How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?

Religions > Atheism > How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	08 Sep 2006 10:50:11 AM
Object:	How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/631kzmqf.asp?pg=1
Choosing Life
How pro-lifers become pro-lifers.
by Fred Barnes
09/01/2006 12:00:00 AM
HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS? What turns people into passionate foes
of abortion and related issues like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell
research? I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life
position because of their family upbringing or religious faith or
because of a political requirement as, say, a Republican candidate in a
red state. I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers,
were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue. Then
something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the
anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position
without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change?
What happened?
The answer can be found in the experiences of five people: Ronald
Reagan, Henry Hyde, Ramesh Ponnuru, Wesley Smith, and myself. And their
stories, I think, are roughly representative of what a multitude of
others went through as they came to embrace the cause of saving unborn
children. The five experienced two things in common that should be easy
to spot as we look at their five cases.
Let's begin with Reagan. In his first year as California governor in
1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize "therapeutic"
abortions. It was an issue Reagan hadn't thought much about and he was
torn over whether to veto the measure. Many Republicans in legislature
strongly urged him to sign the bill. And so did aides on his staff,
including conservatives Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, who later followed
Reagan to Washington. Reagan was assured it
would result in only a handful of abortions.
His instinct was to veto the bill and the Catholic archbishop of Los
Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law.
Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think
long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in
Governor Reagan, "permitted more legal abortions in California than
occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade." Reagan's
worst fear was realized.
By 1980, Reagan had changed his mind and become a firm opponent of
abortion. He insisted on a pro-life plank in the Republican platform
for the first time. In 1983, he published a passionate pro-life essay,
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. It turned out that signing
the abortion bill in 1967 was the only political mistake that Reagan
ever admitted.
HENRY HYDE had been a member of the Illinois legislature for five years
when he first was confronted by the abortion issue. It was the early
1970s--before the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized
abortion-on-demand nationwide. Hyde was asked by another legislator to
co-sponsor a bill easing the state's ban on abortion. And he was
receptive.
When he read the proposed legislation, however, his thinking changed.
Hyde, too, had never given much thought to abortion. But suddenly he
had to. And the result was he wound up rejecting, rather than
sponsoring, the pro-abortion bill and leading the successful opposition
to it on the floor of the Illinois assembly.
Hyde was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974 and
quickly became a leading pro-life voice. In 1976, he won enactment of
legislation barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
Thirty years later, the Hyde Amendment is still the law of the land.
RAMESH PONNURU, a writer for National Review who grew up in Kansas
City, Kansas, remembers as a teenager "not wanting to be a pro-lifer."
In America, he told me, "it's just easier to be pro-choice. You're
running with the tide."
In 1991, people he knew in Kansas City joined the Summer of Mercy
anti-abortion protest in Wichita. The demonstration drew enormous media
attention and the protesters were reported to have created a tense
standoff, a near-crisis. Ponnuru followed the event closely enough to
know that the protesters were "about as tense as a church picnic." In
fact, his friends who took part "were the kind of people who go to
church picnics."
The effect of the Wichita demonstration on Ponnuru, miles away in
Kansas City, was profound. That summer, he thought about the morality
of abortion. And by the time he entered Princeton at the end of the
summer, he was a full-blown pro-lifer. Since then, his opposition to
abortion "has deepened every year." And this year, he published Party
of Death, a compelling account of the Democratic party's emergence as a
strongly pro-abortion party.
AS A LAWYER and colleague of Ralph Nader, Wesley Smith was an unlikely
prospect to become a pro-lifer. He
got there in an unusual way that led him to become America's leading
critic of euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
A little over a decade ago, a friend of Smith, a 76-year-woman named
Virginia, committed suicide. She had often talked about killing
herself, telling Smith and other friends how painless, gentle even, it
would be. They had tried to talk her out of it, but to no avail.
After her death, Smith went to her home in California and found stacks
of literature by advocates of euthanasia, particularly the Hemlock
Society. And he recognized some of things Virginia had said in the
literature, such as tales of people supposedly enjoying death. Smith
was appalled and it altered his thinking and his career.
Soon he was devoting more and more time to writing and speaking against
euthanasia--until it became a crusade and his full-time work. Nader
asked him at one point why he was "doing so much on euthanasia." Smith
explained the issue to him. This led to a controversial statement by
Nader during his presidential campaign in 2000. While in Oregon, he
denounced the state's assisted suicide law as "Oregon's shame."
FINALLY, THERE'S MY OWN EXPERIENCE. For years, I rarely gave abortion a
passing thought. That an unborn child was killed often as a matter of
convenience--well, I just never thought about that. As a reporter for
the Evening Star newspaper in Washington in 1973 covering the Roe v.
Wade ruling, I considered the issue a legal matter, not a moral one.
The rise of the anti-abortion movement in the late 1970s and Reagan's
stand on abortion caught my eye, but only a political matters. Then my
wife Barbara's obstetrician recommended she have amniocentesis when she
was pregnant with our third child. This involves injecting a needle
into the womb to remove fluid so the unborn child can be examined for
problems or defects.
We'd heard amniocentesis referred to as a "search and destroy mission"
that often led to abortion in the case of a child with birth defects or
Down's Syndrome. This caused us to think about what we would do in such
a case--really to think seriously about abortion for the first time. As
it happened, our child was fine. But as we left the doctor's office, my
wife and I agreed she'd never do amniocentesis again. And she didn't
when she became pregnant again three years later. Without recognizing
it immediately, we had become pro-lifers.
So think for a moment about these five experiences: Reagan's deciding
on signing an abortion bill, Hyde's mulling whether to co-sponsor a
pro-abortion measure, Ponnuru's watching as the Summer of Mercy unfold,
Smith's reading pro-euthanasia tracts as his dead friend's home, and
our--my wife and I--adverse reaction to amniocentesis. One common
thread is obvious. All of us, because of the circumstances we found
ourselves in, were forced to think about the taking of a life and what
that means in both practical and moral terms. Most people avoid
thinking about troubling moral issues like abortion or euthanasia. We
couldn't.
And the other common thread is that something happened to make us
choose life and choose it firmly and reject death. I think it was our
conscience that intervened or, if you prefer, the basic human instinct
that favors life over death. Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.
Now I'm sure there are many exceptions to our experience. Not everyone
who contemplates abortion or euthanasia is bound to take the
intellectual path that five of us--six, including my wife--did on the
way to becoming pro-lifers. But I suspect there are many more than like
us than not. And many more to come.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. This article is
a condensed version of a speech he gave to the National Right to Life
convention in Nashville in June.
.

User: "wordkyle"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 01:00:16 PM

"[Reagan] puzzled it out on his own, not like a visionary or an
intellectual but like a regular person. He read and thought and
listened to people who cared, and he made up his mind. And suddenly
when they said, 'The argument is over when life begins,' he said, 'Well
look, if that's the argument: If there's a bag in the gutter and you
don't know if what's in it is alive, you don't kick it, do you?'" -
Peggy Noonan, "What I Saw at the Revolution"
Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/631kzmqf.asp?pg=1

Choosing Life
How pro-lifers become pro-lifers.

by Fred Barnes

09/01/2006 12:00:00 AM

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS? What turns people into passionate foes
of abortion and related issues like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell
research? I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life
position because of their family upbringing or religious faith or
because of a political requirement as, say, a Republican candidate in a
red state. I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers,
were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue. Then
something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the
anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position
without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change?
What happened?

The answer can be found in the experiences of five people: Ronald
Reagan, Henry Hyde, Ramesh Ponnuru, Wesley Smith, and myself. And their
stories, I think, are roughly representative of what a multitude of
others went through as they came to embrace the cause of saving unborn
children. The five experienced two things in common that should be easy
to spot as we look at their five cases.

Let's begin with Reagan. In his first year as California governor in
1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize "therapeutic"
abortions. It was an issue Reagan hadn't thought much about and he was
torn over whether to veto the measure. Many Republicans in legislature
strongly urged him to sign the bill. And so did aides on his staff,
including conservatives Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, who later followed
Reagan to Washington. Reagan was assured it
would result in only a handful of abortions.

His instinct was to veto the bill and the Catholic archbishop of Los
Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law.
Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think
long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in
Governor Reagan, "permitted more legal abortions in California than
occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade." Reagan's
worst fear was realized.

By 1980, Reagan had changed his mind and become a firm opponent of
abortion. He insisted on a pro-life plank in the Republican platform
for the first time. In 1983, he published a passionate pro-life essay,
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. It turned out that signing
the abortion bill in 1967 was the only political mistake that Reagan
ever admitted.

HENRY HYDE had been a member of the Illinois legislature for five years
when he first was confronted by the abortion issue. It was the early
1970s--before the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized
abortion-on-demand nationwide. Hyde was asked by another legislator to
co-sponsor a bill easing the state's ban on abortion. And he was
receptive.

When he read the proposed legislation, however, his thinking changed.
Hyde, too, had never given much thought to abortion. But suddenly he
had to. And the result was he wound up rejecting, rather than
sponsoring, the pro-abortion bill and leading the successful opposition
to it on the floor of the Illinois assembly.

Hyde was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974 and
quickly became a leading pro-life voice. In 1976, he won enactment of
legislation barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
Thirty years later, the Hyde Amendment is still the law of the land.

RAMESH PONNURU, a writer for National Review who grew up in Kansas
City, Kansas, remembers as a teenager "not wanting to be a pro-lifer."
In America, he told me, "it's just easier to be pro-choice. You're
running with the tide."

In 1991, people he knew in Kansas City joined the Summer of Mercy
anti-abortion protest in Wichita. The demonstration drew enormous media
attention and the protesters were reported to have created a tense
standoff, a near-crisis. Ponnuru followed the event closely enough to
know that the protesters were "about as tense as a church picnic." In
fact, his friends who took part "were the kind of people who go to
church picnics."

The effect of the Wichita demonstration on Ponnuru, miles away in
Kansas City, was profound. That summer, he thought about the morality
of abortion. And by the time he entered Princeton at the end of the
summer, he was a full-blown pro-lifer. Since then, his opposition to
abortion "has deepened every year." And this year, he published Party
of Death, a compelling account of the Democratic party's emergence as a
strongly pro-abortion party.

AS A LAWYER and colleague of Ralph Nader, Wesley Smith was an unlikely
prospect to become a pro-lifer. He
got there in an unusual way that led him to become America's leading
critic of euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.

A little over a decade ago, a friend of Smith, a 76-year-woman named
Virginia, committed suicide. She had often talked about killing
herself, telling Smith and other friends how painless, gentle even, it
would be. They had tried to talk her out of it, but to no avail.

After her death, Smith went to her home in California and found stacks
of literature by advocates of euthanasia, particularly the Hemlock
Society. And he recognized some of things Virginia had said in the
literature, such as tales of people supposedly enjoying death. Smith
was appalled and it altered his thinking and his career.

Soon he was devoting more and more time to writing and speaking against
euthanasia--until it became a crusade and his full-time work. Nader
asked him at one point why he was "doing so much on euthanasia." Smith
explained the issue to him. This led to a controversial statement by
Nader during his presidential campaign in 2000. While in Oregon, he
denounced the state's assisted suicide law as "Oregon's shame."

FINALLY, THERE'S MY OWN EXPERIENCE. For years, I rarely gave abortion a
passing thought. That an unborn child was killed often as a matter of
convenience--well, I just never thought about that. As a reporter for
the Evening Star newspaper in Washington in 1973 covering the Roe v.
Wade ruling, I considered the issue a legal matter, not a moral one.

The rise of the anti-abortion movement in the late 1970s and Reagan's
stand on abortion caught my eye, but only a political matters. Then my
wife Barbara's obstetrician recommended she have amniocentesis when she
was pregnant with our third child. This involves injecting a needle
into the womb to remove fluid so the unborn child can be examined for
problems or defects.

We'd heard amniocentesis referred to as a "search and destroy mission"
that often led to abortion in the case of a child with birth defects or
Down's Syndrome. This caused us to think about what we would do in such
a case--really to think seriously about abortion for the first time. As
it happened, our child was fine. But as we left the doctor's office, my
wife and I agreed she'd never do amniocentesis again. And she didn't
when she became pregnant again three years later. Without recognizing
it immediately, we had become pro-lifers.

So think for a moment about these five experiences: Reagan's deciding
on signing an abortion bill, Hyde's mulling whether to co-sponsor a
pro-abortion measure, Ponnuru's watching as the Summer of Mercy unfold,
Smith's reading pro-euthanasia tracts as his dead friend's home, and
our--my wife and I--adverse reaction to amniocentesis. One common
thread is obvious. All of us, because of the circumstances we found
ourselves in, were forced to think about the taking of a life and what
that means in both practical and moral terms. Most people avoid
thinking about troubling moral issues like abortion or euthanasia. We
couldn't.

And the other common thread is that something happened to make us
choose life and choose it firmly and reject death. I think it was our
conscience that intervened or, if you prefer, the basic human instinct
that favors life over death. Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.

Now I'm sure there are many exceptions to our experience. Not everyone
who contemplates abortion or euthanasia is bound to take the
intellectual path that five of us--six, including my wife--did on the
way to becoming pro-lifers. But I suspect there are many more than like
us than not. And many more to come.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. This article is
a condensed version of a speech he gave to the National Right to Life
convention in Nashville in June.

User: "Son of Discord"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	08 Sep 2006 12:37:07 PM

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

I'd say it's the somewhat euphoric sensation certain humans get from
dictating to other humans what they can and can't do, according to
their own agenda. The inherent feeling of superiority one gets from
imposing their will onto others.

I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life

"Pro-life"? Tell me, how does one define oppressing the rights of
women to not be forced into incubating foetuses against their will as
"pro-life"?
Abortions will happen regardless of law, or personal distaste. The
"pro-life" position, or more accurately, the *anti-choice* position,
seeks to oppose its will onto other conscious human beings and deprive
them access to sanitary medical procedures. If this were to be
successful, the amount of women whom attempt backyard abortions would
sky-rocket -- rendering many innocent individuals dead or sterile.
So, the anti-choice argument is far more akin to pro-DEATH, then
"pro-life".

position because of their family upbringing or religious faith or
because of a political requirement as, say, a Republican candidate in a
red state. I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers,
were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue.

"Pro-abortion"? I know of no one that is "pro-abortion". I personally
find abortions distasteful, and would much prefer it if they never
needed to occur. But I find the concept of depriving women whom do not
wish to carry a foetus to term the right to safe medical procedures
morally abhorrent.

Then
something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the
anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position
without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change?
What happened?

Well, perhaps they enjoy the aforementioned euphoric sensation, and
misguided feeling of moral superiority that comes with trying to
impose one's will onto other conscious individuals. Or, perhaps they
too find abortion distasteful, but lack the intellectual integrity to
look any further into the subject then their own feelings of icky-ness
when confronted with it.
Not being an anti-choicer, I really couldn't say for certain from
whence their obtuse views originally formed.

The answer can be found in the experiences of five people: Ronald
Reagan, Henry Hyde, Ramesh Ponnuru, Wesley Smith, and myself. And their
stories, I think, are roughly representative of what a multitude of
others went through as they came to embrace the cause of saving unborn
children.

Equivocation. An unborn foetus is, by definition, NOT a child. A child
is a living individual who shares the same rights as any other
conscious, living individual.
A foetus, on the other hand, is merely gestating human tissue.

The five experienced two things in common that should be easy
to spot as we look at their five cases.

Let's not.
<big ol' SNIP>

Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.

And therein lies the kicker. You choose to attempt to oppress the
rights of other conscious individuals, both capable and entitled to
make their own decisions, because a magic sky-pixie that creates
universes in its spare time (with magic!) says not to.
And why, pray tell (pun intended), does the magic pixie want you to
oppress others? Because it says so in some bronze-age tome of horror,
bloodshed and talking animals? Because another human, who claims to be
the elected spokesperson of said pixie, says that the pixie wants the
rights of others oppressed based on THEIR personal distaste of the
subject at hand -- and you merely take them at their word?
Or is it that YOU chose to interpret the will of this pixie based on
your personal distaste of the subject at hand?
You anti-choicers really are a grotesque lot.

Now I'm sure there are many exceptions to our experience. Not everyone
who contemplates abortion or euthanasia is bound to take the
intellectual path that five of us--six, including my wife--did on the
way to becoming pro-lifers.

Intellectual, eh? *****. There's nothing "intellectual" about your
desire to enforce your will onto other conscious individuals, you
fucking twit.
And I've already established that it's *anti-choice*, not "pro-life".

But I suspect there are many more than like
us than not. And many more to come.

And on that note, curl up and die you oppressive fuckhole.
<snip>
"Son of Discord"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:02:03 AM

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Every law on the books is telling others what they can and cannot
do, without
them there would be anarchy. An unborn child is a human being and
there
are laws to protect him/her. If somewhere kills a pregnant woman,
they are charged
with 2 murders not one.

I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life

"Pro-life"? Tell me, how does one define oppressing the rights of
women to not be forced into incubating foetuses against their will as
"pro-life"?

"Incubating foetuses"? LOL. I can just see it now - woman comes
home
from the doctor and says to her husband "Guess what, the doctor says
I'm
incubating a foetus".

Abortions will happen regardless of law, or personal distaste. The
"pro-life" position, or more accurately, the *anti-choice* position,
seeks to oppose its will onto other conscious human beings and deprive
them access to sanitary medical procedures. If this were to be
successful, the amount of women whom attempt backyard abortions would
sky-rocket -- rendering many innocent individuals dead or sterile.

In other words, a life for a life. Haven't these cretins ever heard
of adoption!!!

So, the anti-choice argument is far more akin to pro-DEATH, then
"pro-life".

Perhaps she should have thought of that before she had sex with God
knows
who. She and the man responsible for her pregnancy should get
themselves
down to the vet and ask to be neutered, it will save the lives of
future innocent
children.

Well, perhaps they enjoy the aforementioned euphoric sensation, and
misguided feeling of moral superiority that comes with trying to
impose one's will onto other conscious individuals. Or, perhaps they
too find abortion distasteful, but lack the intellectual integrity to
look any further into the subject then their own feelings of icky-ness
when confronted with it.

Not being an anti-choicer, I really couldn't say for certain from
whence their obtuse views originally formed.

Equivocation. An unborn foetus is, by definition, NOT a child. A child
is a living individual who shares the same rights as any other
conscious, living individual.

A foetus, on the other hand, is merely gestating human tissue.

Translation - "It isn't a innocent bay who ahs harmed no-one, it's
just
a nuisance and might interfere with my vacation

The five experienced two things in common that should be easy
to spot as we look at their five cases.

Let's not.

<big ol' SNIP>

Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.

Those who believe in God believe Him to be the Creator. Religion
is not the issue, it's the act of tearing an innocent child from
its mothers womb
by those who refer to themselves as "doctors' when in fact, they
are money
grubbing monsters.

And why, pray tell (pun intended), does the magic pixie want you to
oppress others? Because it says so in some bronze-age tome of horror,
bloodshed and talking animals? Because another human, who claims to be
the elected spokesperson of said pixie, says that the pixie wants the
rights of others oppressed based on THEIR personal distaste of the
subject at hand -- and you merely take them at their word?

You are an idiot.

Or is it that YOU chose to interpret the will of this pixie based on
your personal distaste of the subject at hand?

You anti-choicers really are a grotesque lot.

And you child killers are garbage.

Intellectual, eh? *****. There's nothing "intellectual" about your
desire to enforce your will onto other conscious individuals, you
fucking twit.

And I've already established that it's *anti-choice*, not "pro-life".

But I suspect there are many more than like
us than not. And many more to come.

And on that note, curl up and die you oppressive fuckhole.

<snip>

"Son of Discord"

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA

I knew it, a brick short of a load cretin.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

NURSE!!!!
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:33:15 AM

> wrote:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Every law on the books is telling others what they can and cannot
do, without
them there would be anarchy. An unborn child is a human being and

... and you're an irrational pro-liar nutcase.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:24:43 AM

wrote:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Why then do you ignore the laws that specifically allow abortion?
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 02:35:01 AM

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:24:43 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vkNMg.4478$MF1.4190@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Why then do you ignore the laws that specifically allow abortion?

And why support the death penalty??
.

User: "Lucifer"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 06:57:03 AM

wrote:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Not in civilised coutnries like the UK.
In order to determine a homicide
1) Victim is human
2) Victim is definitely dead
3) Proof of causation
On point one the Attorney General reference number 3 of 1994 (1996)
clearly states that a human is "capable of existence independant of
it's mother"
Therefore only in a very few cases, where the fetus would survive if
born, would that be the case.
The broadly accepted definition of murder (a common law offence) is "to
kill another human with malice aforethought"
So in order to get charged with the double murder a) the murderer would
have to have killed both, and, have intended to do serious harm or kill
and b) the fetus would have to be almost full term, can capable of
surviving without it's mother.
.

User: "Son of Discord"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 11:14:12 AM

In alt.atheism

shared this wisdom:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

<snip>

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS? What turns people into passionate foes
of abortion and related issues like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell
research?

Every law on the books is telling others what they can and cannot
do, without
them there would be anarchy.

Strawman. At what point, exactly, did I advocate anarchy?

An unborn child is

. . An oxymoron. By definition, a child is not a child until it is
born. Until then, it's merely a zygote/embryo/foetus -- parasitic
tissue incapable of sustaining life independent of the creature in
which it gestates.

a human being

False. A human being is a fully developed, and born, person that
exists independent of another host body.

and
there
are laws to protect him/her. If somewhere kills a pregnant woman,
they are charged
with 2 murders not one.

Irrelevant. There are also laws protecting the rights of women with
unwanted pregnancies to be allowed access to safe medical procedures,
in order to terminate said pregnancy safely, at their discretion.

I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life

"Pro-life"? Tell me, how does one define oppressing the rights of
women to not be forced into incubating foetuses against their will as
"pro-life"?

"Incubating foetuses"? LOL. I can just see it now - woman comes
home
from the doctor and says to her husband "Guess what, the doctor says
I'm
incubating a foetus".

Red herring.

In other words, a life for a life.

You cite laws condemning murder, and then go on to claim that it's
fair to force women who don't want to carry a foetus to term into
self-mutilation and potential death.
You're one sick puppy, you know that?

Haven't these cretins ever heard
of adoption!!!

Irrelevant. And, incidentally, none of your business. Tell you what --
when you have a womb full of arms and legs, then you can decide
whether to abort it, keep it, or give it up for adoption.
'Til then, feel free to shut the ***** up and keep your nose out of
other people's wombs, 'kay boopie?
<snip>

Perhaps she should have thought of that before she had sex with God
knows
who.

Since when is it anyone's business whom a woman chooses to *****, other
then her own and her respective partner? Who the ***** died and made
you boss of other people's sex-lives?

She and the man responsible for her pregnancy should get
themselves
down to the vet and ask to be neutered, it will save the lives of
future innocent
children

Non sequitur. What the ***** does sex have to do with infanticide,
boopie?
<snip>

A foetus, on the other hand, is merely gestating human tissue.

Translation - "It isn't a innocent bay who ahs harmed no-one, it's
just
a nuisance and might interfere with my vacation

Nah, it's still merely gestating human tissue. But feel free to keep
knocking down strawmen all you like.
<snip>

Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.

Those who believe in God believe Him to be the Creator.

Irrelevant.

Religion
is not the issue,

When people use religion as justification of their desire to oppress
the rights of other conscious individuals based on their opinion, then
it becomes part of the issue.

it's the act of tearing an innocent child from
its mothers womb
by those who refer to themselves as "doctors' when in fact, they
are money
grubbing monsters.

Argumentum ad misericordiam, with some equivocation thrown in on the
side.

Oh look, I'd say it's about time for some . . .
<drum roll>

You are an idiot.

. . Argumentum ad hominem! <tada!>

Or is it that YOU chose to interpret the will of this pixie based on
your personal distaste of the subject at hand?

You anti-choicers really are a grotesque lot.

And you child killers are garbage.

Sure we are, boopie. Now you run along and play.
<pats boopie on the head>
<snip>
"Son of Discord"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:09:54 PM

On 9 Sep 2006 22:02:03 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1157864523.664696.180350@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism Sound of Trumpet shared this wisdom:

Every law on the books is telling others what they can and cannot
do, without
them there would be anarchy. An unborn child is a human being

There is no such creature. All children and all human beings have
been born alive.

and
there
are laws to protect him/her. If somewhere kills a pregnant woman,
they are charged
with 2 murders not one.

That depends on the jurisdiction, the laws, and the circumstances.

I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life

"Pro-life"? Tell me, how does one define oppressing the rights of
women to not be forced into incubating foetuses against their will as
"pro-life"?

"Incubating foetuses"? LOL. I can just see it now - woman comes
home
from the doctor and says to her husband "Guess what, the doctor says
I'm
incubating a foetus".

Medically that is exactly what is occurring.

In other words, a life for a life. Haven't these cretins ever heard
of adoption!!!

Adoption requires the woman involved to complete the process and give
birth. That is usually what she is trying to avoid when she gets an
abortion.

So, the anti-choice argument is far more akin to pro-DEATH, then
"pro-life".

Perhaps she should have thought of that before she had sex with God
knows
who.

Sex is not illegal and prove any god exists. Why do you assume she
did not have sex with her husband?

She and the man responsible for her pregnancy should get
themselves
down to the vet and ask to be neutered, it will save the lives of
future innocent
children.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Well, perhaps they enjoy the aforementioned euphoric sensation, and
misguided feeling of moral superiority that comes with trying to
impose one's will onto other conscious individuals. Or, perhaps they
too find abortion distasteful, but lack the intellectual integrity to
look any further into the subject then their own feelings of icky-ness
when confronted with it.

Not being an anti-choicer, I really couldn't say for certain from
whence their obtuse views originally formed.

Equivocation. An unborn foetus is, by definition, NOT a child. A child
is a living individual who shares the same rights as any other
conscious, living individual.

A foetus, on the other hand, is merely gestating human tissue.

Translation - "It isn't a innocent bay who ahs harmed no-one, it's
just
a nuisance and might interfere with my vacation

Mistranslated.

The five experienced two things in common that should be easy
to spot as we look at their five cases.

Let's not.

<big ol' SNIP>

Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was
God.

Those who believe in God believe Him to be the Creator.

Why should that matter to anyone else?

Religion
is not the issue,

It is the basis for almost all opposition to the Freedom of Choice.

it's the act of tearing an innocent child

Exactly what is this?

from
its mothers womb
by those who refer to themselves as "doctors' when in fact, they
are money
grubbing monsters.

Sorry. All medical procedures must by law be done by qualified
medical practioners. Don't forget the law defines who and who is not
a doctor.

You are an idiot.

I think he hit a nerve.

Or is it that YOU chose to interpret the will of this pixie based on
your personal distaste of the subject at hand?

You anti-choicers really are a grotesque lot.

And you child killers are garbage.

No children are killed in an abortion.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Massive Brain Injury makes pro-lie, Pro-Lifers.	08 Sep 2006 04:24:17 PM

In article <1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com says...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/631kzmqf.asp?pg=1

Choosing Life
How pro-lifers become pro-lifers.

You mean other than an ice-pick to the prefrontal lobes or a naturally
low IQ. I suppose indoctrination by those tax-exempt god pimps called
priests might do the trick.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	08 Sep 2006 11:52:10 AM

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS?

By being arrogant control freaks who live in fear their imaginary god
will find them lacking in enthusiasm.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	09 Sep 2006 11:48:42 PM

Attila wrote:

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS?

By being arrogant control freaks who live in fear their imaginary god
will find them lacking in enthusiasm.

--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom

And what kind of fredom does the unborn child have, the freedom to
be
murdered in the womb by some repulsive tart?
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:29:07 AM

> wrote:

Attila wrote:

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS?

By being arrogant control freaks who live in fear their imaginary god
will find them lacking in enthusiasm.

--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom

And what kind of fredom does the unborn child have,

The same freedom you have, pro-liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 12:00:15 PM

On 9 Sep 2006 21:48:42 -0700, "Boedicia@isp.com" <Boedicia@isp.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1157863722.605697.66240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Attila wrote:

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS?

By being arrogant control freaks who live in fear their imaginary god
will find them lacking in enthusiasm.

--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom

And what kind of fredom does the unborn child

There is no such creature. All children have been born alive.

have, the freedom to
be
murdered

If you are speaking of abortion it is legal and therefore cannot be
murder.

in the womb by some repulsive tart?

Assuming facts not in evidence.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.

User: "Bushsucks"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	10 Sep 2006 08:47:41 AM

What kind of freedom did Iraqi women and children have?
The freedom to be MURDERED by bomb-dropping American invaders?
You RW / Catholic PIECES OF ***** are the world's biggest hypocrites.
Boedicia@isp.com wrote:

Attila wrote:

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1157730611.779637.225980@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

HOW DO PEOPLE BECOME PRO-LIFERS?

By being arrogant control freaks who live in fear their imaginary god
will find them lacking in enthusiasm.

--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom

And what kind of fredom does the unborn child have, the freedom to
be
murdered in the womb by some repulsive tart?

User: "Roedy Green"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	12 Sep 2006 03:59:19 AM

On 8 Sep 2006 08:50:11 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers,
were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue. Then
something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the
anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position
without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change?
What happened?

I am someone who has gone the other way. Though I oppose abortion I
see making it illegal a worse evil. In a similar way I oppose
drinking alcohol, but I see prohibition as a bigger evil. Part of my
reason for becoming pro-choice is simply disgust for the pro-life
people. They are not pro-life so much as pro-controlling others. They
don't give a fig about the child once he or she is born. But worst
of all, most of them oppose birth control, the only plausible way to
make abortion disappear.
All pro-lifers can do is make legal abortions illegal. They have no
interest in actually reducing abortion. They just want to make sure
the mother is punished sufficiently with a back alley abortion. They
are not seriously concerned with preserving life, or they would
consider the mother's life as well.
Another argument pushing me toward choice is the realisation that if
you do succeed in forcing a woman to keep a baby she wanted to murder,
that child will be endlessly and subtly abused its entire life. That
is a far worse fate than never being born.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.

User: "wordkyle"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	12 Sep 2006 06:57:00 AM

Roedy Green wrote:
"I am someone who has gone the other way. Though I oppose abortion I
see making it illegal a worse evil. In a similar way I oppose
drinking alcohol, but I see prohibition as a bigger evil. Part of my
reason for becoming pro-choice is simply disgust for the pro-life
people. They are not pro-life so much as pro-controlling others. They
don't give a fig about the child once he or she is born. But worst
of all, most of them oppose birth control, the only plausible way to
make abortion disappear."
While I respect your right to make up your own mind, your making the
blanket statement that "they don't give a fig about the child once he
or she is born" doesn't indicate that you formed your opinion based on
good information. Besides the programs that I see run locally, I
googled "pro-life charities" and got information on hundreds or
thousands more. "Adoption" reveals many more. Children are a main
focus for many many pro-lifers. You may have encountered some who were
as you described; however, you indicted the entire movement.
.

User: "Roedy Green"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	12 Sep 2006 11:51:07 PM

On 12 Sep 2006 04:57:00 -0700, "wordkyle" <wordkyle@yahoo.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

While I respect your right to make up your own mind, your making the
blanket statement that "they don't give a fig about the child once he
or she is born" doesn't indicate that you formed your opinion based on
good information.

Republicans always oppose any program to protect the young and poor.
It seems to me if we interfere to force a mother to bring a child to
term, we as a society owe that child support its mother may be
unwilling or unable to provide. One of the main reasons mothers
choose to abort is financial. If mothers could COUNT on financial
help, they might be happy to bear the children.
But then the Republicans don't want the poor bearing babies, so they
will never agree to such support.
The earth is already preposterously overpopulated. The last thing we
need are more unwanted children. We have to make fool proof birth
control universally available so that nearly every pregnancy is a
wanted pregnancy.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.

User: "wordkyle"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	15 Sep 2006 08:45:00 AM

Roedy Green wrote:

Republicans always oppose any program to protect the young and poor.

A generalization which, like all generalizations, is inaccurate.
Churches and charities do a tremendous amount of work. What you want is
GOVERNMENT programs.

It seems to me if we interfere to force a mother to bring a child to
term, we as a society owe that child support its mother may be
unwilling or unable to provide.

First, we should "interfere" earlier so that she doesn't become
pregnant. However, the only 100% effective birth control method,
abstinence, is scoffed at by Liberals. Abstinence education is opposed
by nearly all Liberal groups who purport to promote birth control.
Secondly, as I mentioned previously, Republicans and Christians step up
to help all the time through private channels.

One of the main reasons mothers choose to abort is financial. If mothers could COUNT on financial help, they might be happy to bear the children.

You're pushing the argument up a step too soon. The mother's
responsibility starts before she has sex. She should not receive a
paycheck for the results of her sex life, which is what you're asking.
Abortion is not her only choice; adoption (surprise!) is an option if
she can't afford to raise a child.

But then the Republicans don't want the poor bearing babies, so they
will never agree to such support.

Another inaccurate generalization, but consider this: Shouldn't any
thinking person be opposed to irresponsible people, rich or poor,
having babies?
My disgust with abortion started when a young woman I worked with went
around to her co-workers asking them for money so she could have an
abortion. She did this twice. Abortion for health reasons is one
thing; abortions of "convenience" are an abomination.
.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	16 Sep 2006 06:45:22 PM

wordkyle wrote:

Roedy Green wrote:

Republicans always oppose any program to protect the young and poor.

A generalization which, like all generalizations, is inaccurate.
Churches and charities do a tremendous amount of work. What you want is
GOVERNMENT programs.

It seems to me if we interfere to force a mother to bring a child to
term, we as a society owe that child support its mother may be
unwilling or unable to provide.

Abstinence is less popular than lesbianism.
Michael
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	17 Sep 2006 12:48:32 AM

On 16-Sep-2006, "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

wordkyle wrote:

Roedy Green wrote:

Republicans always oppose any program to protect the young and poor.

A generalization which, like all generalizations, is inaccurate.
Churches and charities do a tremendous amount of work. What you want is
GOVERNMENT programs.

That's because we don't want specific agendas pushed, and missionizing
going on, as does happen in church programs.

It seems to me if we interfere to force a mother to bring a child to
term, we as a society owe that child support its mother may be
unwilling or unable to provide.

First, we should "interfere" earlier so that she doesn't become
pregnant. However, the only 100% effective birth control method,
abstinence, is scoffed at by Liberals.

It's nice when they admit that Liberals are the only realists on the planet.

Abstinence education is opposed
by nearly all Liberal groups who purport to promote birth control.

Because the fascists who push "abstinence" programs push it to the
exclusion of EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THEY DON;T WORK.

Secondly, as I mentioned previously, Republicans and Christians step up
to help all the time through private channels.

But only if they are white babies.

Abstinence is less popular than lesbianism.

Er, among whom?
I have to say I oprefer the former to the latter.
But thank G-d I'm married!!
:-D
Susan
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	17 Sep 2006 12:49:25 PM

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message

On 16-Sep-2006, "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

Abstinence education is opposed
by nearly all Liberal groups who purport to promote birth control.

Because the fascists who push "abstinence" programs push it to the
exclusion of EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THEY DON;T WORK.

The question is, what do you want to achieve?
For instance, why would you want to reduce teenage pregnancies? If you are a
government official then you would rather that girls spend their teenaged
years reading business studies at school, and their late teens working in
the accountacy office of a biscuit factory, rather than having babies and
imposing costs on society.
However if you have the interests of the girl at heart, and you know that
she is not one of the few women with the intellectual ability to have a
really worthwhile career, it would be by no means clear that there is any
advantage in delaying pregancy. What is the point of a period of promiscuity
and contraception?
Now what we do insist is that people who have sex should be married. But
there is no reason for promoting any particular age of marriage, or rather,
this is a legitimate area of "choice", the girl who marries on her sixteenth
birthday might be foolish or she might be wise, but she is doing nothing
morally wrong, and she is the one to decide the course of her own life.
The other question is whether the propaganda can be improved. For instance a
British campaign against smoking tried to associate cigarettes with grease,
on the grounds that they clog your heart. I'm no advertising executive, but
I suspect that a lot of professional admen weren't too impressed with those
adverts. Cigarette smoke is dry.
However let's say a tobacco company makes the same criticisms, and tries to
get government funding for anti-smoking ads reduced, and says it is running
its own educational program it wants a subsidy to help roll out to schools.
What would you make of that?
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	16 Sep 2006 03:46:41 AM

Roedy Green wrote:

On 12 Sep 2006 04:57:00 -0700, "wordkyle" <wordkyle@yahoo.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

The last virgin bith was over 2000 years ago. You speak as though
these women got pregnant on their own. It is the fathers
responsibility
to provide for both the mother and child *they* brought into the
world,
not Republicans!!!

But then the Republicans don't want the poor bearing babies, so they
will never agree to such support.

Garbage.

The earth is already preposterously overpopulated. The last thing we
need are more unwanted children. We have to make fool proof birth
control universally available so that nearly every pregnancy is a
wanted pregnancy.

I doubt very much whether the majority of children in the world
were
actually planned. Most pregnancies come as a surprise to the
parents,
Nevertheless, most families welcome the newborn to the family and do
the best they can. Only garbage murder it in the womb.
Naturally, if people don't want children there is always the option
of neutering. Many males have had vasectomies and many females
have had their tubes tied to prevent pregnancies. If more of them
did
this there would be no need for these obscene abortion mills, whose
owners are getting rich by the holocaust of abortion on demand.
Ever heard of adoption?
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	16 Sep 2006 01:36:27 PM

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote:

The last virgin bith was over 2000 years ago.

Virgin birth is easy. It's called "artificial insemination".

You speak as though
these women got pregnant on their own.

You write like an ignorant bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	19 Sep 2006 11:49:56 PM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote:

The last virgin bith was over 2000 years ago.

Virgin birth is easy. It's called "artificial insemination".

You speak as though
these women got pregnant on their own.

You write like an ignorant bigot.

You write write like a baby killer, perhaps one who makes his living
running one of those horrific abortion mills. Why else would you be
so
in favour of killing the unborn?
What is "bigoted" about being pro-life. You sound bigoted against
children.
Ever heard of adoption? Ever heard of sterilisation? Those who
don't
want children can pick either one of the above.
Women who murder their own unborn are garbage and so is the male
who allows her to do it.
"He (the doctor) put his hands around the baby's throat and
strangled it after it cried".
Nurse who was present at one of those abortions you favour so much.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	20 Sep 2006 12:05:14 AM

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote:

The last virgin bith was over 2000 years ago.

Virgin birth is easy. It's called "artificial insemination".

You speak as though
these women got pregnant on their own.

You write like an ignorant bigot.

You write write like a baby killer,

You write like a murderous bigot.

What is "bigoted" about being pro-life.

You're not pro-life. You're a control freak who would rather see
people dead than free.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Son of Discord"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	20 Sep 2006 03:48:11 AM

In alt.atheism

shared this wisdom:
<snip>

You write write like a baby killer,

Argumentum ad hominem.

perhaps one who makes his living
running one of those horrific abortion mills. Why else would you be
so
in favour of killing the unborn?

Strawman.

What is "bigoted" about being pro-life. You sound bigoted against
children.

Equivocation.

Ever heard of adoption? Ever heard of sterilisation? Those who
don't
want children can pick either one of the above.

Irrelevant. Those who don't want children can also pick abortion.

Women who murder their own unborn are garbage and so is the male
who allows her to do it.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.
*****, I'm fucken sick of your crap. Have you got anything else to
add, or are you just gonna keep dribbling this same-ol'-same-ol'
*****?
<snip>
"Son of Discord"
(aka; "Ear-Face")
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.

User: ""
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	23 Sep 2006 01:42:03 AM

Son of Discord wrote:

In alt.atheism

shared this wisdom:

<snip>

You write write like a baby killer,

Argumentum ad hominem.

perhaps one who makes his living
running one of those horrific abortion mills. Why else would you be
so
in favour of killing the unborn?

Strawman.

Evasion.

What is "bigoted" about being pro-life. You sound bigoted against
children.

Equivocation.

Evasion

Ever heard of adoption? Ever heard of sterilisation? Those who
don't
want children can pick either one of the above.

Irrelevant. Those who don't want children can also pick abortion.

That's known as baby-killing.

Women who murder their own unborn are garbage and so is the male
who allows her to do it.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Evasion

*****, I'm fucken sick of your crap. Have you got anything else to
add, or are you just gonna keep dribbling this same-ol'-same-ol'
*****?

Get yourself fixed and as soon as possible. There isn't a person in
the
world who would ever want to be known as descending from garbage
like you.

<snip>

"Son of Discord"

(aka; "Ear-Face")

Also known as a foul-mouthed moron. "Son of Discord"? Isn't
that rather like "Son of Satan"?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Get some mental help, you lost it ages ago. "christianic"? Is that
anything like "judastianic"? And FYI The Bible has
two (2) sections, the O.T. and N.T. so why do you just focus on
the N.T.? Are you an anti-Christian bigot?
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: How Do People Become Pro-Lifers?	20 Sep 2006 04:47:10 AM

On 19 Sep 2006 21:49:56 -0700,

in alt.abortion with
message-id <1158727796.376781.163960@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

> wrote:

The last virgin bith was over 2000 years ago.

Virgin birth is easy. It's called "artificial insemination".

You speak as though
these women got pregnant on their own.

You write like an ignorant bigot.

You write write like a baby killer, perhaps one who makes his living
running one of those horrific abortion mills. Why else would you be
so
in favour of killing the unborn?

No babies are killed in an abortion.

What is "bigoted" about being pro-life. You sound bigoted against
children.

Nonsense.

Ever heard of adoption?

That is an option only after birth, and not before.

Ever heard of sterilisation? Those who
don't
want children can pick either one of the above.

Most abortions are not done for women who do not ever want children.

Women who murder

Abortion is not murder. Murder requires an illegal act and abortion
is legal.

their own unborn are garbage and so is the male
who allows her to do it.

Why should a woman need a male to 'allow' her to do anything?

"He (the doctor) put his hands around the baby's throat and
strangled it after it cried".

Absolute nonsense. Most abortions are done long before any throat
exists.

Nurse who was present at one of those abortions you favour so much.

The action described would be illegal since a baby who was able to cry
had been born alive and thus was protected by law. That would be
murder and would have nothing to d with abortion.
--
Pro-Choice