| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Auric Hellman" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 12:05:30 AM |
| Object: |
Memorial wall for abortion victims |
100 hold vigil at memorial wall for buried fetuses
By Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, Rocky Mountain News
January 22, 2005
BOULDER - The stars twinkled in a velvet black sky Friday as Diane
Sillstrop carried a candle for the twins she aborted in 1976 when she
was 21.
About 100 abortion foes joined Sillstrop to grieve at a Memorial Wall
for the Unborn in a graveyard at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church. They
carried candles and brought flowers for an estimated 5,000 fetuses who
have been buried at the church since 1996.
Catholic Church officials and volunteers plan to bury the remains from
another 1,000 fetuses Sunday. The burial coincides with the 32nd
anniversary today of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that
legalized abortion.
The fetal remains came from the Boulder Abortion Clinic. Unbeknownst to
Dr. Warren Hern, director of the clinic, the Crist Mortuary of Boulder
had been picking up fetal remains and delivering them to the church.
Disturbed by the remains, church officials and abortion foes decided to
build the memorial wall, which they dedicated in 2000.
Hern blasted the Catholic Church for what he said was exploitation of
his patients' pain.
"I am appalled that the Catholic Church again has shown its willingness
to exploit the private grief and pain of women seeking legal abortions
in order to advance its political goals," Hern said in a written
statement. "I am also appalled that the officers of Crist Mortuary,
which performs important work requiring public trust . . . have
publicly admitted that they have collaborated with this cynical
exploitation of private grief for political purposes."
Advocates for abortion rights said that many women who received
abortions at Hern's clinic had babies with fatal abnormalities. Hern
said abortion foes would stop "at nothing to inflict guilt and to
compound the grief, sadness and sense of loss that these women
experience. These fanatics simply cannot leave other people alone with
their most intimate sorrow."
Sillstrop and other abortion foes said they understand why public
revelations about the burials have been so explosive, especially for
women whose fetuses may be buried at the church.
"I know this isn't easy," Sillstrop said. "I hope and pray that they
can find what I have found here - healing."
Any woman who has had an abortion can request an acknowledgment of her
fetus at the Memorial Wall. Church officials estimate there are between
100 and 200 such plaques.
Now 49, Sillstrop wishes she had kept her twins. A plaque in their
memory sits on the wall. It notes the day Sillstrop had her abortion,
Aug. 11, 1976, and says, "Your lives have touched many."
Sillstrop, who has had three other children and who has become a
counselor to girls considering abortion, thinks the wall is vital for
women dealing with the pain of a poor decision. "Abortion gnaws at the
soul," she said.
Susan LaVelle has been helping with the burials for years and has
counseled expectant mothers at the Real Choices Pregnancy Center in
Boulder.
She and Father Dorino DeLazzer of the Sacred Heart of Mary parish
decided last spring that they should tell the public about the fetal
remains.
LaVelle said she knows that the Boulder Abortion Clinic will
undoubtedly find a different way now to dispose of the remains. Even
so, she said it was vital to let people know how significant the wall
is.
"It gives everyone, whether they've had an abortion or not, a place to
grieve the loss of so many babies over the last 32 years," she said.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 11:09:43 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 07:42:21 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 09:26:57 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 2 (January 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 29 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:25:50 AM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is
now, but thank you for the answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:50:05 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is now, but thank you for the answer.
More correctly, that's not where you want it to be now. Tough luck for you --
and set your line lengths to something closer to 80 than 40. This isn't 1985,
and no one's using a C= 64 any more.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 2 (January 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 29 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:56:06 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8y6cauc2.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is now, but thank you for the answer.
More correctly, that's not where you want it to be now.
You changed the subject from where it is
to where I want it to be, but that's ok.
Tough luck for you --
and set your line lengths to something closer to 80 than 40.
There's a reason for doing that. Think
about it.
This isn't 1985,
and no one's using a C= 64 any more.
Agreed.
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8y6cauc2.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is now, but thank you for the answer.
More correctly, that's not where you want it to be now.
You changed the subject from where it is to where I want it to be, but that's
ok.
You might want to have a talk with the number of people who deflected your
intended topic when you first stated it. That horse bolted the barn long ago,
so to speak.
Tough luck for you -- and set your line lengths to something closer to 80
than 40.
There's a reason for doing that. Think about it.
There are ways around that, even if your vision's impaired to that degree.
This isn't 1985, and no one's using a C= 64 any more.
Agreed.
Be glad, considering some of the things that could be done to a message on a
Commodore-based board.
Other than current law, what is the difference between killing a fetus due to
be born in two days, and killing a two day old baby?
The latter is illegal, and the former is irrelevant, as quite a few fetuses
are aborted at two days or less before birth -- of course, a C-section, which
bears them alive.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 2 (January 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 29 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 03:05:06 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkvf9g9etr.fsf@fnord.io.com...
Other than current law, what is the difference between killing a fetus due to
be born in two days, and killing a two day old baby?
The latter is illegal,
Did you read the question?
and the former is irrelevant, as quite a few fetuses
are aborted at two days or less before birth -- of course, a C-section, which
bears them alive.
You are evading the question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:55:08 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8y6cauc2.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is now, but thank you for the answer.
More correctly, that's not where you want it to be now.
You changed the subject from where it is
to where I want it to be, but that's ok.
Tough luck for you --
and set your line lengths to something closer to 80 than 40.
There's a reason for doing that. Think
about it.
This isn't 1985,
and no one's using a C= 64 any more.
Agreed.
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
one is a person and one is not. what is the difference between killing
a two day old baby and throwing out a bag of fries that could
potentially be eaten and become a child?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 11:16:58 PM |
|
|
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MMZKd.17986$wZ2.4418@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Bob wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8y6cauc2.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkllac29vi.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human life should be protected in law?
Where it is now: at birth. (As always, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I don't think that's exactly where it is now, but thank you for the answer.
More correctly, that's not where you want it to be now.
You changed the subject from where it is
to where I want it to be, but that's ok.
Tough luck for you --
and set your line lengths to something closer to 80 than 40.
There's a reason for doing that. Think
about it.
This isn't 1985,
and no one's using a C= 64 any more.
Agreed.
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
one is a person and one is not.
What are the physical differences?
what is the difference between killing a two day old baby and throwing out a
bag of fries that could potentially be eaten and become a child?
The former is an innocent living human
being. The latter is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 05:32:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 09:49:31 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jirqv0phig2eoqga2k714m0il9s3a43g43@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
I'm not getting into childish semantic
games. If you don't understand it, you
are not worth my time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 10:05:21 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ZYCLd.9138$qJ3.7535@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jirqv0phig2eoqga2k714m0il9s3a43g43@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
I'm not getting into childish semantic
games...
Yeah, we know. You aren't getting into the legitimate, completely *valid*
reasons your questions are such ***** either.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 10:56:19 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vtvnhbsf03p11@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ZYCLd.9138$qJ3.7535@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jirqv0phig2eoqga2k714m0il9s3a43g43@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
I'm not getting into childish semantic
games...
Yeah, we know.
Good.
You aren't getting into the legitimate, completely *valid* reasons your
questions are such ***** either.
If the questions make you uncomfortable, so be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 11:44:59 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mVDLd.9308$qJ3.9075@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vtvnhbsf03p11@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ZYCLd.9138$qJ3.7535@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jirqv0phig2eoqga2k714m0il9s3a43g43@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
I'm not getting into childish semantic
games...
Yeah, we know.
Good.
Yeah, but not the way *you* think.
You aren't getting into the legitimate, completely *valid* reasons your
questions are such ***** either.
If the questions make you uncomfortable, so be it.
"Uncomfortable?" Heh. Don't flatter yourself.
I'm becoming increasingly amused at your feet-stompingly childish responses to
people who call you on your transparent attempts to steer the conversation into
your own biased terms.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
01 Feb 2005 02:12:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:49:31 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jirqv0phig2eoqga2k714m0il9s3a43g43@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:16:58 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
The former is an innocent living human being. The latter is not.
You can't use that argument until you define "human" and "human
being", which you can't do.
"We must do X because <something> is <undefined>" isn't a cogent
argument.
I'm not getting into childish semantic
games. If you don't understand it, you
are not worth my time.
If you think "human" can be defined, you're not worth anyone's time.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:33:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 06:09:22 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 07:25:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 07:52:15 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qdov0thu16do1cep0vmhqs6brn7uv4as5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
Without too much thought, I don't have
a problem with them as they are currently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:57:23 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qdov0thu16do1cep0vmhqs6brn7uv4as5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
Without too much thought, I don't have
a problem with them as they are currently.
people shouldnt drive until they can demonstrate an ability to use turn
signals
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 05:25:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:15 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qdov0thu16do1cep0vmhqs6brn7uv4as5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
Without too much thought, I don't have
a problem with them as they are currently.
So you have no problem with our setting arbitrary lines. Unless it's
the one that sets the line for personhood at birth.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 05:39:04 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:l6rqv0tvap5l8k8e58mlikg2fp9u10ji1u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:15 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qdov0thu16do1cep0vmhqs6brn7uv4as5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
Without too much thought, I don't have
a problem with them as they are currently.
So you have no problem with our setting arbitrary lines. Unless it's
the one that sets the line for personhood at birth.
I have my opinion as to where that line
should be drawn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 04:01:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:15 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3qdov0thu16do1cep0vmhqs6brn7uv4as5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
Without too much thought,
That shouldn't bother anyway.
I don't have
a problem with them as they are currently.
Why not? Why would 16 be a responsible age for driving? In many
countries the age is 18 or 21.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:56:45 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:09:22 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
Good answer. An arbitrary line drawn
in the sand by people making our laws.
So at what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a girl to have
sex? At what NON-arbitrary age should it be legal for a person to
drive?
no such thing, we're just animals, after all, what do you expect?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:41:05 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oo3ov057ekthjd604e481fkeuon8eii4cn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:06 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> said in
alt.atheism:
Other than current law, what is the difference
between killing a fetus due to be born in two
days, and killing a two day old baby?
Same as the difference between statutory rape the day before a girl
turns 17 and sex between consenting adults the next day. We set
limits. They're arbitrary, but they have to be.
bingo.
fantastic answer
exactly the one i gave a while previously. :)
thus, it must be great.
whit
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for
the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 08:04:41 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MQBKd.4479$GV3.1045@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
You've eaten that question already.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 08:18:12 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vlrheguoi17a1@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MQBKd.4479$GV3.1045@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
You've eaten that question already.
And you are still dodging.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 08:26:41 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mmCKd.4493$GV3.2892@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vlrheguoi17a1@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MQBKd.4479$GV3.1045@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
You've eaten that question already.
And you are still dodging.
Do you really need your nose rubbed in that ***** again?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 09:18:08 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vlsql73o9o230@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:mmCKd.4493$GV3.2892@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vlrheguoi17a1@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MQBKd.4479$GV3.1045@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchem$k9l$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uciv0tsdnmttuk24rcs9ivu9ss9oqpqhv@4ax.com...
"Human life" isn't protected. (Neither is "a human being", for that
matter.) Only persons are, human or otherwise, and the fetus isn't a
person.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected?
But the point is that those who are anti-abortion ARE NOT PROTECTING
HUMAN LIFE!
You're just demanding obedience from women.
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
You've eaten that question already.
And you are still dodging.
Do you really need your nose rubbed in that ***** again?
I'll try and dumb it down to your level.
Do you believe that a woman should
be allowed by law to get an abortion
for any reason when she is 8 months
pregnant? If not, where do you draw
the line?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
