless she voluntarily EXPLICITLY gave it permission to use her body,
it has no such right.
Or so you claim.
Quote the law that gives any human being the right to the unallowed
use of another human being's body.
Straw man. I never said there was currently such a law. My argument is
about natural rights not legal rights.
Quote the law that gives anyone any natural right. (If you're talking
about your opinion of what rights we have, that's different. Then
I'll just ignore you, as I ignore anyone who can't tell the difference
between his opinion and reality. Only psychiatrists are interested in
such people.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 09:08:57 AM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 4:39 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
That only comes into play when an actual child is present - and that
happens _after_ birth.
What happens in pregnancy is directly the woman's choice and to her
responsibility in making a proper choice for an unwanted pregnancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 02:54:50 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 9:08 am, Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir <bennetwitho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 1, 4:39 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
That only comes into play when an actual child is present - and that
happens _after_ birth.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
not be killed---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. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
(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.)
What happens in pregnancy is directly the woman's choice and to her
responsibility in making a proper choice for an unwanted pregnancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 10:11:29 PM |
|
|
M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:08 am, Gwyneð Bennetdottir <bennetwitho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 1, 4:39 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
That only comes into play when an actual child is present - and that
happens _after_ birth.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
Not this idiocy again.
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.
Thuis excluding infants and fetuses.
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.
Logical fallacy: Assuming the conclusion.
You assume that it has such a potential, but that is only an opinion
based upon nothing at all.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
From before conception since many sperm and eggs also end up
developing awareness.
(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.
Pure opinion without any supporting evidence or fact.
A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
DNA is irrelevant to "reasoning free-willed individuality".
a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities-
Also irrelevant. As you stated, so long as it has the POTENTIAL for
awareness then it is a person.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Collideascope" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 03:18:52 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 2:54 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:08 am, Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir <bennetwitho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 1, 4:39 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
That only comes into play when an actual child is present - and that
happens _after_ birth.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
not be killed---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. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Clearly.
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted, and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born. That's why we count them.
Right?
And when a woman miscarries, a death report must be filed, since death
reports must be filed in the case where a person dies, and we as a
society just naturally understand the term 'person' to count every
last miscarried embryo. That's why miscarriages require a death
report. Right?
And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
Oh, wait a minute ... fetuses aren't counted in the census, death
reports aren't filed for miscarriages, and we can't count a fetus as a
dependent on a tax return.
Why not?
Because except when spewing anti-abortion propaganda, no one in their
right mind considers a fetus to be a 'person'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
02 Oct 2007 03:29:22 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 3:18 pm, Collideascope <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:54 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:08 am, Gwyne=F0 Bennetdottir <bennetwitho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 1, 4:39 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Straw man. My position is that need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes
right with regard to that other.
That only comes into play when an actual child is present - and that
happens _after_ birth.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
not be killed---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. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Clearly.
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted,
Where did you get the idea that I was making the legal argument that
fetuses fall within the Article I, Section 2 meaning of "persons"?
and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born.
Straw man. If that understanding was "just natural" I wouldn't have to
be here posting my arguments.
That's why we count them.
Right?
And when a woman miscarries, a death report must be filed, since death
reports must be filed in the case where a person dies,
Provide evidence for your claim.
[...] And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent =
any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
03 Oct 2007 12:44:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:29:22 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:18 pm, Collideascope <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted,
Where did you get the idea that I was making the legal argument that
fetuses fall within the Article I, Section 2 meaning of "persons"?
From you, when you said, "need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes right
with regard to that other". Since the only effective rights are those
granted by governments, only persons have rights.
and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born.
Straw man. If that understanding was "just natural" I wouldn't have to
be here posting my arguments.
The understanding, among those intelligent enough to understand logic,
*is* "just natural". That you *don't* understand it isn't reason for
you to post your lack of understanding, it's reason for you to seek an
education (assuming you're intelligent enough for education to benefit
you).
And when a woman miscarries, a death report must be filed, since death
reports must be filed in the case where a person dies,
Provide evidence for your claim.
A death certificate must be issued in all jurisdictions in the US when
a person dies. Are you really asking for the health laws of every
jurisdiction to be posted here?
[...] And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. The IRS
still will not allow a pregnant woman to count the fetus in her womb
as a dependent for the year, even if it was born 1 second after
midnight on January 1 of the following year. Yet you claim it was her
offspring for 9 months of that year, and "resided" exactly where she
did.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 02:54:50 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 12:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:29:22 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:18 pm, Collideascope <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted,
Where did you get the idea that I was making the legal argument that
fetuses fall within the Article I, Section 2 meaning of "persons"?
From you, when you said, "need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes right
with regard to that other". Since the only effective rights are those
granted by governments,
Under a certain definition of "effective," I suppose ... but it's a
straw man anyway since my statement was not about "effective" rights
nor legal rights.
only persons have rights.
and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born.
Straw man. If that understanding was "just natural" I wouldn't have to
be here posting my arguments.
The understanding, among those intelligent enough to understand logic,
*is* "just natural".
In the context of this exchange, what you have just said is that the
understanding that 'person' counts those not yet born is just natural.
Since I'm sure that's not your position, I must assume that you're
babbling yet again, and give you a chance to wipe the froth from your
mouth and try to write what you really mean.
That you *don't* understand it isn't reason for
you to post your lack of understanding, it's reason for you to seek an
education (assuming you're intelligent enough for education to benefit
you).
*snicker* Pretty funny from a guy who regularly posts out-and-out
gibbering.
And when a woman miscarries, a death report must be filed, since death
reports must be filed in the case where a person dies,
Provide evidence for your claim.
A death certificate must be issued in all jurisdictions in the US when
a person dies. Are you really asking for the health laws of every
jurisdiction to be posted here?
Any single one will do.
[...] And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 09:15:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:54:50 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:29:22 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:18 pm, Collideascope <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted,
Where did you get the idea that I was making the legal argument that
fetuses fall within the Article I, Section 2 meaning of "persons"?
From you, when you said, "need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes right
with regard to that other". Since the only effective rights are those
granted by governments,
Under a certain definition of "effective," I suppose
The only one that matters - you can't enforce 'natural rights', so you
can claim whatever 'natural rights' you like, but I can claim that you
don't have them.
... but it's a straw man anyway since my statement was not about "effective" rights
nor legal rights.
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born.
Straw man. If that understanding was "just natural" I wouldn't have to
be here posting my arguments.
The understanding, among those intelligent enough to understand logic,
*is* "just natural".
In the context of this exchange, what you have just said is that the
understanding that 'person' counts those not yet born is just natural.
So you're one of those not intelligent enough to understand logic.
Okay.
That you *don't* understand it isn't reason for
you to post your lack of understanding, it's reason for you to seek an
education (assuming you're intelligent enough for education to benefit
you).
*snicker* Pretty funny from a guy who regularly posts out-and-out
gibbering.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand."
- Bertrand Russell.
[...] And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
15 Nov 2007 01:25:07 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 8:15 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:54:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:29:22 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:18 pm, Collideascope <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is why, when here in the United States we undertake our census
every ten years, we count both the born and fetuses which may or may
not someday be born, since the Constitution compels that all persons
be counted,
Where did you get the idea that I was making the legal argument that
fetuses fall within the Article I, Section 2 meaning of "persons"?
From you, when you said, "need CREATED BY ANOTHER constitutes right
with regard to that other". Since the only effective rights are those
granted by governments,
Under a certain definition of "effective," I suppose
The only one that matters -
Under a certain definition of "matters."
you can't enforce 'natural rights', so you
can claim whatever 'natural rights' you like, but I can claim that you
don't have them.
... but it's a straw man anyway since my statement was not about "effective" rights
nor legal rights.
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
If you don't care, stop replying. There is considerable evidence
(e.g., the rhetoric of the civil-rights debates of decades gone by)
that many people believe legal rights ought to be founded on moral/
ethical concepts of what ought to be.
and we as a society just naturally understand the term
'person' to count those not yet born.
Straw man. If that understanding was "just natural" I wouldn't have to
be here posting my arguments.
The understanding, among those intelligent enough to understand logic,
*is* "just natural".
In the context of this exchange, what you have just said is that the
understanding that 'person' counts those not yet born is just natural.
So you're one of those not intelligent enough to understand logic.
Okay.
No, you're one of those not intelligent enough to construct a coherent
statement.
That you *don't* understand it isn't reason for
you to post your lack of understanding, it's reason for you to seek an
education (assuming you're intelligent enough for education to benefit
you).
*snicker* Pretty funny from a guy who regularly posts out-and-out
gibbering.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand."
- Bertrand Russell.
Your stupid words are a matter of public net.record ... but since
you're too stupid to see their stupidity I'll have to leave the
judgment up to intelligent readers of this thread.
[...] And when we file a federal tax return, we may count as a dependent any
fetus that happens to be in the present in the family as a deduction,
since we as a society just naturally understand the term 'person' to
count as dependents for the purposes of tax filings. Right?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
And that last clause makes your previous "all" claim wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
15 Nov 2007 07:41:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:25:07 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:15 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
If you don't care, stop replying. There is considerable evidence
(e.g., the rhetoric of the civil-rights debates of decades gone by)
that many people believe legal rights ought to be founded on moral/
ethical concepts of what ought to be.
Who gets to decide what ought to be? You? Me? Since "morality", the
kind most people talk about, is just an opinion, that's a particularly
*bad* way to determine rights.
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
And that last clause makes your previous "all" claim wrong.
It wasn't an unconditional "all", but thanks for the dishonesty.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Christians tell us that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask
is - not that they love their friends even, but they treat those
who differ from them , with simple fairness. We do not wish to be
forgiven but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have
to forgive them."
- Robert Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
16 Nov 2007 02:30:38 PM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:25:07 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:15 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
If you don't care, stop replying. There is considerable evidence
(e.g., the rhetoric of the civil-rights debates of decades gone by)
that many people believe legal rights ought to be founded on moral/
ethical concepts of what ought to be.
Who gets to decide what ought to be? You? Me?
All of us, as a democracy.
Since "morality", the
kind most people talk about, is just an opinion, that's a particularly
*bad* way to determine rights.
What's the right way? Laws? But it's those same opinionated people
that determine the content of the law ... unless you're saying
democracy is not the way to go.
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
And that last clause makes your previous "all" claim wrong.
It wasn't an unconditional "all", but thanks for the dishonesty.
"All" is by definition unconditional, but thanks for the laugh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
17 Nov 2007 12:01:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:30:38 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:25:07 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:15 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
If you don't care, stop replying. There is considerable evidence
(e.g., the rhetoric of the civil-rights debates of decades gone by)
that many people believe legal rights ought to be founded on moral/
ethical concepts of what ought to be.
Who gets to decide what ought to be? You? Me?
All of us, as a democracy.
Morality isn't an opinion.
Since "morality", the
kind most people talk about, is just an opinion, that's a particularly
*bad* way to determine rights.
What's the right way? Laws?
What's the right way to determine whether grass and the sky are the
same color? I mean to sighted people. You do realize that sighted
people really don't care which is which color in what blind people
call "sight", right? Since whatever blind people call it, it's not
really sight.
But it's those same opinionated people
that determine the content of the law ... unless you're saying
democracy is not the way to go.
Democracy doesn't have more to do with morality than it has to do with
thirst.
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
And that last clause makes your previous "all" claim wrong.
It wasn't an unconditional "all", but thanks for the dishonesty.
"All" is by definition unconditional
"All who meet condition X" isn't the same as "all".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by
the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Jan 2008 05:01:31 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17 2007, 12:01 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:30:38 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:25:07 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:15 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Then it's about nothing. Who cares what completely irrelevant
'rights' you think some people have?
If you don't care, stop replying. There is considerable evidence
(e.g., the rhetoric of the civil-rights debates of decades gone by)
that many people believe legal rights ought to be founded on moral/
ethical concepts of what ought to be.
Who gets to decide what ought to be? You? Me?
All of us, as a democracy.
Morality isn't an opinion.
You're babbling again. You asked who and I told you.
Since "morality", the
kind most people talk about, is just an opinion,
But now you say "Morality isn't an opinion"? Weird.
that's a particularly
*bad* way to determine rights.
What's the right way? Laws?
What's the right way to determine whether grass and the sky are the
same color? I mean to sighted people. You do realize that sighted
people really don't care which is which color in what blind people
call "sight", right? Since whatever blind people call it, it's not
really sight.
Now you've lost it.
But it's those same opinionated people
that determine the content of the law ... unless you're saying
democracy is not the way to go.
Democracy doesn't have more to do with morality than it has to do with
thirst.
Somebody decides ... you have a better answer than "a democratic
majority"?
So you claim that the federal tax code defines dependent as "any
person in the present in the family"? If not, your argument makes no
sense.
All offspring who live at the residence of the filer, yes. [...]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Have any supporting evidence?
IRS form 1040. In order to claim a dependent child, the child must be
yours (biologically, adopted or step) and must have spent more than
half the year living with you, among other requirements.
And that last clause makes your previous "all" claim wrong.
It wasn't an unconditional "all", but thanks for the dishonesty.
"All" is by definition unconditional
"All who meet condition X" isn't the same as "all".
And "all who meet conditions X and Y" isn't the same as "all who meet
condition X." Thanks for conceding my point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
24 Sep 2007 06:27:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:15:22 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:26 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:58:28 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:46:34 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:13 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Why can't you liars for God acknowledge that what you pretend is a
person, isn't one yet?
Because we stubbornly insist on the freedom to have our own opinions.
Have them, just don't try to force other people to live according to
them.
There's a problem with that. The opinion isn't that abortion is
distasteful or yucky or whatever. The opinion is that abortion is
killing innocent human beings.
And it is wrong because is no such thing.
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
[more dishonesty deleted]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 09:01:42 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 7:27 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:15:22 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:26 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:58:28 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:46:34 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:13 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Why can't you liars for God acknowledge that what you pretend is a
person, isn't one yet?
Because we stubbornly insist on the freedom to have our own opinions.
Have them, just don't try to force other people to live according to
them.
There's a problem with that. The opinion isn't that abortion is
distasteful or yucky or whatever. The opinion is that abortion is
killing innocent human beings.
And it is wrong because is no such thing.
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being. Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either. Bad analogy. But a seedling
is an oak tree on my planet.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Also, see www.godlessprolifers.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 11:30:11 AM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Tautologies are meaningless.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either.
Neither is a fetus.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Just like yours.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 11:39:31 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2007 16:30:11 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Yes.
Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Tautologies are meaningless.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either.
Neither is a fetus.
And he's stupid as well. There's a reason I used the example of an
acorn.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Just like yours.
He refuses to acknowledge the reason why it is a matter of the
individual's conscience: that somewhere along a continuum it becomes a
human being; he refuses to acknowledge this continuum and thinks his
own "opinion" applies to everybody else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 12:05:49 PM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 12:39 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 25 Sep 2007 16:30:11 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Yes.
There is no such thing as a potential human being. You either are a
human being or you are not. Potential human being is an absurdity you
pro choice fanatics use to attempt to rationalize your inconsistent
views. Which is demonstrated by the sad but humorous fact that none
of you can even agree on when it becomes a human being. Some say when
it can think, some say when it can survive outside the womb, some say
when it is born.
Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Tautologies are meaningless.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either.
Neither is a fetus.
And he's stupid as well. There's a reason I used the example of an
acorn.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Just like yours.
He refuses to acknowledge the reason why it is a matter of the
individual's conscience: that somewhere along a continuum it becomes a
human being;
That's right, I refuse to acknowledge falsehood.
he refuses to acknowledge this continuum and thinks his
own "opinion" applies to everybody else.-
All of which you keep saying, and none of which can you prove with
actual quotes from me. Empty insults is all you have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 10:12:50 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Yes.
There is no such thing as a potential human being. You either are a
human being or you are not.
Thus, the word "potential" has no meaning.
Just like yours.
He refuses to acknowledge the reason why it is a matter of the
individual's conscience: that somewhere along a continuum it becomes a
human being;
That's right, I refuse to acknowledge falsehood.
It becomes a human being at birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
25 Sep 2007 12:22:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:05:49 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:39 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 25 Sep 2007 16:30:11 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Yes.
There is no such thing as a potential human being. You either are a
human being or you are not.
Why do you keep pretending that there isn't a spectrum between
fertilisation and birth, somewhere along which it acquires a nervous
system, brain function, heart, lungs etc?
Potential human being is an absurdity you
pro choice fanatics use to attempt to rationalize your inconsistent
views.
Four lies in a single sentence. Count them:
- it's not an absurdity
- there are no "pro-choice fanatics"
- "pro-choice" don't attempt to rationalise anything
- let alone "inconsistent views"
Which is demonstrated by the sad but humorous fact that none
of you can even agree on when it becomes a human being.
Unlike you, we can agree on when it isn't. But that is merely the
result of its being on the spectrum which you pretend doesn't exist.
Can you point to where yellow becomes green in the visible light
spectrum?
But you can however point to where it is still red, orange or yellow.
Some say when
it can think, some say when it can survive outside the womb, some say
when it is born.
The legal point is when it is born.
Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Tautologies are meaningless.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either.
Neither is a fetus.
And he's stupid as well. There's a reason I used the example of an
acorn.
Explain using your logic, why an acorn isn't an oak tree.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Just like yours.
He refuses to acknowledge the reason why it is a matter of the
individual's conscience: that somewhere along a continuum it becomes a
human being;
That's right, I refuse to acknowledge falsehood.
What "falsehood", liar?
You don't even address this. You simply resort to more and more lies.
he refuses to acknowledge this continuum and thinks his
own "opinion" applies to everybody else.-
All of which you keep saying, and none of which can you prove with
actual quotes from me. Empty insults is all you have.
What "empty insults", liar?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
26 Sep 2007 08:02:00 AM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 1:22 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:05:49 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:39 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 25 Sep 2007 16:30:11 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
In your opinion.
No, liar.
Why do you pretend you can't grasp the difference between a human
being and something with the potential to become one?
I don't pretend any such thing. I grasp the diffreence in concept
between soemthing with the potential to become a human being and a
human being. There is, however, nothing in actual existence with the
potential to become a human being.
Are you insane?
Yes.
There is no such thing as a potential human being. You either are a
human being or you are not.
Why do you keep pretending that there isn't a spectrum between
fertilisation and birth, somewhere along which it acquires a nervous
system, brain function, heart, lungs etc?
Why do you keep pretending that I haven't acknowledged the existence
of such a spectrum all along?
Potential human being is an absurdity you
pro choice fanatics use to attempt to rationalize your inconsistent
views.
Four lies in a single sentence. Count them:
- it's not an absurdity
In my opinion, it is. Therefore, it was not a lie for me to say so.
- there are no "pro-choice fanatics"
In my opinion, there are. You, for instance. Therefore, it was not a
lie for me to say so.
- "pro-choice" don't attempt to rationalise anything
In my opinion, it does. Therefore, it was not a lie for me to say so.
- let alone "inconsistent views"
It is inconsistent to say that a fetus can be aborted because it is
not a person, that there is no person before birth, then complain
about pro-lifers mentioning third trimester abortions.
Which is demonstrated by the sad but humorous fact that none
of you can even agree on when it becomes a human being.
Unlike you, we can agree on when it isn't.
No, you can't. Since you cannot agree on when it is, it follows by
logical necessity that you cannot agree on when it isn't. You may all
agree on certain particularly points when it isn't, but that's not
enough. That's not the complete story.
Also, it's not "unlike me" because pro lifers pretty much all agree
that it becomes a human being at conception and is not a human being
before conception.
But that is merely the
result of its being on the spectrum which you pretend doesn't exist.
You mean the spectrum you like to claim I pretend doesn't exist for
purposes of building your strawman arguments.
Can you point to where yellow becomes green in the visible light
spectrum?
But you can however point to where it is still red, orange or yellow.
Pointing to the wrong color on the spectrum doesn't result in people
dying. These are life and death decisions here, not picking out
colors.
Some say when
it can think, some say when it can survive outside the womb, some say
when it is born.
The legal point is when it is born.
And legally black people could be owned as slaves at one time. "It's
the law" and "It's right" are not synonymous.
Human beings are human beings, and
nothing else is or ever will be a human being except a human being.
Tautologies are meaningless.
Is an acorn an oak tree on your planet?
No, and a gamete isn't a person either.
Neither is a fetus.
And he's stupid as well. There's a reason I used the example of an
acorn.
Explain using your logic, why an acorn isn't an oak tree.
It isn't growing. Once you've actually planted it, then it is a
developing acorn tree. Just like gametes aren't human beings prior to
conception. It's when the development process starts, according to my
logic, that the organism begins. And of course your supposedly
carefully chosen example is only roughly analogous at best since the
reproduction of trees is only peripherally related to that of humans.
You only think that.
That's true, I only think that. I never claimed otherwise. The
entire abortion issue is a matter of opinion.
No, liar.
It is a matter of dishonest religious extremists who imaging souls are
implanted at conception, wanting to impose their fantasy on everybody
else.
Which would be a matter of opinion.
Just like yours.
He refuses to acknowledge the reason why it is a matter of the
individual's conscience: that somewhere along a continuum it becomes a
human being;
That's right, I refuse to acknowledge falsehood.
What "falsehood", liar?
The falsehood that "becomes" a human being at some magical point.
You don't even address this. You simply resort to more and more lies.
I have addressed it over and over again. The lies are, in fact yours,
as you have read and responded to messages from me in the past which
did address this, and yet claim I did not. It's the same as with this
"spectrum" thing as I have admitted a spectrum all along and yet you
continue to say I pretend there isn't one.
he refuses to acknowledge this continuum and thinks his
own "opinion" applies to everybody else.-
All of which you keep saying, and none of which can you prove with
actual quotes from me. Empty insults is all you have.
What "empty insults", liar?-
Empty insults such as calling me a liar when you cannot offer an
substantiation that I have ever lied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
26 Sep 2007 08:27:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:02:00 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:22 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:05:49 -0700,
| | | | | | | | |
