| 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: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:34:34 PM |
|
|
"Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q9ZKd.1611$cl1.689@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
and i have been to NARAL meetings (several)
trust me, the extremists don't define the movement (thank GOD!)
the naral fringe does not represent most pro-choicers. i am sure "these
people" are no more representative of pro-life people on the whole
Okay, you tell me what NARAL people say that is so terrible.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 05:27:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:27:34 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u8olv05pietsk9cqg4vmgn35d3nl2dkbtp@4ax.com...
You said that most pro-lifers aren't against abortion to save the
mother's life. I don't think that's true.
Well, most of them *talk* as tho' they aren't, in *public*, anyway....
I don't get that impression listening to Congressional debates on the
subject.
--
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 07:44:24 AM |
|
|
"Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35rf76F4q0jbqU1@individual.net...
"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote in message news:1106804969.933747.4590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg8ufccngpgb9@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0bVJd.10678$ud3.4054@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3riel1efq38@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:POTJd.10639$ud3.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg1i5f5a7he7a@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Y5SJd.97278$zy6.90649@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<...>
I have no religious axe to grind and I believe
abortion after 5 weeks should be considered
murder.
Why?
If your answer begins with "I believe," you have a religious
axe to grind.
What pure *****.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I notice you didn't answer the
question.
I personally consider it wrong to terminate
the life of an innocent human being. Since
brain activity begins at approximately 6 weeks,
I use 5 weeks as my line of demarcation when
a human life is worthy of protection in law.
So it *is* a faith-based opinion. Surprise, surprise.
What pure *****. I see a pattern developing.
At what point do you believe human life
deserves protection in law?
The question presupposes the existence of "human life."
Agreed. Now answer it.
He won't answer. I actually believe it is impossible for him to do so.
For us, the question is whether we are murdering innocent lives. It's a
superior argument to whether women should be able to make their own
decisions about a medical procedure.
politics is always about tradeoffs
here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
protection
prior to that, it's a matter of - at what point(s) do the right of the mother
to terminate a (for lack of a better term) parasite/dependant
creature/whatever trump the right of the creature/fetus/whatever to continue
to live, to an extent at her expense
pro-choice people are full of shite (and i am pro-choice) when they claim it's
about a WOMAN's body. sorry. the fetus is NOT the woman's body. different
blood type, different genetic code, etc. but it IS a dependant organism
so, like all political decisions, it's about tradeoffs and like many, it's
about competing rights
If Jim actually answered it, he'd have to admit that he was a proponent
of murder and maybe has even participated. Most people could not accept
that and denial is their self-defense mechanism.
personally, i don't think the rights of a 2 month old fetus trumps the right
of a woman to abort it. that's why i am pro-choice
when the fetus is at 7 months, otoh, you better have a DAMN good reason, like
your life is in grave danger, or it is not a trumped right. that's why i am
against PBA except in the case mentioned
also note, that contrary to clave's absurd contention, it aint about religion,
nor does it need to be
Your position is quite reasonable, even though
I disagree with the point at which the fetus
deserves protection in law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 10:34:59 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ua6Kd.10838$ud3.2137@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35rf76F4q0jbqU1@individual.net...
"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate."
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106804969.933747.4590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg8ufccngpgb9@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0bVJd.10678$ud3.4054@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3riel1efq38@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:POTJd.10639$ud3.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg1i5f5a7he7a@news.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Y5SJd.97278$zy6.90649@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<...>
I have no religious axe to grind and I believe
abortion after 5 weeks should be considered
murder.
Why?
If your answer begins with "I believe," you have a religious
axe to grind.
What pure *****.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I notice you didn't answer the
question.
I personally consider it wrong to terminate
the life of an innocent human being. Since
brain activity begins at approximately 6 weeks,
I use 5 weeks as my line of demarcation when
a human life is worthy of protection in law.
So it *is* a faith-based opinion. Surprise, surprise.
What pure *****. I see a pattern developing.
At what point do you believe human life
deserves protection in law?
The question presupposes the existence of "human life."
Agreed. Now answer it.
He won't answer. I actually believe it is impossible for him to do so.
For us, the question is whether we are murdering innocent lives. It's a
superior argument to whether women should be able to make their own
decisions about a medical procedure.
politics is always about tradeoffs
here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment
of birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves
full protection
prior to that, it's a matter of - at what point(s) do the right of the
mother to terminate a (for lack of a better term) parasite/dependant
creature/whatever trump the right of the creature/fetus/whatever to
continue to live, to an extent at her expense
pro-choice people are full of shite (and i am pro-choice) when they claim
it's about a WOMAN's body. sorry. the fetus is NOT the woman's body.
different blood type, different genetic code, etc. but it IS a dependant
organism
so, like all political decisions, it's about tradeoffs and like many,
it's about competing rights
If Jim actually answered it, he'd have to admit that he was a proponent
of murder and maybe has even participated. Most people could not accept
that and denial is their self-defense mechanism.
personally, i don't think the rights of a 2 month old fetus trumps the
right of a woman to abort it. that's why i am pro-choice
when the fetus is at 7 months, otoh, you better have a DAMN good reason,
like your life is in grave danger, or it is not a trumped right. that's
why i am against PBA except in the case mentioned
also note, that contrary to clave's absurd contention, it aint about
religion, nor does it need to be
Your position is quite reasonable, even though
I disagree with the point at which the fetus
deserves protection in law.
cheers.
at what point? note that i did not say the 7 month # was THE line i chose,
i merely picked a place in the continuum where i believed it should be
protected (absent life/death issues).
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Binyamin Dissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 02:26:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 02:32:18 PM |
|
|
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in fairness, i
shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming majority,
apart from the tiny sliver"
if you want to place yourself in the Prof. Singer infanticide camp, be my
guest
i no sooner intend to debate the "worthiness" of infanticide any more than i
will entertain those who say hitler was right, or those who spout the nambla
party line
sorry
whit
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Binyamin Dissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 02:34:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
:>> moment of
:>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>> :>protection
:>> Why?
:>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
:>> protection.
:>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in fairness, i
:>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming majority,
:>apart from the tiny sliver"
So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change things?
Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
[ further dodging snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 03:01:19 PM |
|
|
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:41kiv0dgdv55hfa3e7i4plhtojhd2ti9kn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
:>> moment of
:>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves
full
:>> :>protection
:>> Why?
:>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy
of
:>> protection.
:>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in fairness,
i
:>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming
majority,
:>apart from the tiny sliver"
So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change things?
it's not the majority.
it's the VAST majority, that believe that infanticide is wrong (killing a
baby) AFTER it is born
which was my point
Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
[ further dodging snipped ]
you are the one who snipped
whit
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Binyamin Dissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 03:20:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:19 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:41kiv0dgdv55hfa3e7i4plhtojhd2ti9kn@4ax.com...
:>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> :>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
:>> :>> moment of
:>> :>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves
:>> full
:>> :>> :>protection
:>> :>> Why?
:>> :>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy
:>> of
:>> :>> protection.
:>> :>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in fairness,
:>> i
:>> :>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming
:>> majority,
:>> :>apart from the tiny sliver"
:>> So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change things?
:>it's not the majority.
:>it's the VAST majority, that believe that infanticide is wrong (killing a
:>baby) AFTER it is born
Does that include China, where large numbers believe that it is proper to kill
a baby if it is female?
What is the source for your assertion?
:>which was my point
Define "VAST" in this context.
60%?
80%?
:>> Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
:>> [ further dodging snipped ]
:>you are the one who snipped
Exactly. Why include your dodging?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 12:12:37 AM |
|
|
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:u4miv0p40f0hq9muhp428ihhnoadpr687d@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:19 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:41kiv0dgdv55hfa3e7i4plhtojhd2ti9kn@4ax.com...
:>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> :>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:>> :>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at
the
:>> :>> moment of
:>> :>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and
deserves
:>> full
:>> :>> :>protection
:>> :>> Why?
:>> :>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not
worthy
:>> of
:>> :>> protection.
:>> :>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in
fairness,
:>> i
:>> :>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming
:>> majority,
:>> :>apart from the tiny sliver"
:>> So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change
things?
:>it's not the majority.
:>it's the VAST majority, that believe that infanticide is wrong (killing
a
:>baby) AFTER it is born
Does that include China, where large numbers believe that it is proper to
kill
a baby if it is female?
What is the source for your assertion?
i am speaking of the US here, when i say vast majority
i am posting from seattle.politics and discussing the USA, not china
some countries also believe slavery is ok, and still practice it.
i;m talking about the USA
:>which was my point
Define "VAST" in this context.
60%?
80%?
over 80% easily
what %age of US citizens do you think agree with singer?
:>> Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
:>> [ further dodging snipped ]
:>you are the one who snipped
Exactly. Why include your dodging?
it makes it easier to mischaracterize and lie when you snip
whit
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Binyamin Dissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 02:40:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:12:37 GMT "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:u4miv0p40f0hq9muhp428ihhnoadpr687d@4ax.com...
:>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:19 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>news:41kiv0dgdv55hfa3e7i4plhtojhd2ti9kn@4ax.com...
:>> :>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>> :>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> :>> :>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com>
:>wrote:
:>> :>> :>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at
:>the
:>> :>> :>> moment of
:>> :>> :>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and
:>deserves
:>> :>> full
:>> :>> :>> :>protection
:>> :>> :>> Why?
:>> :>> :>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not
:>worthy
:>> :>> of
:>> :>> :>> protection.
:>> :>> :>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in
:>fairness,
:>> :>> i
:>> :>> :>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the overwhelming
:>> :>> majority,
:>> :>> :>apart from the tiny sliver"
:>> :>> So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change
:>things?
:>> :>it's not the majority.
:>> :>it's the VAST majority, that believe that infanticide is wrong (killing
:>a
:>> :>baby) AFTER it is born
:>> Does that include China, where large numbers believe that it is proper to
:>kill
:>> a baby if it is female?
:>> What is the source for your assertion?
:>i am speaking of the US here, when i say vast majority
Nice dodge.
:>i am posting from seattle.politics and discussing the USA, not china
OK, so in places where there is not a "VAST" majority against killing
post-birth fetuses you would agree that it is the woman's choice whether to
kill it or not?
That your moral stand depends on majorities?
:>some countries also believe slavery is ok, and still practice it.
:>i;m talking about the USA
As above.
:>> :>which was my point
:>> Define "VAST" in this context.
:>> 60%?
:>> 80%?
:>over 80% easily
I question the value of a "VAST" percentage when you cherry pick the set.
:>what %age of US citizens do you think agree with singer?
What percentage of Americans agree with abortion on demand?
The case would never have gone to the courts if there was a high percentage,
as laws against abortion would not have been able to be passed.
:>> :>> Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
:>> :>> [ further dodging snipped ]
:>> :>you are the one who snipped
:>> Exactly. Why include your dodging?
:>it makes it easier to mischaracterize and lie when you snip
So you assert. I indicated that I snipped. Your previous post is archived.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfact" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 08:12:02 AM |
|
|
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:qvtjv0peokd1g037dv1k518th70kdos9bs@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:12:37 GMT "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:u4miv0p40f0hq9muhp428ihhnoadpr687d@4ax.com...
:>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:19 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>news:41kiv0dgdv55hfa3e7i4plhtojhd2ti9kn@4ax.com...
:>> :>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:32:18 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:>> :>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in
message
:>> :>> :>news:7ijiv099ibqop9a1qbllth7dsv09hp9iob@4ax.com...
:>> :>> :>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi"
<astic@hotmail.com>
:>wrote:
:>> :>> :>> :>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women.
at
:>the
:>> :>> :>> moment of
:>> :>> :>> :>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and
:>deserves
:>> :>> full
:>> :>> :>> :>protection
:>> :>> :>> Why?
:>> :>> :>> One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not
:>worthy
:>> :>> of
:>> :>> :>> protection.
:>> :>> :>the vast majority of people agree with my contention. but in
:>fairness,
:>> :>> i
:>> :>> :>shouldn't have said "we all", i should have said "the
overwhelming
:>> :>> majority,
:>> :>> :>apart from the tiny sliver"
:>> :>> So if the majority agree that abortion is wrong that would change
:>things?
:>> :>it's not the majority.
:>> :>it's the VAST majority, that believe that infanticide is wrong
(killing
:>a
:>> :>baby) AFTER it is born
:>> Does that include China, where large numbers believe that it is proper
to
:>kill
:>> a baby if it is female?
:>> What is the source for your assertion?
:>i am speaking of the US here, when i say vast majority
Nice dodge.
it's not a dodge.
i am posting from the US, on a US based political ng
unless stated otherwise, my political posts are always defined to the US
frame of reference/data set
:>i am posting from seattle.politics and discussing the USA, not china
OK, so in places where there is not a "VAST" majority against killing
post-birth fetuses you would agree that it is the woman's choice whether
to
kill it or not?
no. i didn't say that the vast majority thang is what MAKES it right or
wrong. i am commenting on it as a fringe idea IN the US
heck, if you want to mention some countries, slavery is still practiced.
in the US, that would be a fringe (to say the least) philosophy
That your moral stand depends on majorities?
wrong. neither stated nor implied
i often disagree with the majority
:>some countries also believe slavery is ok, and still practice it.
:>i;m talking about the USA
As above.
ditto
:>> :>which was my point
:>> Define "VAST" in this context.
:>> 60%?
:>> 80%?
:>over 80% easily
I question the value of a "VAST" percentage when you cherry pick the set.
using the USA is not "cherry picking"
i live here. i am posting in a NG that primarily centers around US politics
hth
:>what %age of US citizens do you think agree with singer?
What percentage of Americans agree with abortion on demand?
www.pollingreport.com
check it out
The case would never have gone to the courts if there was a high
percentage,
as laws against abortion would not have been able to be passed.
wrong
because it was on a state by state basis.
in many states, roe v wade had no practical impact. in others, it did
we live in a dem. republic. state laws differ
:>> :>> Or does the majority rule only apply when you like the results?
:>> :>> [ further dodging snipped ]
:>> :>you are the one who snipped
:>> Exactly. Why include your dodging?
:>it makes it easier to mischaracterize and lie when you snip
So you assert. I indicated that I snipped. Your previous post is archived.
true dat
whit
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 10:23:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:26:45 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
Some societies have. Ours draws the arbitrary line of personhood at
birth.
--
"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 |
27 Jan 2005 10:33:31 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhfjv05q9d8n9ci4mkb8t0r34faai5lfld@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:26:45 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
Some societies have. Ours draws the arbitrary line of personhood at
birth.
And even then, personhood rights (and responsibilities) are restricted until the
age of majority (mostly), which is also an arbitrary legal line.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cod Liver" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 11:12:23 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vjfsei0p4qn73@news.supernews.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhfjv05q9d8n9ci4mkb8t0r34faai5lfld@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:26:45 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves
full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
Some societies have. Ours draws the arbitrary line of personhood at
birth.
And even then, personhood rights (and responsibilities) are restricted
until the
age of majority (mostly), which is also an arbitrary legal line.
Jim
correct. and exactly my point
whit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 04:50:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:33:31 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhfjv05q9d8n9ci4mkb8t0r34faai5lfld@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:26:45 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
One can assert that until it can take care of itself it is not worthy of
protection.
Some societies have. Ours draws the arbitrary line of personhood at
birth.
And even then, personhood rights (and responsibilities) are restricted until the
age of majority (mostly), which is also an arbitrary legal line.
And there are more than one. Sex. Alcohol. Driving. Weapon
ownership. Work.
Question: If we grant rights to a fertilized ovum, why don't we grant
rights to a sapient anthropoid that happens to be not human? Should
Koko be considered property but a cell too small to see be considered
a person?
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 05:51:36 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:33:31 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhfjv05q9d8n9ci4mkb8t0r34faai5lfld@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:26:45 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:04 -0800 "Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the moment of
:>birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and deserves full
:>protection
Why?
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 11:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:36 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>
said in alt.atheism:
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
That would make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony. And
miscarriage possibly manslaughter.
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 11:42:29 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2v6mv0t1rhe5ig3cbdj40ielffe318o0t0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:36 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>
said in alt.atheism:
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
That would make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
no, it wouldn't. the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony. it does make a murderer
culpable for multiple deaths if he murders a pregnant woman. see: scott
peterson
and fwiw, in some jurisdictions, there IS precedent for protectie custody of
sorts for fetus' if the mother was found to be abusing drugs while pregnant.
iirc, it was north carolina. i'll try to see if i can find it
whit
And
miscarriage possibly manslaughter.
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 08:25:36 PM |
|
|
"Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9nFKd.765$cl1.31@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2v6mv0t1rhe5ig3cbdj40ielffe318o0t0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:36 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>
said in alt.atheism:
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
That would make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
no, it wouldn't. the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony. it does make a murderer
culpable for multiple deaths if he murders a pregnant woman. see: scott
peterson
The the law is inconsistent wit itself & should be dropped on the basis of
that, alone.
and fwiw, in some jurisdictions, there IS precedent for protectie custody
of
sorts for fetus' if the mother was found to be abusing drugs while
pregnant.
iirc, it was north carolina.
Wouldn't surprse me.
Susan
i'll try to see if i can find it
whit
And
miscarriage possibly manslaughter.
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 01:15:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:42:29 GMT, "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2v6mv0t1rhe5ig3cbdj40ielffe318o0t0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:36 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>
said in alt.atheism:
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
That would make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
no, it wouldn't. the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
Nor does it give personhood to the fetus. Sam said that IF it did
(give personhood to the fetus) ... My comment was that if it did, it
would make smoking or imbibing a felony.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 08:35:08 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vtdmv05ssa7opq40834aapqurjkvs2vrod@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:42:29 GMT, "Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2v6mv0t1rhe5ig3cbdj40ielffe318o0t0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:36 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>
said in alt.atheism:
federal law says its so, thats the deal with roe v wade, that the law
gives no rights to fetuses...if, however, federal law *did* then the
whole thing would change. anyone seen that law making murder of a
pregnant woman *two* counts? i wonder if its part of a plan...
That would make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
no, it wouldn't. the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
Nor does it give personhood to the fetus.
correct
Sam said that IF it did
(give personhood to the fetus) ... My comment was that if it did, it
would make smoking or imbibing a felony.
my bad. i didn't catch that nuance
whit
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife,
brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 08:26:07 PM |
|
|
"Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:waNKd.981$cl1.855@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vtdmv05ssa7opq40834aapqurjkvs2vrod@4ax.com...
the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
Nor does it give personhood to the fetus.
correct
Sam said that IF it did
(give personhood to the fetus) ... My comment was that if it did, it
would make smoking or imbibing a felony.
my bad. i didn't catch that nuance
And neither did I!
Susan
whit
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife,
brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
29 Jan 2005 10:04:30 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BXKd.354$bH.73@trnddc02...
"Sangfroid" <jung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:waNKd.981$cl1.855@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vtdmv05ssa7opq40834aapqurjkvs2vrod@4ax.com...
the statute is already in place. read it. it does not
make smoking or imbibing while pregnant a felony.
Nor does it give personhood to the fetus.
correct
Sam said that IF it did
(give personhood to the fetus) ... My comment was that if it did, it
would make smoking or imbibing a felony.
my bad. i didn't catch that nuance
And neither did I!
Susan
whit
i feel edumacated
cheers
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 10:12:06 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 21:49:29 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
For us, the question is whether we are murdering innocent lives. It's a
superior argument to whether women should be able to make their own
decisions about a medical procedure.
It's your opinion that it's a superior argument.
In our opinion, the superior argument is that an actual person's
rights trump any potential rights held by a potential person.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 11:12:46 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:gqejv0t00a7e41opgpnaoclbvih1s7cdks@4ax.com...
On 26 Jan 2005 21:49:29 -0800, "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative
mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> said in alt.atheism:
For us, the question is whether we are murdering innocent lives. It's a
superior argument to whether women should be able to make their own
decisions about a medical procedure.
It's your opinion that it's a superior argument.
In our opinion, the superior argument is that an actual person's
rights trump any potential rights held by a potential person.
well put. that is exactly the point. how people balance the competing
interests, duties, etc.
fwiw, roe v. wade (common misperception) does not guarantee the right to ANY
abortion.
most people who are pro-choice haven't read it. i am pro-choice and have
read it.
whit
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest
of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 09:59:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:21:19 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Here's a question that I have. You used the term, "almost human."
Because I am not a doctor or a lawyer.
Should I say "not-yet-person?
That would be more accurate, Susan, since an embryo - even a
fertilized ovum - is human, but a fetus isn't a person until it's left
the womb.
I could have picked "zygote/embryo/fetus" but that's kind of unwieldy, no?
The point is that abortion is not murder and no one without a religious axe
to grind will tell you otherwise.
Any honest person who understands the meaning of the word "murder"
will tell you it's not.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 01:25:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1106766478.494208.198360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> writes:
Susan Cohen wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote in message
news:ct4rlh$hdd$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Auric Hellman" <adhellman@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1106633130.870524.84030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
100 hold vigil at memorial wall for buried fetuses
Because "almost humans" are more important than actual women.
Here's a question that I have. You used the term, "almost human." When
I hear that I think of the physical development of the child. It goes
from a bunch of DNA to a glob of cells... Things which cannot be
identified physically as being human - then to something that is
"almost human" - then to being an actual human being.
Could you tell me what the physical differences are between something
that is "almost human" to something is actually a "human"?
Or is this just a political description like it becomes "human" 6
months after conception or when it can survive outside the womb, or
it's head exits the birth canal or it's lived outside the womb for 2
months or it's walking and talking and it's skin is not black.
Could you clear that up for me? Thanks.
Oh, it becomes human when the soul is inserted. This is widely
known if, inexplicably, not as yet medically detected.
One could legitimately argue that a newborn baby, or a two
year old, is not yet fully human. Certainly if a massive
stroke caused an adult to lose all capacities except
those possessed by a two year old, we'd mournfully
call that an unbearable tragedy, and wouldn't be
much saddened if he were to die soon, and free him, and
us, of caring for this wreck of what had once been
a fully-functioning human being.
The reason we don't feel the same way about the two
year old, of course, is that we know that if we
wait long enough, he will "get better" -- become
more like fully-fledged humans.
So I'm suggesting that when an organism "becomes human"
is not a criterion that the pro-lifers really want to
be arguing from. It doesn't really stand up to
any thoughtful analysis.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Instig" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 01:38:53 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ct8qqi$cgr$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1106766478.494208.198360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Proud
sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
writes:
Susan Cohen wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote in message
news:ct4rlh$hdd$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Auric Hellman" <adhellman@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1106633130.870524.84030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
100 hold vigil at memorial wall for buried fetuses
Because "almost humans" are more important than actual women.
Here's a question that I have. You used the term, "almost human." When
I hear that I think of the physical development of the child. It goes
from a bunch of DNA to a glob of cells... Things which cannot be
identified physically as being human - then to something that is
"almost human" - then to being an actual human being.
Could you tell me what the physical differences are between something
that is "almost human" to something is actually a "human"?
Or is this just a political description like it becomes "human" 6
months after conception or when it can survive outside the womb, or
it's head exits the birth canal or it's lived outside the womb for 2
months or it's walking and talking and it's skin is not black.
Could you clear that up for me? Thanks.
Oh, it becomes human when the soul is inserted. This is widely
known if, inexplicably, not as yet medically detected.
One could legitimately argue that a newborn baby, or a two
year old, is not yet fully human.
Prof. Singer, a 'distinguished' ethicist/philosopher has repeatedly claimed
that infanticide (up to a month iirc) should be legal
do a search
whit
Certainly if a massive
stroke caused an adult to lose all capacities except
those possessed by a two year old, we'd mournfully
call that an unbearable tragedy, and wouldn't be
much saddened if he were to die soon, and free him, and
us, of caring for this wreck of what had once been
a fully-functioning human being.
The reason we don't feel the same way about the two
year old, of course, is that we know that if we
wait long enough, he will "get better" -- become
more like fully-fledged humans.
So I'm suggesting that when an organism "becomes human"
is not a criterion that the pro-lifers really want to
be arguing from. It doesn't really stand up to
any thoughtful analysis.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:48:52 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1106766478.494208.198360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate."
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> writes:
Susan Cohen wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote in message
news:ct4rlh$hdd$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Auric Hellman" <adhellman@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1106633130.870524.84030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
100 hold vigil at memorial wall for buried fetuses
Because "almost humans" are more important than actual women.
Here's a question that I have. You used the term, "almost human."
When
I hear that I think of the physical development of the child. It
goes
from a bunch of DNA to a glob of cells... Things which cannot be
identified physically as being human - then to something that is
"almost human" - then to being an actual human being.
Could you tell me what the physical differences are between
something
that is "almost human" to something is actually a "human"?
Or is this just a political description like it becomes "human" 6
months after conception or when it can survive outside the womb, or
it's head exits the birth canal or it's lived outside the womb for
2
months or it's walking and talking and it's skin is not black.
Could you clear that up for me? Thanks.
Oh, it becomes human when the soul is inserted. This is widely
known if, inexplicably, not as yet medically detected.
That certainly is an interesting answer. I don't know how or when
ensoulment occurs. But what if each sperm had a soul and God
predestined each of those souls to have a very brief virtually
meaningless existence? In such a case it would seem that "almost human"
is meaningless and that the true value of life is its potential which
would begin at conception.
But until we can detect a soul how should we determine the beginning of
human life?
One could legitimately argue that a newborn baby, or a two
year old, is not yet fully human. Certainly if a massive
stroke caused an adult to lose all capacities except
those possessed by a two year old, we'd mournfully
call that an unbearable tragedy, and wouldn't be
much saddened if he were to die soon, and free him, and
us, of caring for this wreck of what had once been
a fully-functioning human being.
The reason we don't feel the same way about the two
year old, of course, is that we know that if we
wait long enough, he will "get better" -- become
more like fully-fledged humans.
So I'm suggesting that when an organism "becomes human"
is not a criterion that the pro-lifers really want to
be arguing from. It doesn't really stand up to
any thoughtful analysis.
What you seem to be suggesting is that potential for happiness and
productivity are the relevant measures. A 2 year old has much - the
brain dead have none. An argument of potential to have a quality life
isn't where the pro-choicers want to be because that occurs at
conception.
.
|
|
|
|
|
