| 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 |
04 Feb 2005 09:40:27 PM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:08:58 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) said in alt.atheism:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Almost every woman knew the risks before having sex.
There it is again: "She had sex so she should be punished".
It's all about subjugating women.
Controlling them, Ray. Subjugation isn't the only thing these
control
freaks want.
Control freak or baby killer. You choose.
Don't need to choose. You could be both.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 06:08:03 PM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
I don't think "human" should be protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
"Black" can be defined.
So can "dumbshit." Blacks didn't become people after
someone
defined
"black." Try again.
Blacks came under the heading of "all other Persons" as far
back
as
1779 - LONG before they were called blacks.
Whatever you want to argue, your statement that '"black" can
be
defined' has no bearing on how this country changed course and
did
recognize blacks as complete people.
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
It was legal to enslave people.
Was that a mistake? Wasn't quite possibly the most shameful belief
in
this countries history? Are we, as a country, somehow immune from
from
making a mistake approaching this magnitude (as slavery)?
The anti-abortion zealots make the very same mistake by insisting
that they get to treat pregnant women like slaves.
Other than the fact most women will enter this type of slavery
willingly,
So you're saying that rape should be legal too because most women will
have sex at some point in their lives?
Try not to be a stupid *****.
Can we agree that blacks in this country weren't always
afforded
the
same protections and rights as everyone else?
Neither are children right now. Are they less than complete
people?
Of course *I* believe they are complete.
Really? It's a myth that kids don't get full rights until they're
21?
When you are born, you have the right to freedom of speech - but not
in
a crowded movie hall. If you're 18 you can smoke, but the government
limits when and where you can. If you are 21 you can drink, =ADbut
the
government limits when and where you can. When you're 21 you=AD can
vote,
but if you become a felon, tough nuts. Of course these are
a=ADlienable
right - meaning they come from the government that has the
a=ADuthority to
give them and take them away.
The right to life is inalienable - it doesn't come from the
=ADgovernment.
When do children get this right?
Spare me the self-serving rationalization. You tried to claim that
blacks weren't people becuse they could be slaves. By YOUR argument
children aren't people.
I never made such a claim. I'm making the point that blacks are
complete people,
Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
and were people prior to the 1860's, even though
society as a whole didn't treat them as such.
In your undereducated opinion.
My argument is that we've made the same mistake again by treating the
pre-born as something other than people.
And YOU make the same mistake by treating women and the pre-conceived
as something other than people.
Hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 07:01:01 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
I don't think "human" should be protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
"Black" can be defined.
So can "dumbshit." Blacks didn't become people after
someone
defined
"black." Try again.
Blacks came under the heading of "all other Persons" as
far
back
as
1779 - LONG before they were called blacks.
Whatever you want to argue, your statement that '"black"
can
be
defined' has no bearing on how this country changed course
and
did
recognize blacks as complete people.
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
It was legal to enslave people.
Was that a mistake? Wasn't quite possibly the most shameful
belief
in
this countries history? Are we, as a country, somehow immune from
from
making a mistake approaching this magnitude (as slavery)?
The anti-abortion zealots make the very same mistake by insisting
that they get to treat pregnant women like slaves.
Other than the fact most women will enter this type of slavery
willingly,
So you're saying that rape should be legal too because most women
will
have sex at some point in their lives?
Try not to be a stupid *****.
Can we agree that blacks in this country weren't always
afforded
the
same protections and rights as everyone else?
Neither are children right now. Are they less than complete
people?
Of course *I* believe they are complete.
Really? It's a myth that kids don't get full rights until
they're
21?
When you are born, you have the right to freedom of speech - but
not
in
a crowded movie hall. If you're 18 you can smoke, but the
government
limits when and where you can. If you are 21 you can drink,
=ADbut
the
government limits when and where you can. When you're 21 you=AD
can
vote,
but if you become a felon, tough nuts. Of course these are
a=ADlienable
right - meaning they come from the government that has the
a=ADuthority to
give them and take them away.
The right to life is inalienable - it doesn't come from the
=ADgovernment.
When do children get this right?
Spare me the self-serving rationalization. You tried to claim
that
blacks weren't people becuse they could be slaves. By YOUR
argument
children aren't people.
I never made such a claim. I'm making the point that blacks are
complete people,
Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry, you didn't tell me you were a bigot beforehand. But I'm
curious to see your evidence that they are not complete people.
and were people prior to the 1860's, even though
society as a whole didn't treat them as such.
In your undereducated opinion.
Silly me. I thought it was an educated opinion that blacks were people.
Have you tried washing them? I've heard those who aren't
"undereducated" like you sometimes think the black comes off.
My argument is that we've made the same mistake again by treating
the
pre-born as something other than people.
And YOU make the same mistake by treating women and the pre-conceived
as something other than people.
Women are people. The pre-conceived aren't people. Strawmen aren't
people...
Hypocrite.
....And bigots like you aren't worth *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
02 Feb 2005 05:40:02 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 07:57:06 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. < >
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
They also "recognized" that white people had the right to keep black
people as slaves. After all, their god condoned slavery.
Can we agree that blacks in this country weren't always afforded the
same protections and rights as everyone else?
Neither are children right now. Are they less than complete people?
Of course *I* believe they are complete.
So does everyone else.
The caveat of accepting the notion that the definition of "people" and
"human" is ambiguous invites the possibility of repeating the greatest
evil we've seen in the last 2 centuries - slavery and genocide.
"Person" is an arbitrary definition, as are most definitions.
"Human" can't be defined. Science has been trying to do it for
decades and can't come up with a definition that includes everyone
we'd consider human and excludes everyone (or every thing - your
choice) we'd consider non-human.
Maybe when we've mapped the "human" genome well enough that we can
decide what gene setup makes a human and what doesn't, we'll have a
definition. But it won't be understandable by anyone but a
geneticist.
--
"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: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 11:03:04 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 07:57:06 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda.
<>
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
They also "recognized" that white people had the right to keep black
people as slaves.
Yea? So at that time, who was superior?
After all, their god condoned slavery.
Of course, this isn't supported by anything.
Can we agree that blacks in this country weren't always afforded
the
same protections and rights as everyone else?
Neither are children right now. Are they less than complete
people?
Of course *I* believe they are complete.
So does everyone else.
The caveat of accepting the notion that the definition of "people"
and
"human" is ambiguous invites the possibility of repeating the
greatest
evil we've seen in the last 2 centuries - slavery and genocide.
"Person" is an arbitrary definition, as are most definitions.
"Human" can't be defined. Science has been trying to do it for
decades and can't come up with a definition that includes everyone
we'd consider human and excludes everyone (or every thing - your
choice) we'd consider non-human.
Maybe when we've mapped the "human" genome well enough that we can
decide what gene setup makes a human and what doesn't, we'll have a
definition. But it won't be understandable by anyone but a
geneticist.
Are you an idiot? The DNA at conception is the same you die with - if
you're capable of avoiding a nuclear disaster - which is the same as
those flakes of dandruff on your shoulders.
Since the DNA is the same, the question remains, "What is the
difference between a newborn, which I believe are complete humans and
'So does everyone else' and pre-borns?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:06:30 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 09:03:04 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 07:57:06 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
They also "recognized" that white people had the right to keep black
people as slaves.
Yea? So at that time, who was superior?
No one.
After all, their god condoned slavery.
Of course, this isn't supported by anything.
Nothing but the bible.
Maybe when we've mapped the "human" genome well enough that we can
decide what gene setup makes a human and what doesn't, we'll have a
definition. But it won't be understandable by anyone but a
geneticist.
Are you an idiot? The DNA at conception is the same you die with - if
you're capable of avoiding a nuclear disaster - which is the same as
those flakes of dandruff on your shoulders.
Since the DNA is the same, the question remains, "What is the
difference between a newborn, which I believe are complete humans and
'So does everyone else' and pre-borns?"
What you believe and a cogent definition aren't the same thing. I'll
take this red herring to mean that you can't define "human" any better
than the thousands of actual scientists who have tried and have
admitted that it can't be done.
--
"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: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:25:41 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 09:03:04 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." < > said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Feb 2005 07:57:06 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The country has always recognized blacks as complete people.
Really? Slavery was a myth?
They also "recognized" that white people had the right to keep
black
people as slaves.
Yea? So at that time, who was superior?
No one.
Really? So the master that enslaves is not superior? I bet you think
you're a pretty smart feller, huh?
I heard this is what they are doing in school. No grades. No dodgeball.
"Anti-teasing" campaigns. Your mind is nice and pliable.
After all, their god condoned slavery.
Of course, this isn't supported by anything.
Nothing but the bible.
Then you can point out the part where Christians are commanded to
enslave?
Maybe when we've mapped the "human" genome well enough that we can
decide what gene setup makes a human and what doesn't, we'll have
a
definition. But it won't be understandable by anyone but a
geneticist.
Are you an idiot? The DNA at conception is the same you die with -
if
you're capable of avoiding a nuclear disaster - which is the same as
those flakes of dandruff on your shoulders.
Since the DNA is the same, the question remains, "What is the
difference between a newborn, which I believe are complete humans
and
'So does everyone else' and pre-borns?"
What you believe and a cogent definition aren't the same thing. I'll
take this red herring to mean that you can't define "human" any
better
than the thousands of actual scientists who have tried and have
admitted that it can't be done.
We can take DNA and determine if it's human or not. That DNA doesn't
change over a lifetime. It's the development of those traits that are
human that is the only sensible argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 10:42:50 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 15:25:41 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 09:03:04 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Yea? So at that time, who was superior?
No one.
Really? So the master that enslaves is not superior? I bet you think
you're a pretty smart feller, huh?
I heard this is what they are doing in school. No grades. No dodgeball.
"Anti-teasing" campaigns. Your mind is nice and pliable.
I wouldn't know. My daughter's been out of school since before that
stuff started.
After all, their god condoned slavery.
Of course, this isn't supported by anything.
Nothing but the bible.
Then you can point out the part where Christians are commanded to
enslave?
I said "commanded"? No, I said "condoned".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone
Your lack of maturity, education and intelligence are noted.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 12:36:44 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 15:25:41 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 09:03:04 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Yea? So at that time, who was superior?
No one.
Really? So the master that enslaves is not superior? I bet you think
you're a pretty smart feller, huh?
I heard this is what they are doing in school. No grades. No
dodgeball.
"Anti-teasing" campaigns. Your mind is nice and pliable.
I wouldn't know. My daughter's been out of school since before that
stuff started.
After all, their god condoned slavery.
Of course, this isn't supported by anything.
Nothing but the bible.
Then you can point out the part where Christians are commanded to
enslave?
I said "commanded"? No, I said "condoned".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone
Then show the verse that "condones" Christians, "Go ye and make slaves
of the world."
Your lack of maturity, education and intelligence are noted.
Sorry about trying to start a semantical argument, *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
31 Jan 2005 09:13:56 PM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions. "Human" isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states which may be included within this union, according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
01 Feb 2005 03:52:37 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions. "Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person? I guess if you have 3/5ths
of a brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
01 Feb 2005 10:44:31 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions. "Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
Learn to read.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
02 Feb 2005 10:09:11 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions. "Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
That was the application of the Constitution WRT apportionment of
representatives. This is just the codified definition of slaves. I
cannot believe that any critical thinker would consider society as a
whole believed slaves complete people.
I'm curious if you wouldn't suffer indignity if you were placed in that
circumstance?
Learn to read.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
02 Feb 2005 08:52:20 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions. "Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
That was the application of the Constitution WRT apportionment of
representatives. This is just the codified definition of slaves. I
cannot believe that any critical thinker would consider society as a
whole believed slaves complete people.
And yet you agree that children, who have limited rights, are also
complete children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 11:08:12 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions.
"Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound
to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
That was the application of the Constitution WRT apportionment of
representatives. This is just the codified definition of slaves. I
cannot believe that any critical thinker would consider society as a
whole believed slaves complete people.
And yet you agree that children, who have limited rights, are also
complete children.
I also believe we should limit the rights of adult criminals. So "focus
like a laser beam" what is the rationale for not recognizing a child's
right to life until it reaches certain point in its development?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:08:19 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 09:08:12 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
what is the rationale for not recognizing a child's
right to life until it reaches certain point in its development?
We don't recognize *a child* until the fetus *is* one.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 02:54:19 PM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions.
"Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound
to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
That was the application of the Constitution WRT apportionment of
representatives. This is just the codified definition of slaves. I
cannot believe that any critical thinker would consider society as a
whole believed slaves complete people.
And yet you agree that children, who have limited rights, are also
complete children.
I also believe we should limit the rights of adult criminals. So "focus
like a laser beam" what is the rationale for not recognizing a child's
right to life until it reaches certain point in its development?
There is no right to life. If there was the people could take your
money and freedom and parts of your body as needed to live. But
you're free to let people die.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 03:59:00 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative theft.
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
YEs, not a discussion to answer incompetent questions.
"Human"
isn't
protected, "person" is. I don't think "human" should be
protected,
since the word can't be defined.
Blacks became "persons" sometime in the 1860's.
Typical neocon ignorance - blacks have always been persons.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among
the
several states which may be included within this union,
according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
by
adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those
bound
to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
US Constitution. Article 1
3/5ths of person equals 5/5ths of a person?
There is no reference to "3/5ths of person".
That was the application of the Constitution WRT apportionment of
representatives. This is just the codified definition of slaves.
I
cannot believe that any critical thinker would consider society
as a
whole believed slaves complete people.
And yet you agree that children, who have limited rights, are also
complete children.
I also believe we should limit the rights of adult criminals. So
"focus
like a laser beam" what is the rationale for not recognizing a
child's
right to life until it reaches certain point in its development?
There is no right to life. If there was the people could take your
money and freedom and parts of your body as needed to live. But
you're free to let people die.
No right to life? Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Why didn't Geragos think of that? "I move to acquit because Laci
doesn't have a right to life."
There have been people that actually believe that though. Most notably
Stalin and Mao. Murdered about 100M between them. Nice company you
keep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:07:50 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Nothing in them, though, grants anyone any "right to life".
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:30:43 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
You are ignorant of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Nothing in them, though, grants anyone any "right to life".
That's pretty much the definition. I recommend you check it out for
yourself in your favorite dictionary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:29:51 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
You are ignornat of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Nothing in them, though, grants anyone any "right to life".
That's pretty much the definition. I recommend you check it out for
yourself in your favorite dictionary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 10:44:06 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 15:29:51 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
You are ignornat of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
The D of I doesn't guarantee anything - it's an justification for war.
Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Nothing in them, though, grants anyone any "right to life".
That's pretty much the definition. I recommend you check it out for
yourself in your favorite dictionary.
Dictionary definitions are enforceable now?
I suggest you get yourself an education. A small one would do
admirably.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 12:44:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 15:29:51 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004
conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
You are ignornat of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created
The D of I doesn't guarantee anything - it's an justification for
war.
I didn't say it did. It is the most widely held example of
understanding natural rights in our country's historical documents.
Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Nothing in them, though, grants anyone any "right to life".
That's pretty much the definition. I recommend you check it out for
yourself in your favorite dictionary.
Dictionary definitions are enforceable now?
Right now I can't converse with you because you're ignorant. I'll take
my chances that won't consult a Webster's dictionary but something
unusual. I'll deal with it then.
I suggest you get yourself an education. A small one would do
admirably.
I'm not even asking that. If you don't understand the meaning of
"inalienable" then a discussion on rights is going to go very far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 04:02:53 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 22:44:54 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
I'm not even asking that. If you don't understand the meaning of
"inalienable" then a discussion on rights is going to go very far.
I understand that you claim that certain "rights" are inalienable.
What you don't seem to understand is that your claim doesn't make it
so.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 05:47:11 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 22:44:54 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
I'm not even asking that. If you don't understand the meaning of
"inalienable" then a discussion on rights is going to go very far.
I understand that you claim that certain "rights" are inalienable.
What you don't seem to understand is that your claim doesn't make it
so.
It doesn't even have to be so. Our founding father's believed it to be
so and that's a foundation of our form of government why our government
doesn't give us a "right to life" because it's inalienable. *THAT* is
why you don't see it mentioned even though we have laws against murder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 08:15:12 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 15:47:11 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 22:44:54 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
I'm not even asking that. If you don't understand the meaning of
"inalienable" then a discussion on rights is going to go very far.
I understand that you claim that certain "rights" are inalienable.
What you don't seem to understand is that your claim doesn't make it
so.
It doesn't even have to be so. Our founding father's believed it to be
so
Their belief doesn't change reality any more than yours does.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 09:49:44 PM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
No right to life?
If you think there is, cite the law that creates one.
You are ignornat of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
Why can't you see the word "liberty"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
04 Feb 2005 11:47:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:49:44 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) said in alt.atheism:
Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
You are ignornat of the word "unalienable." As in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why can't you see the word "liberty"?
He seems to have missed "Life" and "pursuit of Happiness" as well.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 04:34:37 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
.....
There is no right to life. If there was the people could take your
money and freedom and parts of your body as needed to live. But
you're free to let people die.
No right to life? Wow... We've got all those silly laws about murder.
Murder law has *nothing* to do with any "right to life." Murder law
is the State taking over the duty of vengence so as to stop the blood
feuds that disrupt society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
03 Feb 2005 05:05:37 PM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 3 Feb 2005 13:59:00 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
....
There is no right to life. If there was the people could take
your
money and freedom and parts of your body as needed to live. But
you're free to let people die.
No right to life? Wow... We've got all those silly laws about
murder.
Murder law has *nothing* to do with any "right to life." Murder law
is the State taking over the duty of vengence so as to stop the blood
feuds that disrupt society.
Hello, loon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
