| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2005 10:59:35 PM |
| Object: |
one man's view on abortion |
I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.
Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion. I cannot convince myself
that it is not murder, and I worry that it has long term emotional
consequences for the woman, and perhaps even the man. I also cannot
reconcile the dilemma that arises from the absurd proposition that if a baby
naturally emerges from a woman we consider it a precious life with full
adult rights, but if we want to abort it 5 minutes before that natural birth
it is no big deal. Since we live in a world chock full of birth control
information, and since two supposed adults have to enter into a conscious
and voluntary act to create the preconditions for abortion, it just seems as
if there should be little need for the procedure, regardless of its moral
implications. This is not slipping on a bar of soap, or catching a cold. To
me, third trimester abortions are especially abhorrent, and public funding
of abortion forces citizens to pay for what they may consider to be murder.
In the political arena, I think that Steve Forbes makes sense when he talks
about changing the culture before even thinking about changing the laws.
Pro-abortion groups couch their position as nothing more than a health issue
for the woman. It's her body, so it's her choice. I find this argument to be
flawed. I would agree that if it were her body, it would indeed be her
choice. But is it her body? Do we want to consider the second body, the
fetus, to be indistinguishable from the woman's spleen or leg? Is that all
it is, a growth - sometimes desired and sometimes undesired? If we were in
court, we would demand that the woman provide proof of ownership in order
for the fetus to be considered hers to do with as she pleases. How would she
provide that proof? I can think of no better test than a DNA test. If
conducted, we would find that DNA of the fetus is not an exact copy of the
mother's. It is a blend of the mother and the father. A new and unique
creation. The ownership test fails, it is not simply her body. It is not
simply her choice.
The pro-abortion mindset also contains self-deception. They suggest that the
woman's choice is whether to have the child or not. That is not the truth.
Once a woman is pregnant, she has no choice but to host a child. The only
choice is whether or not to kill it. It is not yes or no, it is dead or
alive.
In the end, one group of people believes that abortion is murder. Murder has
been, and should be, a crime that demands justice. Another group of people
see abortion as a personal choice that a woman makes about her own body, a
choice that might keep her from a lifetime burden. Again, I have no new or
better words to add to the statement of the issue. Others do that much
better than I ever will.
But I do want to point out that so long as we remain so divided on such a
fundamental issue, our society and culture will destroy itself with the
violent debate that arises from the conflict. Both sides believe that they
are absolutely and morally right. It's even worse than that. Both sides
believe that the other side is absolutely and morally wrong. I believe that
in the case of issues that so sharply divide the country we should let
individual states determine their own positions. In some sense, this is the
philosophy embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
This amendment is perhaps the most abused amendment in the Constitution.
Every time the federal government gets involved in any issue which does not,
out of absolute necessity, cross state boundaries, this amendment is
violated. It creates another brick in the wall of socialism, with its
central control and bureaucracy. More one-size-fits-all thinking.
If we allowed the states to regulate abortion, we would find that the more
liberal states would immediately declare it a basic right, and probably
enact state-sponsored funding. The more conservative states would
immediately declare it murder. States divided on the issue would continue to
struggle. While not a perfect solution, I do believe that it would create a
better environment for living with the problem, and possibly even eventually
resolving it.
The person who is violently against abortion could move to a state where it
is murder. That would hopefully reduce their anger at what goes on around
them. After all, we will never have the power to deny or allow abortion on a
global basis, so the fact that there are limits to the law is something that
must always be lived with. That's true for all issues so long as you believe
in the concept of sovereign nations. But, at least this act of murder will
not be allowed where they live. On the other hand, those who violently
promote abortion can move to a state where they have the total support of
the law. Over time, people still deciding the issue can observe the
consequences of each perspective. That could help settle the issue for them.
The point is, we have 50 states. They are political entities. We are foolish
for not allowing states more freedom to follow the wishes of their citizens.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 12:34:19 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1131326511.527435.147110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dklh0k$f3r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Just as you deny personhood to cats.
You think the Constitution reads "All cats born or naturalized are US
Citizens"?
No. But according to your premise, cats are persons since they are not
excluded from being persons by the Constitution.
According to your inferior and rashly unreasonable, deficient, illogical and
partly senseless mind
Those are better descriptions of your mind. I have long since shown
that none of your descriptors are accurate descriptions of my mind.
You really should stop falling into the logical fallacy of ad hominems.
It just shows how inferior, deficient, illogical, and rashly
unreasonable your mind is.
cats are not excluded from personhood by the
Constitution.
No, according to yours. I am using your premise after all that things
that are not defined as persons in the law or the Constitution are
persons.
You are committing a fallacy of specialization.
No, I am not. I am simply applying YOUR definition in another fashion.
You logical fallacy is that your stated/implied definition is too
broad.
Besides, you should not talk about logical fallacies. You commit them
with great frequency. Your favorites include ad hominems, trying to
shift the burden of proof, appeals by force, appeals to consequences,
appeals to popularity, red herrings, and appeals to prejudicial
language.
You assume that the Constitution refers to anything and everything nonhuman
as persons as your premise for rebuttal.
It is your premise that I am using. I am not the one that assumption,
you did when you stated that things that are not defined as persons are
persons.
Unlike you, I only use things as they are defined.
LOL No you use things as they are defined by law, there is a
difference.
Since we are talking about the legal code, that is implied.
The law (since we
are talking about the law) in Indiana defines a person as a human
being, and a human being as an individual that is born, alive, and
human.
The law does not define a human being. I.e. a being which is human.
Yes, it does.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch1.html
IC 35-41-1-14
"Human being" defined
Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is
alive.
It defines "person' as well.
IC 35-41-1-22
"Person" defined
Sec. 22. (a) "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited
liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or
governmental entity.
(b) "Person", for purposes of section 10.7 of this chapter, means
an adult or a minor.
Of
which an unborn human is a very young one, literally. And is defined as
such.
But it is not yet a human being.
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
I have posted this definition in the past. The law is
specific, and it excludes embryos/fetuses as being human beings and
persons since they have not been born.
The law does not define a human being,
Yes, it does. It is just above a few lines.
You have given a state law, which is subjective.
It is more objective than the opinion of most people. And since you
have not presented anything to contradict it, I will assume that you
cannot. You could always present state or federal law that uses
another definition of "human being" to counter it.
I realize that the true anti-choice crowd..yes Mark, that's those of
you who can't accept differing opinions, need to depend on "terms".
You mean people such as you? You are anti-choice, IIRC. Johnny
certainly is.
The fetus is a human being..I don't care what you squawk..it's a human
being.
Which means that you are refusing to accept objective and verifiable
facts.
Human being from conception until death.
No, from birth to death,
Here is how it is...the line represents "human being"
Not quite. I will fix it.
Human being
|<--------------------------------->|
<|----------------|--------|-------|------------|------|-------------|>
conception fetus birth child adult elderly death
You also need to watch how the things are spaced. This originally had
"elderly" and "death" on the next line.
fetus, like any other term ONLY describes a point on our time line as a
human being.
Actually, it describes a point before we were human beings.
You can't see that because it hurts your argument and makes it hard to
accept abortion.
Not at all. Human beings do not live inside of human beings, and do
not act as physical parasites. What's more, human beings are not
required to allow human beings to use their bodies for sustenance and
to substance their lives, or for any other reason for that matter. At
least, not in the United States.
You have to rely on terms and use them improperly.
I do use the terms properly. That is why it hurts your argument and
position.
[since he did not address anything further down in the post, all of it
has been snipped]
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 01:09:46 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1131326511.527435.147110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dklh0k$f3r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exist=
s, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly,=
in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I=
am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which me=
ans that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you =
want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Just as you deny personhood to cats.
You think the Constitution reads "All cats born or naturalized a=
re US
Citizens"?
No. But according to your premise, cats are persons since they a=
re not
excluded from being persons by the Constitution.
According to your inferior and rashly unreasonable, deficient, illo=
gical and
partly senseless mind
Those are better descriptions of your mind. I have long since shown
that none of your descriptors are accurate descriptions of my mind.
You really should stop falling into the logical fallacy of ad hominem=
s=2E
It just shows how inferior, deficient, illogical, and rashly
unreasonable your mind is.
cats are not excluded from personhood by the
Constitution.
No, according to yours. I am using your premise after all that things
that are not defined as persons in the law or the Constitution are
persons.
You are committing a fallacy of specialization.
No, I am not. I am simply applying YOUR definition in another fashio=
n=2E
You logical fallacy is that your stated/implied definition is too
broad.
Besides, you should not talk about logical fallacies. You commit them
with great frequency. Your favorites include ad hominems, trying to
shift the burden of proof, appeals by force, appeals to consequences,
appeals to popularity, red herrings, and appeals to prejudicial
language.
You assume that the Constitution refers to anything and everything =
nonhuman
as persons as your premise for rebuttal.
It is your premise that I am using. I am not the one that assumption,
you did when you stated that things that are not defined as persons a=
re
persons.
Unlike you, I only use things as they are defined.
LOL No you use things as they are defined by law, there is a
difference.
Since we are talking about the legal code, that is implied.
Legal code doesn't define species eg. human beings.
The law (since we
are talking about the law) in Indiana defines a person as a human
being, and a human being as an individual that is born, alive, and
human.
The law does not define a human being. I.e. a being which is human.
Yes, it does.
The country you live in may use the term 'human being' as a status,
this however is not the biological definition of 'human being' ...i.e.
a being which is human,
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch1.html
IC 35-41-1-14
"Human being" defined
Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is
alive.
So what? Your country can legislate anything, it doesn't mean anything
in the real world. Note the real world is not the USA.
It defines "person' as well.
"Person" is irrevelant, as irrevelant as you and your ilk are trying to
make the term 'human being'
IC 35-41-1-22
"Person" defined
Sec. 22. (a) "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited
liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or
governmental entity.
(b) "Person", for purposes of section 10.7 of this chapter, means
an adult or a minor.
Of
which an unborn human is a very young one, literally. And is defined as
such.
But it is not yet a human being.
An embryonic human is a very young human being. Note, all humans (n)
are human beings, human is the type of being they are. You do not
become a human being at a certain stage of your life.
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
I have posted this definition in the past. The law is
specific, and it excludes embryos/fetuses as being human beings and
persons since they have not been born.
The law does not define a human being,
Yes, it does. It is just above a few lines.
LOL It may try to ...YOUR law is irrevelant to this discussion.
and I am certain that a north
american country's law has NO bearing on what is a human being.
Since it defines it, it does have a bearing.
This is a discussion of the term 'human being' not a certain country's
law.
This seems to be the accepted definition of 'human being' ...nothing
about being born, thats just 'orwellian' Pro abortion 'Newspeak'
It is the anti-choice advocates and and terrorists that specialize in
Orwellian "newspeak" and continual changing the meaning of words in
order to remove the logical portion of the debate, which they cannot
win, and shift to an emotional plain where their shifting and imprecise
and deceptive meanings for words help them.
Nope, you just don't like the facts, you'd rather hide your head in the
sand like an ostrich. If you use the term 'human being' as a legal
status then it becomes as irrevelant as 'legal person'. Those of us who
see value in human (n) life will still have the same issue whether you
TRY to redefine the term 'human being'. Instead we would be defending
young humans instead of 'human being'.
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
Source: WordNet =AE 2.0, =A9 2003 Princeton University
- n. a human being. - Human being a man, woman or child of the
species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior
mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary. Oxford University Press 1995,
1996. Chief ed. Patrick Hanks, p689.
I notice that neither of them include embryos in their definitions.
I notice none of them refer to birth, or any other stage in a humans
life.
"Child n (pl.children) 1 a young human being below the age of puberty
b an unborn or newborn human being 2 one's son or daughter (at any
age) 3 (fol. By of) descendant, follower, adherent, or product of
(children of Israel; child of God; child of nature). 4 a childish
person." The Oxford English Reference Dictionary. Oxford University
Press 1995, 1996. Chief ed. Patrick Hanks, p254.
The addition of "unborn" is a recent phenomenon.
LOL
From Webster's Unadbridged Dictionary, 1913
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=3DDict3&Database=3Dweb1913
Child \Child\ (ch[imac]ld), n.; pl. Children
(ch[i^]l"dr[e^]n). [AS. cild, pl. cildru; cf. Goth.
kil[thorn]ei womb, in-kil[thorn][=3Do] with child.]
1. A son or a daughter; a male or female descendant, in the
first degree; the immediate progeny of human parents; --
in law, legitimate offspring. Used also of animals and
plants.
And an embryo is defined as offspring...
2. A descendant, however remote; -- used esp. in the plural;
as, the children of Israel; the children of Edom.
3. One who, by character of practice, shows signs of
relationship to, or of the influence of, another; one
closely connected with a place, occupation, character,
etc.; as, a child of God; a child of the devil; a child of
disobedience; a child of toil; a child of the people.
4. A noble youth. See Childe. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
5. A young person of either sex. esp. one between infancy and
youth; hence, one who exhibits the characteristics of a
very young person, as innocence, obedience, trustfulness,
limited understanding, etc.
When I was child. I spake as a child, I understood
as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became
a man, I put away childish things. --1. Cor. xii.
11.
6. A female infant. [Obs.]
A boy or a child, I wonder? --Shak.
I see nothing that could refer to an embryo/fetus in there. Looks like
the anti-choice Orwellian newspeak has crept into the modern
dictionaries.
LOL Your denial is amazing, scary, yet amazing. The SAME organism 5 min
after birth does not become a human being. It is just as much a human
being 5 mins before birth. You are just showing you have little, or no
knowledge of human reproduction or development. Go and find out when
one starts and the other begins, i think you'll find it is
fertilisation, which is why fertilisation is often called
..=2E.conception!! Not birth! ever wonder why?
Best if you stick to 'legal person' that way you can award the status
at any stage of development you wish ;)
You seem to want to take away the status of "free person" away from
pregnant women, and reduce them to slaves and walking incubators.
Your the one who thinks there is nothing wrong with a woman aborting
her own young, don't you even want to help woman in these conditions
have a better choice than abortion? You and your ilk, are the ones
turning childbirth into a lifestyle choice, like owning a pet dog. A
pregnant womans child can be killed and only recently can anyone be
charged for her childs death! If you had it your way there would be no
recognition of her childs life.
see feministsforlife.org women deserve better.
What's more, the state cannot
override federal law or a Constitutional law, which means that this
definition of human being and person are in agreement with federal and
Constitutional law. And that means that an embryo/fetus is not
considered to be a person under either federal law or Constitutional
law.
Your premise is that things that are not defined as human beings or
persons under the law are still human beings or persons. You have not
supported your premise in any way. By extending your premise in a
logic manner that remains completely consistent with your stated
premise, both myself and Parsifal showed how poorly conceived and
illogical that premise is.
You are using invalid premises as part of your illogical rebuttal.
Thank you for admitting that your premise is illogical, because that =
is
exactly what I am using. I was simply showing you how illogical your
own premises were, and you have agreed that they are illogical.
All Parisfal did was
use your own argument and show you how silly it is.
He fell off the track.
No. You did. He was just showing you how far off the track you were.
It is his assumption that cats are persons, not mine.
It is your assumption as you have presented it that he is using. Your
assumption was that things that are not defined as persons in the
Constitution are persons.
he uses that assumption as part fo hsi rebuttal.
And the assumption that he used was your own.
He uses known error to contest my statements, which automatically r=
enders
his rebuttal as invalid.
Actually, you have just admitted that your premise is in error, and
thus invalid. He was using the logical extension of your premise. If
embryos/fetuses are persons even though they are not defined as perso=
ns
in the Constitution, then cats and dogs are persons as well for the
same reason. You made the error, and now you have admitted that you
are the one that made the error, since Parsifal was using your premise
to show you where the logical error was in your position.
I made no mention of non-human entities in the universe of persons.
Yes, you did. You stated that embryos/fetuses, which are not human
beings, are persons. You also stated that things that are not
specifically specified as persons in the Constitution are persons.
Fetuses, as a subset of the human universe of persons, are in fact =
persons,
No, they are not, since they are not persons in the first place.
even though they are not citizens according to the Constitution.
They are not persons either.
You have yet to prove that embryos/fetuses are persons. That is your
premise, so you have the burden of proof to support it.
An embryonic human being is a very young human being, that is a FACT.
No, it is not. It has not been born, and therefore does not mean one
of the main requirements to be a human being.
The requirements are to be human and alive. Human beings are placental
mammals, they give birth to LIVE young. This means their young are
conceived internally and develop in their mothers womb BEFORE birth.
You're not suggesting that a tadpole isn't a young frog? or that a
chicken foetus inside a egg isn't a chicken?
Deal with it!
I have.
With denial. Well, thats one way to deal with it.
Whether or not a particular country or state affords them
the status of legal person is irevelant.
It is completely relevant. "Human being" is a legal definition, as is
"person". Science has nothing to do with how or when humans are
defined as "human beings".
Ohh really LOL So whatever NAZI style law you and your supporters make,
you think that 'defines' the biological definition of 'human being'.
Your laws stops at your border.
This can change from place to
place and time to time. One can be a person in one country and not in
another, they are still human beings.
Because the countries still define "human beings" the same way.
Which country's?
Really, you pro-aborts really lack logic when you claim the SAME
organism BECOMES a human being as late in THEIR development as birth!
That organism does not display many of the necessary characteristics of
being a human being, since as breathing in oxygen, breathing out carbon
dioxide,
Now this is the stupidity of the propaganda that you have probably been
fed your whole life. Again, it shows your ignorance of biology and
specifically human reproduction and development.
Firstly, an embryonic human does display the characteristics of human
beings for this stage of development.
Secondly, a human in this early (embryonic) stage of development has
ther OWN metabolism, they might not breathe in the way you and I do,
but they do have their own respiration.
being separate physically from any host and not completely
contained within another being. The physiological changes are
extensive at birth.
Yes the physiological changes are extensive, as is puberty. They still
don't become something else at birth.
'Human being' is not a status, its the kind of species we are!!!!
And that starts at birth, when we display all the primary
characteristics of a human being, as opposed to the characteristics of
a parasitic organism.
A young human is not a parasite. Learn about placental mammals.
Being
is reserved for intelliegent (high intelligence, your dog figuring out
how to get out of your yard doesn't count) life forms.
Well, that would leave you out.
If we
encountered intelligent alien beings we would call them " vogon beings"
or Klingon beings" etc. It hs NOTHING to do with a stage of life such
as birth.
Actually, it does. It has to do with when the species starts counting
the entity as belonging to the species and being counted as one of
them. With humans, it is at birth.
Or all the other stages. Viability, quickening, capacity for
consciousness etc. etc.
All you are doing is avoiding the question. What characteristics or
abilities or age do we value a humans life? or do we value a humans
life for being human?
"The most commonly suggested dividing-lines between the fertilized egg
and the child are birth and viability. Both are open to objection. A
prematurely born infant may well be less developed in these respects
than a foetus nearing the end of its normal term, and it seems peculiar
to hold that we may not kill the premature infant, but may kill the
more developed foetus. The point of viability varies according to the
state of medical technology, and, again, it is odd to hold that a
foetus has a right to life if the pregnant woman lives in London, but
not if she lives in New Guinea.
Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger
ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of
the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a
term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species
Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or
self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person',
the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a
human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a
foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand,
'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo
sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given
biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life.
Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at
the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses -
and value its life accordingly."
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 04:14:37 AM |
|
|
On 7-Nov-2005, wrote:
Really, you pro-aborts really lack logic
My irony meter just exploded.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 07:43:56 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 17:21:51 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1131326511.527435.147110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dklh0k$f3r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Just as you deny personhood to cats.
You think the Constitution reads "All cats born or naturalized are US
Citizens"?
No. But according to your premise, cats are persons since they are not
excluded from being persons by the Constitution. All Parisfal did was
use your own argument and show you how silly it is.
SIlly never stopped him before.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 03:44:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:23:12 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<VAtbf.2187$%k.2154@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dklh0k$f3r$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Just as you deny personhood to cats.
You think the Constitution reads "All cats born or naturalized are US
Citizens"?
What does the Constitutional position on citizenship have to do with
personhood? Are only citizens persons?
All persons have been born alive. Nationality is irrelevant.
You only open your mouth to change your feet.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 08:37:45 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on her mystery down payment:
1414fd53.0312122347.79901...@posting.google.com
By April of 2001, the money I had managed to save for a down payment on a
house (from my husband and I working three jobs between us) was
confiscated by the IRS.
The first year of the Bush presidency, I got money back and am now a
homeowner.
1129172027.067956.70...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I never paid a down payment on my house. The government took it
all. Fortunately, my husband is a Navy veteran, we had good credit,
and he was able to use his military benefits to get a $0 down.
1130579291.315993.196310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
We did have a down.
1130263251.632250.146780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Any amount is more than the zero I put in, you stupid crackhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 09:00:28 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
It is fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 01:04:04 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
You have yet to show anyone where it *is* a person, Loon Boy.
I am not bound to prove it to you. It is fact.
You can't prove that the sun rises in the east, Straitjacket Boy.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 2 (SO) (November 4)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 6 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:10:09 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:40:41 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 01:07:23 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
I'd love to see you try *that* attitude in court - which would get you an
extended holiday from posting your psychoses in Usenet.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 2 (SO) (November 4)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 6 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 11:05:24 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it
has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want
one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
You are making the absurd claim that the fetus is a person. That is a
positive claim, just like "God exists" is a positive claim.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 02:15:42 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkld4h$men$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it
has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means
that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want
one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
You are making the absurd claim that the fetus is a person.
That is a positive claim, just like "God exists" is a positive claim.
Prove it.
So, since you think that a negative can not be proven that all positive
assertions require proof?
Your negative assertion that the human fetus is not a person can be
rephrased as:
The human fetus is other than a person.
So, where is the proof for your positive assertion that the human fetus is
other than a person?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 03:58:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:15:42 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
<Tttbf.2184$%k.536@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkld4h$men$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it
has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means
that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want
one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
You are making the absurd claim that the fetus is a person.
That is a positive claim, just like "God exists" is a positive claim.
Prove it.
So, since you think that a negative can not be proven that all positive
assertions require proof?
Your negative assertion that the human fetus is not a person can be
rephrased as:
The human fetus is other than a person.
Logic doesn't work that way.
So, where is the proof for your positive assertion that the human fetus is
other than a person?
The law treats it that way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lil Bit" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 07:55:35 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:f1vsm1ddu6l15jinrau4ensq2ptkbib89a@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:15:42 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
<Tttbf.2184$%k.536@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkld4h$men$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it
has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means
that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want
one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
You are making the absurd claim that the fetus is a person.
That is a positive claim, just like "God exists" is a positive claim.
Prove it.
So, since you think that a negative can not be proven that all positive
assertions require proof?
Your negative assertion that the human fetus is not a person can be
rephrased as:
The human fetus is other than a person.
Logic doesn't work that way.
So, where is the proof for your positive assertion that the human fetus is
other than a person?
The law treats it that way.
"THE LAW"!? And what's that but an opinion by a bunch of old men in black robes?
HINT: Without belief, the law is useless! Think about it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:24:49 PM |
|
|
Lil Bit <lby@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿâÞ> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
So, where is the proof for your positive assertion that the human fetus is
other than a person?
The law treats it that way.
"THE LAW"!? And what's that but an opinion by a bunch of old men in black robes?
And what's your crap except the whining of an ignorant bigot?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:42:29 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
You are accusing it of being a person, and you are accusing us of lying.
Both of which are assertions that need to be proven. By you.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 3
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
1414fd53.0402042145.2faac5c9@posting.google.com
you're a *****
1414fd53.0301242012.7786001e@posting.google.com
*I* said you were a *****, and you are
1414fd53.0201151612.5d801f91@posting.google.com
I don't own a vibrator,*****.
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
you stupid *****
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 03:32:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:40:41 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lil Bit" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 08:01:48 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3itsm1lggeifp5qq0teva9nk5fh6vp6btk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:40:41 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
If you engage in sexual intercourse that results in a human being then
you are responsible for it, like it or not, agree with it or not!
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
"Prove"! Prove to me that you exist then we may be able to discuss
something else, until then this yelling "prove it!" is as nonsensical as
the atheists claim to being logical and not using the evolution as their
religious vehicle to zoom through the schools causing destruction..
(but that's their goal hence they, in an attempt to keep that mask
refuse to admit the obvious).
Too many people today, including media mouths spew out legalese
as though it had any meaning outside the courtroom! LOL! How
foolish they show themselves to be ...it's like using baseball terms
on a basketball court!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:25:38 PM |
|
|
Lil Bit <lby@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿâÞ> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
If you engage in sexual intercourse that results in a human being then
you are responsible for it, like it or not, agree with it or not!
In other words, sex is a crime and children are the punishment.
The fascism of the neocon.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 05:13:55 AM |
|
|
In article <dkml01$dvg$1@bolt.sonic.net>, wrote:
Lil Bit <lby@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿâÞ> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
If you engage in sexual intercourse that results in a human being then
you are responsible for it, like it or not, agree with it or not!
In other words, sex is a crime and children are the punishment.
The fascism of the neocon.
** Indeed, it's like stink on feces.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 02:26:12 AM |
|
|
Lil Bit wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3itsm1lggeifp5qq0teva9nk5fh6vp6btk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:40:41 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
If you engage in sexual intercourse that results in a human being then
you are responsible for it, like it or not, agree with it or not!
Well duh, but that's not till after it's born.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
"Prove"! Prove to me that you exist then we may be able to discuss
something else, until then this yelling "prove it!" is as nonsensical as
the atheists claim to being logical and not using the evolution as their
religious vehicle to zoom through the schools causing destruction..
Okayyyyyyy, we know now that you are a)christian and b)unable to provide
proof of your beliefs.
(but that's their goal hence they, in an attempt to keep that mask
refuse to admit the obvious).
If it was obvious you'd be able to prove it.
Calm yourself. Take a Valium, lie down for a few until you're less stressed.
-
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on her mystery down payment:
1414fd53.0312122347.79901...@posting.google.com
By April of 2001, the money I had managed to save for a down payment on a
house (from my husband and I working three jobs between us) was
confiscated by the IRS.
The first year of the Bush presidency, I got money back and am now a
homeowner.
1129172027.067956.70...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I never paid a down payment on my house. The government took it
all. Fortunately, my husband is a Navy veteran, we had good credit,
and he was able to use his military benefits to get a $0 down.
1130579291.315993.196310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
We did have a down.
1130263251.632250.146780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Any amount is more than the zero I put in, you stupid crackhead.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
07 Nov 2005 06:59:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 21:01:48 -0500, "Lil Bit" <lby@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿâÞ> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Iybf.3854$vu5.192642@news.sisna.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3itsm1lggeifp5qq0teva9nk5fh6vp6btk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:40:41 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jkqbf.2147$%k.1450@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
I am not accusing the fetus of not being a person.
If you assert a fetus is a person you assume the burden of proving it.
Like it or not.
If you engage in sexual intercourse that results in a human being then
you are responsible for it, like it or not, agree with it or not!
Exactly where is that condition to be found? Of course, no human
being exists before live birth.
I am not bound to prove anything in this.
"Prove"! Prove to me that you exist
"I think, therefore I am."
It was good enough for Descartes - It's good enough for me.
then we may be able to discuss
something else, until then this yelling "prove it!" is as nonsensical as
the atheists claim to being logical and not using the evolution as their
religious vehicle
Evolution is a scientific process, and as such can have nothing to do
with religion.
to zoom through the schools causing destruction..
(but that's their goal hence they, in an attempt to keep that mask
refuse to admit the obvious).
Schools educate, and don't cause destruction. Except religious
schools, of course.
Too many people today, including media mouths spew out legalese
as though it had any meaning outside the courtroom!
I suppose you think court decisions have no meaning outside the
courtroom either.
LOL! How
foolish they show themselves to be ...it's like using baseball terms
on a basketball court!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:17:05 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
So Peacenick, are you saying that ANYTIME a person makes ANY TYPE OF A
CLAIM...REGARDLESS OF WHAT POSITION THEY HOLD OR WHAT AFFILIATION HE OR SHE
BELONGS TOO...THEY ARE BOUND TO PROVE IT?
I will need your answer for future reference and so you can get on a few of
your "pro-choice" friends to prove a few claims they have made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 10:27:27 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:sJCdnUCXEpyTsfPenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
So Peacenick, are you saying that ANYTIME a person makes ANY TYPE OF A
CLAIM..
you're not qualified to talk about claims since you make so many false
ones.
for example, you recently posted this lie:
"To anyone reading my words let it be known that Mimi Cohen is aka:
Krisblake, Pauline, Gia, Somewriter, and several other nicks."
--"osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
news:1130988022.230071.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
naturally you ran away when you were called on to back up your lie.
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 11:03:13 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:sJCdnUCXEpyTsfPenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131265419.725552.53830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.
I don't "believe" in abortion either... It's there, it exists, it
has
always existed and it will always exist. Let do it properly, in the
best conditions. And let the people decide for themselves. I am not
"pro-abortion" either (who is?), I am "pro-freedom" which means that
if
you don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, and if you want
one,
you are entitled to receive one.
Which denies personhood to the fetus, a person.
Prove a fetus is a person, you made the assertion.
You did not show me where it isn't a person.
I am not bound to prove it to you.
By the rules of "burden of proof", you ARE bound to prove it.
So Peacenick, are you saying that ANYTIME a person makes ANY TYPE OF A
CLAIM...REGARDLESS OF WHAT POSITION THEY HOLD OR WHAT AFFILIATION HE OR
SHE
BELONGS TOO...THEY ARE BOUND TO PROVE IT?
If it's a positive claim, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one man's view on abortion |
06 Nov 2005 02:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkld0d$mdv$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:sJCdnUCXEpyTsfPenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkl9st$l88$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kSobf.44279$ty1.38949@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131288027_5444@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
| | | | | | |
