Religions > Atheism > Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
06 May 2005 10:15:11 PM |
| Object: |
Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
It is a crime how pro-life advocates are treated by certain elements of
the law enforcement agencies in this country. Peaceful protest and
attempts to educate an uninformed public is a right. All decent people
should lend moral support to this lawsuit.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1317.html
Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion
Protester
Washington, DC -- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has
filed a lawsuit against a Washington-area Planned Parenthood and a
security guard at the abortion business. The suit has been filed for a
pro-life college student who says he was tackled to the ground and
injured when protesting abortion outside the facility last year.
Daniel Heenan, who attends Christendom College in Front Royal,
Virginia, had participated in a prayer vigil and sidewalk counseling
outside the Washington Planned Parenthood for three years. The suit
contends he was injured when a security guard knocked him to the
ground.
The incident occurred after Heenan approached the abortion facility and
crossed a picket line painted on the ground that limited the protests
of a group of pro-life advocates involved in an unrelated lawsuit.
The line did not apply to Heenan, but he contends the Planned
Parenthood guard forcefully shoved him to the ground after tackling
him.
Heenan said he did nothing to provoke the attack and gave no indication
that he was planning to enter the abortion facility or harass the
security guard.
According to the lawsuit, several officers of the D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department refused Heenan's request to press charges against the
security guard. There was no police report filed about the attack.
"It is simply unacceptable for citizens of the United States, who are
on public property, to be tackled or knocked to the ground by security
guards," said Jim Henderson, a senior ACLJ legal counsel.
"In this case, a college-aged Catholic sidewalk counselor was attacked
from behind and thrown to the ground on a public sidewalk for no other
reason than seeking to offer his message of hope and help to women
approaching the Planned Parenthood facility," Henderson explained.
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing AbortionProtester |
10 May 2005 06:20:44 AM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
June, are you ill? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is not a
consequence of sexual intercourse?
I'm quite well, Michael - thank you for asking. Pregnancy is frequently a
consequence of sexual intercourse,
Great! So we're agreed that people should be responsible for the
consequences of sexual intercouse, including the health and welfare of
anybody conceived!
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
10 May 2005 10:00:16 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42809e58$0$2597$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
June, are you ill? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is not a
consequence of sexual intercourse?
I'm quite well, Michael - thank you for asking. Pregnancy is frequently
a
consequence of sexual intercourse,
Great! So we're agreed that people should be responsible for the
consequences of sexual intercouse, including the health and welfare of
anybody conceived!
For shame, Michael: unmarked snipping and a false assertion of agreement -
is that worthy of you?
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare, whether
they look after it themselves or arrange for adoption. However, I don't
agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring the foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing AbortionProtester |
11 May 2005 04:43:58 AM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42809e58$0$2597$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
June, are you ill? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is not a
consequence of sexual intercourse?
I'm quite well, Michael - thank you for asking. Pregnancy is frequently
a
consequence of sexual intercourse,
Great! So we're agreed that people should be responsible for the
consequences of sexual intercouse, including the health and welfare of
anybody conceived!
For shame, Michael: unmarked snipping and a false assertion of agreement -
is that worthy of you?
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
11 May 2005 11:26:31 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4281d92f$0$2590$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42809e58$0$2597$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
June, are you ill? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is not a
consequence of sexual intercourse?
I'm quite well, Michael - thank you for asking. Pregnancy is
frequently
a
consequence of sexual intercourse,
Great! So we're agreed that people should be responsible for the
consequences of sexual intercouse, including the health and welfare of
anybody conceived!
For shame, Michael: unmarked snipping and a false assertion of
agreement -
is that worthy of you?
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that
the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
Incredible! Here's what you snipped so that you could repeat your lie:
'However, I don't agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring the
foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)'
You don't even know when you've been pre-empted. I'm disappointed in you,
Michael.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
11 May 2005 03:54:11 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d5tbnm$3pf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4281d92f$0$2590$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that
the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
Incredible! Here's what you snipped so that you could repeat your lie:
'However, I don't agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring the
foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)'
You don't even know when you've been pre-empted. I'm disappointed in you,
Michael.
No one has ever accused them of being smart *or* honest.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
12 May 2005 06:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:54:11 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net>
wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d5tbnm$3pf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4281d92f$0$2590$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that
the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
Incredible! Here's what you snipped so that you could repeat your lie:
'However, I don't agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring the
foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)'
You don't even know when you've been pre-empted. I'm disappointed in you,
Michael.
No one has ever accused them of being smart *or* honest.
Or educated.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing AbortionProtester |
11 May 2005 02:10:12 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that
the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
Incredible! Here's what you snipped so that you could repeat your lie:
'However, I don't agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring the
foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)'
You don't even know when you've been pre-empted. I'm disappointed in you,
Michael.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
You contradict yourself June. First you say that people should be
responsible for the people they conceive, then you say they shouldn't. I
suppose this is all part and parcel of pro-abortion schizophrenia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
11 May 2005 03:57:01 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42825de6$0$2590$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
I certainly think that if a baby results from sexual intercourse that
the
people concerned should be responsible for its health and welfare,
Fantastic! So you're pro-life all of a sudden!
Incredible! Here's what you snipped so that you could repeat your lie:
'However, I don't agree that any woman has the responsibility to bring
the
foetus to term if
she doesn't wish to do so. (Going to snip that last sentence too, so
that
it looks like I've agreed with you?)'
You don't even know when you've been pre-empted. I'm disappointed in
you,
Michael.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
You contradict yourself June. First you say that people should be
responsible for the people they conceive,
I said no such thing. I said they should be responsible for any baby that
they bring into the world, ie if the foetus has been carried to term. No
such responsibility exists to carry the foetus to term if the woman doesn't
wish to do so.
then you say they shouldn't. I
suppose this is all part and parcel of pro-abortion schizophrenia.
Slurs? Am I supposed to vehemently deny being pro-abortion? Well - and
here's some more creative snipping you can do - I am pro-abortion if that's
what the woman wants, but I'm equally pro-birth, again, if that's what the
woman wants, and personally birth was always my choice. As for
schizophrenia: I'm not schizophrenic, am I, June? No, June, you certainly
aren't. :p
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
11 May 2005 04:18:19 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d5trit$poj$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42825de6$0$2590$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
[snip most of tripe]
I
suppose this is all part and parcel of pro-abortion schizophrenia.
Slurs? Am I supposed to vehemently deny being pro-abortion? Well - and
here's some more creative snipping you can do - I am pro-abortion if
that's
what the woman wants, but I'm equally pro-birth, again, if that's what the
woman wants, and personally birth was always my choice.
IOW, you are pro-choice, just like the rest of us.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
12 May 2005 04:11:09 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote
I am pro-abortion if that's what the woman wants, but I'm equally
pro-birth, again, if that's what the woman wants, and personally birth
was always my choice.
IOW, you are pro-choice, just like the rest of us.
Very few pro-gun people would say that, if a man doesn't want to carry a
gun, he should be forced to do so.
However you never hear them describing themselves as "not pro-gun,
pro-choice (on guns)".
Why do you think that is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
12 May 2005 04:33:29 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d60gpc$844$6@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote
I am pro-abortion if that's what the woman wants, but I'm equally
pro-birth, again, if that's what the woman wants, and personally birth
was always my choice.
IOW, you are pro-choice, just like the rest of us.
Very few pro-gun people would say that, if a man doesn't want to carry a
gun, he should be forced to do so.
However you never hear them describing themselves as "not pro-gun,
pro-choice (on guns)".
Why do you think that is?
Because, as you said, they are "pro gun".
Geez, how dumb are you???
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
14 May 2005 02:27:24 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote
Because, as you said, they are "pro gun".
Geez, how dumb are you???
Well I'm pro-choice on education, because I think parents should be allowed
to choose which school to send their children to. I am anti-choice on
health, because I don't think patients should have the right to choose which
hospital they are treated in. (These are both current political debates).
So does that make me a pro-choice or an anti-choice person? What would you
call me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
14 May 2005 02:04:46 PM |
|
|
In article <d6498r$i94$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
Well I'm pro-choice on education, because I think parents should be allowed
to choose which school to send their children to. I am anti-choice on
health, because I don't think patients should have the right to choose which
hospital they are treated in. (These are both current political debates).
So does that make me a pro-choice or an anti-choice person? What would you
call me?
In the context of the abortion/birth debate, whether or not you are pro-
choice depends on your answer to the following question:
When a woman has the medical condition known as pregnancy, should she be
legally able to choose between all of the following:
1. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy continue to normal term
(about 9 months)
2. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy end early (generally within
the first 3 or 4 months, but exceptionally later)
3. No medical treatment for the pregnancy
Or should one or more of those options be illegal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
14 May 2005 07:55:49 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
In the context of the abortion/birth debate,
Exactly. One is not "pro-choice" or "anti-choice" but "pro-choice on
abortion" or "anti-choice on abortion". I don't see any problem with
shortening this to "anti-abortion", so why the huge fuss about
"pro-abortion"?
whether or not you are pro-
choice depends on your answer to the following question:
When a woman has the medical condition known as pregnancy, should she be
legally able to choose between all of the following:
What's "medical condition" doing in there? I currently have the medical
condition of being full, having just eaten, being a bit tired since it is
near bedtime, and of being post-pubescent, since I am an adult man.
1. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy continue to normal term
(about 9 months)
I don't think that a woman should be allowed to demand unnecessary medical
intervention, such as a Caesarian when it isn't called for. So I guess I am
anti- choice on that one, though there might be circumstances in which a
doctor can offer some choice, such as a general anaesthetic for the labour
which means less pain, but also means that she doesn't get to see the actual
birth.
2. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy end early (generally within
the first 3 or 4 months, but exceptionally later)
Anti choice on that one, but pro-choice in another way. The problem is that
if you terminate the pregnancy then you run out of choices. We don't have
the technology to put the baby back. On the other hand there are many
choices if the baby is carried to term - she can marry the father, bring it
up as a single mother, give it up for adoption, foster it temporarily, have
it brought up by grandparents. Some of these options rely on other people so
not all will be open to all women. However it is very unusual to have no
choice whatsoever.
All the talk of rights and choices means that, psychologically, women are
unprepared for the situation when they have done something totally
irrevocable.
So am I pro-choice or anti-choice on that one? I am anti- the choice that
removes all other choices.
3. No medical treatment for the pregnancy
Whether or not she should be allowed to refuse necessary treatment is a
difficult issue. I think doctors should pressurise her ("If you don't take
this pill both you and your child will die. What would your husband think of
that?") but ultimately if she wants to refuse, then I wouldn't force
treatment upon her. This is not the law in Canada, where I believe it is
illegal to deliver a baby outside of hospital.
So I am pro-choice on that one.
Or should one or more of those options be illegal?
With option one it is not so much a case of making it illegal for the woman
to ask for treatment as having a system of ethics whereby doctors only offer
treatment they think is in the patient's medical best interests.
With option two, you could say that this is "medical treatment", as with
option one, so the doctor should decide, not the woman. In fact abortions
are only rarely carried out for medical reasons, but because carrying the
child to term is incompatible with a woman's other plans. Personally I would
ban abortions on those grounds, certainly after the very early stages of
pregnancy.
Option three - personally I think Canada has set a very dangerous precedent,
and patients should have the right to refuse treatment. However pregnancy,
where a child is involved, is one of the hard cases. (I wouldn't have a
problem with locking up pregnant drug addicts for the purpose of preventing
damage to the baby, however these women have broken the law, and it is not
treatment as such, but preventing further crimes.)
So you will have to tell me whether I am pro- or anti- choice, based on
these answers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
15 May 2005 09:32:05 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d666mj$t95$6@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
In the context of the abortion/birth debate,
Exactly. One is not "pro-choice" or "anti-choice" but "pro-choice on
abortion" or "anti-choice on abortion". I don't see any problem with
shortening this to "anti-abortion", so why the huge fuss about
"pro-abortion"?
whether or not you are pro-
choice depends on your answer to the following question:
When a woman has the medical condition known as pregnancy, should she be
legally able to choose between all of the following:
What's "medical condition" doing in there? I currently have the medical
condition of being full, having just eaten, being a bit tired since it is
near bedtime, and of being post-pubescent, since I am an adult man.
1. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy continue to normal term
(about 9 months)
I don't think that a woman should be allowed to demand unnecessary medical
intervention, such as a Caesarian when it isn't called for. So I guess I
am
anti- choice on that one, though there might be circumstances in which a
doctor can offer some choice, such as a general anaesthetic for the labour
which means less pain, but also means that she doesn't get to see the
actual
birth.
It seems that there are one or two things that you don't know about
pregnancy. Women in labour can't have a general anaesthetic because it
would harm the foetus. Caesarean sections are performed very quickly so
that as little anaesthetic as possible passes into the foetal bloodstream.
Women can be in labour for days and to be anaesthetised for that length of
time would probably kill them as well as their foetuses. An anaesthetised
woman would also be unable to push during contractions, which would prolong
the delivery.
Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to demand a Caesarean section 'when it
isn't called for'? You want to ensure that she goes through all the pain?
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
15 May 2005 01:15:56 PM |
|
|
In article <d666mj$t95$6@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
In the context of the abortion/birth debate,
Exactly. One is not "pro-choice" or "anti-choice"
Regarding *choice*.
but "pro-choice on
abortion" or "anti-choice on abortion".
No... regarding *choice*.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JLK" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing AbortionProtester |
15 May 2005 06:32:09 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <d6498r$i94$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
Well I'm pro-choice on education, because I think parents should be allowed
to choose which school to send their children to. I am anti-choice on
health, because I don't think patients should have the right to choose which
hospital they are treated in. (These are both current political debates).
So does that make me a pro-choice or an anti-choice person? What would you
call me?
In the context of the abortion/birth debate, whether or not you are pro-
choice depends on your answer to the following question:
When a woman has the medical condition known as pregnancy, should she be
legally able to choose between all of the following:
1. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy continue to normal term
(about 9 months)
2. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy end early (generally within
the first 3 or 4 months, but exceptionally later)
3. No medical treatment for the pregnancy
Or should one or more of those options be illegal?
Legally we should be concerned with practicalities. 95%+ of abortions
are done for reasons other that your conditions above any impact on.
As we already know, you're just another deliberate obfuscating liar for
abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
15 May 2005 01:18:41 PM |
|
|
In article <42873339.9CAEA7FB@sdfkjh.sdkjhfh>, asdjhfg@sdfkjh.sdkjhfh
says...
In the context of the abortion/birth debate, whether or not you are pro-
choice depends on your answer to the following question:
When a woman has the medical condition known as pregnancy, should she be
legally able to choose between all of the following:
1. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy continue to normal term
(about 9 months)
2. Medical treatment to help the pregnancy end early (generally within
the first 3 or 4 months, but exceptionally later)
3. No medical treatment for the pregnancy
Or should one or more of those options be illegal?
Legally we should be concerned with practicalities. 95%+ of abortions
are done for reasons other that your conditions above any impact on.
You didn't answer the question.
Why not?
Afraid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
15 May 2005 03:15:59 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
You didn't answer the question.
Why not?
Afraid?
I gave you a detailed answer.
With regard to the "medical condition of pregnacy" we need to distinguish
between abortions done in the medical interests of the mother, and abortions
performed for other reasons.
I don't see how making this distinction is in any way evading your question.
I'm certainly not afraid of answering it, I just want to know if I am a
pro-choice or anti-choice person, given that I believe that people should be
allowed to make some choices but not others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
15 May 2005 06:58:19 PM |
|
|
In article <d68alu$se3$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
You didn't answer the question.
Why not?
Afraid?
I gave you a detailed answer.
But didn't actually answer the question.
The answer required no qualification.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
16 May 2005 05:33:41 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
But didn't actually answer the question.
The answer required no qualification.
She asked "should a patient have the right to refuse treatment?". Any doctor
would tell you that you can't answer yes/no to that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
17 May 2005 12:09:38 PM |
|
|
In article <d6b744$2to$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
But didn't actually answer the question.
The answer required no qualification.
She asked "should a patient have the right to refuse treatment?". Any doctor
would tell you that you can't answer yes/no to that one.
Don't be ridiculous! Of course someone can refuse treatment offered if
they so wish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
17 May 2005 06:01:22 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Don't be ridiculous! Of course someone can refuse treatment offered if
they so wish.
There was a hospital where they did "birth plans". One woman said "don't
give me any anaesthetics, even if I scream for them". Sure enough, as labour
progressed she began to scream for pain relief.
So what should the doctors do in this situation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
17 May 2005 06:35:01 PM |
|
|
In article <d6dt41$nvg$4@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Don't be ridiculous! Of course someone can refuse treatment offered if
they so wish.
There was a hospital where they did "birth plans". One woman said "don't
give me any anaesthetics, even if I scream for them". Sure enough, as labour
progressed she began to scream for pain relief.
So what should the doctors do in this situation?
Ask the doctors. Ask the pregnant woman. I am neither! ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "LLK" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing AbortionProtester |
17 May 2005 08:40:58 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <d6dt41$nvg$4@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Don't be ridiculous! Of course someone can refuse treatment offered if
they so wish.
There was a hospital where they did "birth plans". One woman said "don't
give me any anaesthetics, even if I scream for them". Sure enough, as labour
progressed she began to scream for pain relief.
So what should the doctors do in this situation?
Ask the doctors. Ask the pregnant woman. I am neither! ;-))
Do you know what a thought experiment is, moron? Do you understand the
validity of applying logic consistently?
Remember you're the one who raises all kinds of ridiculous situations in
order to avoid the real debate...
--
Pat Winstanley trips herself up with her own disingenuous piles of
cowshit:
"If the man's pregnant then of course exactly the same would apply as to
the woman who is pregnant."
-Pat Winstanley
"Is this another one of your fantasies like your ficticious male
pregnancies?"
-Pat Winstanley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
17 May 2005 10:56:53 PM |
|
|
"LLK" <dfgkjh@dfgkjh.dfgkjh> wrote in message
news:428A9D2A.B38A451B@dfgkjh.dfgkjh...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <d6dt41$nvg$4@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Don't be ridiculous! Of course someone can refuse treatment offered
if
they so wish.
There was a hospital where they did "birth plans". One woman said
"don't
give me any anaesthetics, even if I scream for them". Sure enough, as
labour
progressed she began to scream for pain relief.
So what should the doctors do in this situation?
Ask the doctors. Ask the pregnant woman. I am neither! ;-))
Do you know what a thought experiment is, moron? Do you understand the
validity of applying logic consistently?
Do you know what an impossible question is, moron?
There is no one answer to that question.
Remember you're the one who raises all kinds of ridiculous situations in
order to avoid the real debate...
you lie.
--
Pat Winstanley trips herself [snip rest of foul-mouthed lies]
Says the idiot who can't read.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
18 May 2005 03:14:53 AM |
|
|
In article <428A9D2A.B38A451B@dfgkjh.dfgkjh>,
says...
"If the man's pregnant then of course exactly the same would apply as to
the woman who is pregnant."
-Pat Winstanley
Do you think a pregnant man should NOT have the same laws apply to him
as a pregnant woman? The above was in the context of someone who is
pregnant having a legal choice of whether or not to continue that
pregnancy.
"Is this another one of your fantasies like your ficticious male
pregnancies?"
-Pat Winstanley
To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a pregnant man *yet*... (I
expect it will become possible both technically and practically at some
time in the future)... and the above was in the context of a discussion
where the other postwer insisted that every man who had or has a
pregnant partner was/is himself pregnant. (Ie. the poster claimed male
pregnancies as happening in the past and present... something that
doesn't and didn't exist as far as I'm aware).
Is it possible for you to understand the word 'context'? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
18 May 2005 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Do you think a pregnant man should NOT have the same laws apply to him
as a pregnant woman? The above was in the context of someone who is
pregnant having a legal choice of whether or not to continue that
pregnancy.
If a man gets a mistress pregnant, then often that creates an extremely
inconvenient situation for him. He's looking at the best part of twenty
years' maintenance payments. If he is married to another woman, the
financial strain could easily mean the end of his existing marriage.
Now if a woman presents for an abortion giving as a reason, for example,
"I'm a student. If I had a baby that would mean I couldn't complete my
degree,and not qualify as a lawyer." current thinking is that it is her
right to choose.
However most feminists are very hostile to the idea that the man can say
"I'd rather this pregnancy wasn't taken to term. But it's not my body.
However I repudiate all financial or other responsibility for the child." In
Britian, he currently has no right to say this.
The justification given is that the choice was made when he decided to have
sexual intercourse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
18 May 2005 05:32:15 PM |
|
|
In article <d6gcq4$rce$2@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
The justification given is that the choice was made when he decided to have
sexual intercourse.
Each of the man and the woman have exactly the same opportunity to walk
away *while that person is directly physically involved*. Each also has
the same option to walk away when *neither* are directly physically
involbved (adoption if there is a child).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawsuit Filed Against Planned Parenthood for Harassing Abortion Protester |
18 May 2005 09:20:44 PM |
|
|
In article <d6gcq4$rce$2@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Do you think a pregnant man should NOT have the same laws apply to him
as a pregnant woman? The above was in the context of someone who is
pregnant having a legal choice of whether or not to continue that
pregnancy.
If a man gets a mistress pregnant, then often that creates an extremely
inconvenient situation for him. He's looking at the best part of twenty
years' maintenance payments. If he is married to another woman, the
financial strain could easily mean the end of his existing marriage.
Now if a woman presents for an abortion giving as a reason, for example,
"I'm a student. If I had a baby that would mean I couldn't complete my
degree,and not qualify as a lawyer." current thinking is that it is her
right to choose.
However most feminists are very hostile to the idea that the man can say
"I'd rather this pregnancy wasn't taken to term. But it's not my body.
However I repudiate all financial or other responsibility for the child." In
Britian, he currently has no right to say this.
The justification given is that the choice was made when he decided to have
sexual intercourse.
** In my very limited experiences, most of the deciding in such matters
is done by the woman's emission of pheromones. Whether or not women have
the conscious ability to switch these on or off at will is mystery to me
still. My guess is that women choose who they have coitus with >80% of
the time.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
