| 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: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 03:42:39 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
No one on either side of this argument is "pro-abortion" -- I don't think you
could find anyone who wouldn't rather live in a world where where there were no
abortions, and no need for them.
Here in the reality-based world though, those of us on the "pro-choice" side
would like to see them safe, legal and rare.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Instig" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 03:44:56 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3e44pgnkfa5@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
as is the phrase "anti-choice"
and i say that as somebody who is "pro-choice" but find the pro-choice
phrase absurd
whit
No one on either side of this argument is "pro-abortion" -- I don't think
you could find anyone who wouldn't rather live in a world where where
there were no abortions, and no need for them.
Here in the reality-based world though, those of us on the "pro-choice"
side would like to see them safe, legal and rare.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 11:27:22 PM |
|
|
Instig <nation@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3e44pgnkfa5@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
as is the phrase "anti-choice"
I don't know of anybody who is in favor of abortion.
I know of several who are against choice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 12:04:58 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ct9u3q$ffq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Instig <nation@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3e44pgnkfa5@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
as is the phrase "anti-choice"
I don't know of anybody who is in favor of abortion.
I know of several who are against choice.
i do too
school choice
choice to carry firearms
choice to invest a portion of SS funds, etc
i am pro-choice, myself
but the term is absurd. why is abortion THE choice that designates the
term, and not guns, or whatever?
the term should be "pro-abortion rights"
whit
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 03:45:38 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people in society, and if you examined
the subject anything more than superficially, you would realise that you
had nothing to say in defence of their mothers.
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
No one on either side of this argument is "pro-abortion" -- I don't think you
could find anyone who wouldn't rather live in a world where where there were no
abortions, and no need for them.
You can't have spent much time here then.
..
Here in the reality-based world though, those of us on the "pro-choice" side
would like to see them safe, legal and rare.
Jim
1: No abortion is safe. By definition.
2: If you wanted to see them rare, you would support their outlawing.
You are a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:11:31 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
in society, and if you examined the subject anything more than superficially,
you would realise that you had nothing to say in defence of their mothers.
You haven't been listening at all. I want abortions to be safe and legal.
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
Oh. Kiss my ***** then.
No one on either side of this argument is "pro-abortion" -- I don't think you
could find anyone who wouldn't rather live in a world where where there were
no abortions, and no need for them.
You can't have spent much time here then.
Not in your fantasy, no.
Here in the reality-based world though, those of us on the "pro-choice" side
would like to see them safe, legal and rare.
Jim
1: No abortion is safe. By definition.
No *pregnancy* is safe. By definition.
2: If you wanted to see them rare, you would support their outlawing.
You think outlawing them makes them rare? History's another thing that isn't
your strong suit, I see.
You are a hypocrite.
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:15:55 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
in society, and if you examined the subject anything more than superficially,
you would realise that you had nothing to say in defence of their mothers.
You haven't been listening at all. I want abortions to be safe and legal.
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
Oh. Kiss my ***** then.
Grrreat!!
No one on either side of this argument is "pro-abortion" -- I don't think you
could find anyone who wouldn't rather live in a world where where there were
no abortions, and no need for them.
You can't have spent much time here then.
Not in your fantasy, no.
Here in the reality-based world though, those of us on the "pro-choice" side
would like to see them safe, legal and rare.
Jim
1: No abortion is safe. By definition.
No *pregnancy* is safe. By definition.
Life is not safe, by definition.
2: If you wanted to see them rare, you would support their outlawing.
You think outlawing them makes them rare? History's another thing that isn't
your strong suit, I see.
Rarer than they are now.
You are a hypocrite.
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued cogently
and comprehensively with no reference to religion?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:39:19 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Then explain your position in some other terms.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmies being iced out" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:48:19 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg6oc68vcgc4@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves
pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Then explain your position in some other terms.
Jim
You pro-abortionists advocate the slaughter of live human beings, if you
feel uncomfortable with thinking of them as "people".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:56:33 PM |
|
|
"Demmies being iced out" <Losers@LeftistJerks.com> wrote in message
news:T6VJd.6753$r27.3685@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg6oc68vcgc4@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Then explain your position in some other terms.
You pro-abortionists advocate the slaughter of live human beings, if you feel
uncomfortable with thinking of them as "people".
Please refrain from posting to threads where you have no idea what's going on.
Thank you.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 09:47:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:00:29 GMT, "Demmies being iced out"
<Losers@LeftistJerks.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg7on9i8f3n48@news.supernews.com...
Please refrain from posting to threads where you have no idea what's going
on.
Thank you.
Jim
Please refrain from posting binaries to non-binary groups.
--
"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 |
26 Jan 2005 11:28:42 PM |
|
|
Demmies being iced out <Losers@LeftistJerks.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg6oc68vcgc4@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f8079f$0$7774$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
Fine, call me anti-choice. Just don't not call yourselves
pro-abortion.
The phrase is disingenuous and an inaccurate, unnecessarily demonizing
characterization.
Au contraire. You support legalized abortion. You have nothing to say in
defence of the most vulnerable people
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Then explain your position in some other terms.
Jim
You pro-abortionists advocate the slaughter of live human beings,
You terrorists advocate killing anybody who dares to disagree with
you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 09:46:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:48:19 GMT, "Demmies being iced out"
<Losers@LeftistJerks.com> said in alt.atheism:
You pro-abortionists advocate the slaughter of live human beings
Define "human".
if you feel uncomfortable with thinking of them as "people".
Since "human" isn't defined in the law, killing human beings isn't
illegal - it's undefined.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhans
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nycgirl" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 06:05:45 PM |
|
|
You're the one who advocates the slaughter of innocents, not PRO
CHOICERS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:42:17 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
<...>
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued cogently and
comprehensively with no reference to religion?
If that were what you'd done, I'd have put more into my reply, but you've just
postulated without foundation that fetuses are people, and called me a demon.
Both are faith-based claims.
Don't you pay any attention to what you write?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmies being iced out" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:49:30 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg6ttg24kev48@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
<...>
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued cogently
and comprehensively with no reference to religion?
If that were what you'd done, I'd have put more into my reply, but you've
just postulated without foundation that fetuses are people, and called me
a demon. Both are faith-based claims.
While you've just postulated that fetuses aren't people, and imagine you're
not a demon. Both are faith-based postulates on your part also.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:56:52 PM |
|
|
"Demmies being iced out" <Losers@LeftistJerks.com> wrote in message
news:_7VJd.6754$r27.1015@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg6ttg24kev48@news.supernews.com...
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Clave wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f812f8$0$26018$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
<...>
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
<...>
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued cogently and
comprehensively with no reference to religion?
If that were what you'd done, I'd have put more into my reply, but you've
just postulated without foundation that fetuses are people, and called me a
demon. Both are faith-based claims.
While you've just postulated that fetuses aren't people, and imagine you're
not a demon. Both are faith-based postulates on your part also.
I've done neither.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nycgirl" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
30 Jan 2005 06:07:45 PM |
|
|
How dare you demoni2e women, belligerant nut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 09:47:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:49:30 GMT, "Demmies being iced out"
<Losers@LeftistJerks.com> said in alt.atheism:
While you've just postulated that fetuses aren't people, and imagine you're
not a demon. Both are faith-based postulates
The former is a legal definition, not a postulate at all.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 04:48:48 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
And there's the proof - out of your own mouth.
No *pregnancy* is safe. By definition.
Life is not safe, by definition.
Bingo.
And?
You think outlawing them makes them rare? History's another thing that
isn't your strong suit, I see.
Rarer than they are now.
Like the man said - you lack a grasp of history.
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued cogently
and comprehensively with no reference to religion?
You are aware that demons are a religious concept, aren't you?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate." |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
26 Jan 2005 11:32:24 PM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being. Now if you are one of those that who disagree
with Peter Singer what would your response be if Peter Singer's opinion
prevailed in our laws? That response would be a "religious" position? I
don't think so.
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
And there's the proof - out of your own mouth.
No *pregnancy* is safe. By definition.
Life is not safe, by definition.
Bingo.
And?
You think outlawing them makes them rare? History's another thing
that
isn't your strong suit, I see.
Rarer than they are now.
Like the man said - you lack a grasp of history.
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued
cogently
and comprehensively with no reference to religion?
You are aware that demons are a religious concept, aren't you?
Especially in March.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 12:03:35 AM |
|
|
"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate."
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106803944.475156.132860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41f81a11$0$26014$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being. Now if you are one of those that who disagree
with Peter Singer what would your response be if Peter Singer's opinion
prevailed in our laws? That response would be a "religious" position? I
don't think so.
very well put
the law often has to draw arbitrary lines
another example is statutory rape, with a good analogy to the abortion thang
some states have set the rate at 14 yoa (hawaii not too long ago), other 16,
some 18. WA has a graded system where it's legal at 14, assuming the
partner is within so many months of the other partner, and at 16 it becomes
ipso facto legal
the "soft science" of psychology cannot say that there is a bright line in
science where the youth becomes an adult, for the purposes of being able to
consent. so, it draws an ARBITRARY (and it varies from state to state) line
but NO person (save from a few nambla wackos) would argue the age of consent
should be only 6 years old. and no person would say it should be 25 (except
for some very overprotective fathers maybe) :)
so, we draw an arbitrary line in the grey zone, and play it safe. this is
common in law, as the statutory rape example shows.
we do the same thing with drinking age, with the age to carry a firearm,
with the age to drive, and with the age to smoke.
abortion is the same way. and note that when a person finds abortion to be
wrong or when it should be illegal in their eyes, is not necessarily the
same time as when it becomes human, or fully human. that does not
necessarily follow. it often, or usually does. but it does not NECESSARILY
follow. which clave ignores.
99+% of people would say that upon live birth, it's a human child. does
science PROVE that? depends. on how you define human. is it "self aware"
instantly upon birth? but singer would argue (and does) you gotta a couple
of months to decide. iirc, he believes a newborn is not self aware. so,
it's ok to kill it, basically
catholics (and some atheists i know) define it at the moment of conception.
even if you don't believe it is a full human at that point (heck, it's just
a cell dividing), it would not be logically inconsistent to insist abortion
wrong at that point. nor is it dependant (although it is often correlated
in most cases) with a religious belief
we draw bright lines, often, where science CANNOT. roe v. wade pretty much
made abortion a fundamental right, UP TO A CERTAIN point, that has no hard
scientific significance. it's basically kind of arbitrary. so what?
i, like most americans, am pro-choice, but against partial birth abortion
(except when the LIFE of the mother is in danger)
most people see a very big difference between a 7-9month fetus vs. a 1-3
month fetus. for many more people (regardless of religion in many cases),
it IS a child at 8 months, and is not at 1 month. when EXACTLY does it
"become" a child? who knows?
it's one of those "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question"
so, we draw lines. naral doesn't want to draw that line. they think
abortion is some kind of God Given (no pun intended) right no matter what.
including PBA. parental rights? screw that. partial birth abortion in the
9th month because you are clinically depressed? sure. etc.
that simply does not fly with most people, and it will cost the dems votes.
the repubs, being a big tent, are much more open to the various flavors of
pro-choice and pro-life, whereas it would have been heresy to put a pro-life
speaker on the dem convention stage
but times, they are a changin'
because the dems want to win
I am not demonizing you - you are demons.
And there's the proof - out of your own mouth.
No *pregnancy* is safe. By definition.
Life is not safe, by definition.
Bingo.
And?
You think outlawing them makes them rare? History's another thing
that
isn't your strong suit, I see.
Rarer than they are now.
Like the man said - you lack a grasp of history.
You are a stone-headed religious nutcase.
That's the best you can come up with to someone who has argued
cogently
and comprehensively with no reference to religion?
You are aware that demons are a religious concept, aren't you?
Especially in March.
ide agree with that
:)
whit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 12:48:16 AM |
|
|
"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate."
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106803944.475156.132860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human.
I'm not sure what you mean by "even you" as you don't know my position on
abortion, political, ethical or otherwise. I'll lay that out on the table
if it helps:
I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
I do not believe that late-term abortions other than to protect the life
and/or health and in other extraordinary circumstances ought to be legal.
As the father of a pre-teen daughter, I do not believe that minors should be
able to obtain an abortion or any other invasive medical procedure without
parental consent. For those who advocate against parental consent laws who
cite cases of incest or abuse resulting in pregnancy, I favor making
available a system by which a minor can be temporarily granted emancipation
on the issue of deciding to have an abortion - and NOT returning that child
back to the abusive home to be re-impregnated or further abused. Fathers,
step-fathers and others who ***** children and impregnate them need to go to
jail, not have their victims returned to them no questions asked.
In any and all cases save those taking place to protect the health and life
of the mother, I am quite uncomfortable with the concept of abortion. I
like babies. However - I do not believe it is my right to extend my
discomfort into legal prohibition against abortion. Hell - I'm
uncomfortable with a LOT of things that I don't think should be illegal.
For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
I'm not sure what the current state of the law with regard to late term
abortion is - are you?
Now if you are one of those that who disagree
with Peter Singer what would your response be if Peter Singer's opinion
prevailed in our laws?
My issues with Peter Singer have less to do with his stance on the legality
of abortion than his embrace of eugenics as a legitimate approach to
promoting human society. No fan of Singer, I - and no, my position is not a
religious one. His positions on people with disabilities are especially
disturbing.
That response would be a "religious" position? I don't think so.
In my case it is not. I am a devout agnostic with a deep respect for the
strength many find in faith - even if I myself do not. I like many whom
people like you would doubtless label 'liberal' without really identifying
what that means also have a deep respect for human life - born and unborn.
However, being less tied to religious concepts, I recognize that there are
others who don't share my own values in that regard, and that I do not have
the right to impose my value/belief on others.
History being what it has around abortion, I also recognize that outlawing
abortion again would be an enormous travesty to re-visit upon women in this
country.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 12:33:21 AM |
|
|
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
Now if you are one of those that who disagree
with Peter Singer what would your response be if Peter Singer's opinion
prevailed in our laws? That response would be a "religious" position? I
don't think so.
For most people it would be a religious reason.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 12:39:05 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cta1vh$k3a$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
because there is no (that we can determine) magickal bright line that we
have discovered
whit
Now if you are one of those that who disagree
with Peter Singer what would your response be if Peter Singer's opinion
prevailed in our laws? That response would be a "religious" position? I
don't think so.
For most people it would be a religious reason.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 01:12:26 AM |
|
|
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
Wrong.
Birth is used as the beginning of a person's life because:
It is hard to fake.
It is hard to hide.
The result is almost alway unambigious.
The moment is readility identifiable.
None of that is true for any other event.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stochi" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 10:48:45 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cta48q$mui$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
Wrong.
Birth is used as the beginning of a person's life because:
except the law isn't drawn at birth
try reading roe v. wade again
for content
hth
whit
It is hard to fake.
It is hard to hide.
The result is almost alway unambigious.
The moment is readility identifiable.
None of that is true for any other event.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
27 Jan 2005 11:07:33 PM |
|
|
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cta48q$mui$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception. For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
Wrong.
Birth is used as the beginning of a person's life because:
except the law isn't drawn at birth
Yes it is.
try reading roe v. wade again
It doesn't state otherwise. Ar eyou makiing tthe stupid mistake of
assuming that because something has legal protections that it is a
person?
It is hard to fake.
It is hard to hide.
The result is almost alway unambigious.
The moment is readility identifiable.
None of that is true for any other event.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 12:27:13 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctchak$k46$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cta48q$mui$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the
development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception.
For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the
voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
Wrong.
Birth is used as the beginning of a person's life because:
except the law isn't drawn at birth
Yes it is.
no, it's not
there are also fetal protections PRIOR to birth
check the LAW
try reading roe v. wade again
It doesn't state otherwise. Ar eyou makiing tthe stupid mistake of
assuming that because something has legal protections that it is a
person?
absolutely not. i've never claimed that, nor do i believe that
geese have legal protections. i am pretty sure they are not people
whit
It is hard to fake.
It is hard to hide.
The result is almost alway unambigious.
The moment is readility identifiable.
None of that is true for any other event.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Memorial wall for abortion victims |
28 Jan 2005 08:55:03 PM |
|
|
Sangfroid <jung@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Stochi <astic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Proud sponsor of the 2004 neocon agenda. <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
Your position that they are "people" is a religious one I do not
share.
No it isn't.
Sure it is.
I don't think it is. I suspect even you believe that in the
development
of a human being there is a period where it isn't a human being and
after that it is human. For Catholics that point is at conception.
For
Peter Singer it's birth + 2 months. Most people are somewhere in
between, but the law is arbitrary, it isn't based on the whether the
baby is a human being.
The law is not arbitrary. There are sound practical reasons for
recognizing the start of a person's life at birth,
the law IS arbitrary, in the same way that the drinking age is, the
voting
age, the age of consent, etc.
Wrong.
Birth is used as the beginning of a person's life because:
except the law isn't drawn at birth
Yes it is.
no, it's not
there are also fetal protections PRIOR to birth
check the LAW
Bald Eagles have legal protections. They're not persons either.
try reading roe v. wade again
It doesn't state otherwise. Areyou making the stupid mistake of
assuming that because something has legal protections that it is a
person?
absolutely not.
You did just above.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
