| 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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:14:22 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctf195$l3r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
"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 can "protect" any human life that you like so long as you do not
violate the rights of that human life known as a "pregnant woman".
Why are you so afraid to answer
such a simple question?
But as has been demonstrated repeatedly, abortion opponents have no
interest whatever in protecting any human life.
Incorrect.
The evidence is clear.
You're interested
only in controlling women.
Incorrect again.
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks. That protection is from
anyone ... the mother happens to be one of those
people.
I also happen to believe that protecting the fetus
after the first trimester is a reasonable position,
which is held by many pro-choicers.
It's silly arguments like the ones you put forth
that give pro-choice a bad name.
At what point do you believe that human
life should be protected in law, and why?
I still don't have a clear understanding of
where you stand on abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:18:11 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:47:02 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgnhj$uab$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
It was personal and it hit close to home. It was
not exactly the same circumstances you described,
but very close.
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
should make me happy, but I'm actually sad to
see people in this country with so little sense
posting on Usenet regarding such a serious
issue in our country.
If you are a child, I hope you learn with
experience. If you are a mature adult,
there's not much hope for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:59:51 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
What's stopping you from doing it now? Did you figure that
calling yourself "pro-life" meant that you ddidn't actually have
to do anything yourself? You could get by with telling other
people what they should do?
[...]
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
The usual lies and hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 02:08:04 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgpvn$18m$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
What's stopping you from doing it now? Did you figure that
calling yourself "pro-life" meant that you ddidn't actually have
to do anything yourself? You could get by with telling other
people what they should do?
[...]
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
The usual lies and hate.
Come back after you pass through puberty. You
are a poor excuse for a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 03:57:25 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in news:10SKd.7$gS5.0
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgpvn$18m$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection in law after 5
weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from the pro-choice to the
pro-life side of the issue.
What's stopping you from doing it now? Did you figure that
calling yourself "pro-life" meant that you ddidn't actually have
to do anything yourself? You could get by with telling other
people what they should do?
[...]
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
The usual lies and hate.
Come back after you pass through puberty. You
are a poor excuse for a human being.
That's funny, coming from an anti-choice zealot. Most of you don't even
know what a "human being" is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:35:12 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgpvn$18m$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
What's stopping you from doing it now? Did you figure that
calling yourself "pro-life" meant that you ddidn't actually have
to do anything yourself? You could get by with telling other
people what they should do?
[...]
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
The usual lies and hate.
Come back after you pass through puberty. You
are a poor excuse for a human being.
Aww, the whiny pro-liar is cranky because he's been exposed as
a dishonest hypocrite and control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 02:18:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:47:02 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgnhj$uab$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
It was personal and it hit close to home. It was
not exactly the same circumstances you described,
but very close.
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
should make me happy, but I'm actually sad to
see people in this country with so little sense
posting on Usenet regarding such a serious
issue in our country.
If you are a child, I hope you learn with
experience. If you are a mature adult,
there's not much hope for you.
Do you also feel that men should be forced to donate blood to save
lives? If not, you are a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 03:03:04 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4271eede.775061890@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:47:02 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctgnhj$uab$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Every anti-abortion argument is always about telling women what they
may or may not do. None are about helping women or children. It's
always what OTHER people should do and never what YOU can do.
Many laws attempt to control the behavior
of people. My position gives the fetus protection
in law after 5 weeks.
And make women into slaves. It's all about making women obey.
You want to prevent abortions? Really?
Here's how:
Find a woman wanting an abortion and pay her to give birth instead.
Simple, legal, and effective, and you can do it right now.
What's your excuse for not doing it?
I'm going to surprise you. I did almost exactly
what you described 10 years ago. In fact, that
set of circumstances caused me to switch from
the pro-choice to the pro-life side of the issue.
It was personal and it hit close to home. It was
not exactly the same circumstances you described,
but very close.
You are a danger to the pro-choice cause, which
should make me happy, but I'm actually sad to
see people in this country with so little sense
posting on Usenet regarding such a serious
issue in our country.
If you are a child, I hope you learn with
experience. If you are a mature adult,
there's not much hope for you.
Do you also feel that men should be forced to donate blood to save
lives?
No.
If not, you are a hypocrite.
Incorrect.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 03:43:34 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Do you also feel that men should be forced to donate blood to save
lives? If not, you are a hypocrite.
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:11:46 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:41fc0709$0
$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:56:38 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns95EDAEF22EF99keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:41fc0709$0
$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Michael was not the one who brought force into it. That was done by
whoever asked about forced blood donations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:15:11 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-5B3D7F.15563829012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
In article <Xns95EDAEF22EF99keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:41fc0709$0 $26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for
the children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Michael was not the one who brought force into it. That was done by
whoever asked about forced blood donations.
thanks. michael's dishonesty, and willingness to impose his beliefs on
others is well known, so the "force" question directed to him seems
reasonable. apparently, he doesn't want to answer it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:53:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Xns95EDAEF22EF99keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:41fc0709$0
$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Michael was not the one who brought force into it. That was done by
whoever asked about forced blood donations.
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
I want to know if James wants men to be slaves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:16:49 PM |
|
|
In article <41fc1774$0$26030$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Xns95EDAEF22EF99keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:41fc0709$0
$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Michael was not the one who brought force into it. That was done by
whoever asked about forced blood donations.
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
I want to know if James wants men to be slaves.
The anti-abortion crew seem to want women to be slaves, even rape
victimd. Do they also want fathers, even the rapists, to be unencumbered
by any of the responsibilities they want to impose on the women?
And my question is no more loaded those of militant anti-abortionist's.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:27:17 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person who
has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is "forcing"
them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
--
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:17:03 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person who
has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is "forcing"
them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring
for someone is by killing them? Am I right?
This is a strand of pro-abortion thinking that really needs explored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:43:55 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring for
someone is by killing them? Am I right?
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to research
usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it has happened
so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's reinventing the
wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
--
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 04:06:54 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring for
someone is by killing them? Am I right?
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to research
usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it has happened
so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's reinventing the
wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
No Paul, I think I am correct. I think that you are suggesting that
killing an unborn child could be in their best interests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 07:46:56 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:41fcb544$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to
research usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it
has happened so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's
reinventing the wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
No Paul, I think I am correct.
thus confirming your insanity
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 04:33:04 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring for
someone is by killing them? Am I right?
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to research
usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it has happened
so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's reinventing the
wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
No Paul, I think I am correct.
Obviously.
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be in
their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
--
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 09:04:08 AM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gr6kc7.1iyyd911wzecmaN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring for
someone is by killing them? Am I right?
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to research
usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it has happened
so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's reinventing the
wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
No Paul, I think I am correct.
Obviously.
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be in
their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
It is also what you suggested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 01:13:42 PM |
|
|
Bob <no@email.address> wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gr6kc7.1iyyd911wzecmaN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[..]
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how
this could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a
reasonable search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
[..]
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be
in their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
It is also what you suggested.
Nope. You and Michael need to take reading lessons.
--
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 08:49:39 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a person
who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its welfare is
"forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how this
could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a reasonable
search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring for
someone is by killing them? Am I right?
No, you're not correct. And, as I mentioned, you're welcome to research
usenet for the continuation of this discussion, because it has happened
so many times already, and there's no use in anyone's reinventing the
wheel for your argumentative pleasure.
No Paul, I think I am correct.
Obviously.
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be in
their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
Well, it's what you said, so I shall assume that unless you suffer from
the ideological schizophrenia of your fellow pro-abortionists, that's
what you meant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 01:13:41 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[..]
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a
person who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its
welfare is "forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how
this could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a
reasonable search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
[..]
No Paul, I think I am correct.
Obviously.
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be in
their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
Well, it's what you said,
No, it's not what I said at all. It's amusing that you'd make a mistake
like that, even after quoting what I actually said in your message.
--
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 04:18:38 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[..]
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The tedious mantra of the pro-abortion lobby is that obliging a
person who has conceived a child to take responsibility for its
welfare is "forcing" them or "enslaving" them in some way.
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how
this could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a
reasonable search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
[..]
No Paul, I think I am correct.
Obviously.
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be in
their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
Well, it's what you said,
No, it's not what I said at all. It's amusing that you'd make a mistake
like that, even after quoting what I actually said in your message.
Well, you said, and this is a copy'n'paste verbatim job, that:
"It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion"
Now, how does my interpretation differ from your intent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 01:49:51 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
[..]
Paul Mitchum wrote:
It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion. If you aren't aware of how
this could be the case, then all you have to do is think up a
reasonable search term and plug it into groups.google.com.
[..]
I think that you are suggesting that killing an unborn child could be
in their best interests.
Yes, that is what you think.
Well, it's what you said,
No, it's not what I said at all. It's amusing that you'd make a mistake
like that, even after quoting what I actually said in your message.
Well, you said, and this is a copy'n'paste verbatim job, that:
"It might be that taking responsibility for the welfare of the
newly-conceived is to have an abortion"
Now, how does my interpretation differ from your intent?
As I said a few times already now: It's in the usenet archive. Go find
it.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 08:04:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:17:03 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> said in alt.atheism:
So what you're trying to argue Paul is that one possible way of caring
for someone is by killing them? Am I right?
This is a strand of pro-abortion thinking that really needs explored.
BIG hint: "children".
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 04:09:26 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:41fc0709$0
$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Answer the question Jimmy. Just answer the frickin' question.
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father? Do you think that society should oblige them on
pain of criminal penalties to take responsibility for their children?
Come on Jimmy, I'm waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for anti-abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 05:13:02 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:41fc0d1a$0$26017$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:41fc0709$0 $26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk:
Do you think that men should be forced to take responsibility for the
children they father?
what makes you think of force, michael?
Answer the question
what makes you think you can demand of others that which you refuse to do
yourself?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
