| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Reverend" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2006 10:37:41 AM |
| Object: |
Re: It's Our War |
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:12:57 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:24:06 -0500, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<ba6vg.843$lq.67@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net> wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:huopb297dsejiih9u0d1fg6v8t4g7e9isd@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:47:57 GMT, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<NRYug.1995$252.1921@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
Still not even close by a long shot/
As idiotic as the x-post is, he's right.
Pro-Choice is definitely pro-freedom - how is it otherwise?
Because what freedom does a dead baby have?
Theer is no baby prior to live birth, and only an individual can have
freedom.
Yeah I know, it is just tissue... tissue that feels pain. Not that you would
care.
See, this is what ticks me off
when Mimi x-posts my posts to off topic forums.
Why did you put the origional post in alt.abortion?
I didn't you moron. Mimi brought this shitty group into my thread. I wish
she would quit doing this as I don't care to hear opinions of people that is
indifferent to babies pain and suffering like yourself and the blathering of
morons like Ray Fischer.
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's also pro-death.
.
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
18 Jul 2006 11:46:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:20:56 -0500, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote:
"The Reverend" <renig'dde@angglikkan.ca> wrote in message
news:44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:12:57 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:24:06 -0500, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<ba6vg.843$lq.67@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net> wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:huopb297dsejiih9u0d1fg6v8t4g7e9isd@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:47:57 GMT, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<NRYug.1995$252.1921@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
Still not even close by a long shot/
As idiotic as the x-post is, he's right.
Pro-Choice is definitely pro-freedom - how is it otherwise?
Because what freedom does a dead baby have?
Theer is no baby prior to live birth, and only an individual can have
freedom.
Yeah I know, it is just tissue... tissue that feels pain. Not that you
would
care.
See, this is what ticks me off
when Mimi x-posts my posts to off topic forums.
Why did you put the origional post in alt.abortion?
I didn't you moron. Mimi brought this shitty group into my thread. I
wish
she would quit doing this as I don't care to hear opinions of people
that is
indifferent to babies pain and suffering like yourself and the
blathering of
morons like Ray Fischer.
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
I wonder what they would say if they could see a SPECT scan on these babies
brains as they are killed.
That's beyond me, Dodo. I'm just a humble clergyman. What would they
see?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
19 Jul 2006 05:45:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
19 Jul 2006 06:25:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:45:19 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's actually Pro-Death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
19 Jul 2006 10:00:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:25:29 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be1651.78777115@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:45:19 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's actually Pro-Death.
No, it's about freedom.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
19 Jul 2006 12:47:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:00:21 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:25:29 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be1651.78777115@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:45:19 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's actually Pro-Death.
No, it's about freedom.
About freedom to kill and be killed.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's more like Pro-Death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
19 Jul 2006 02:43:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:47:21 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be6fc8.101680228@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:00:21 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:25:29 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be1651.78777115@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:45:19 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 01:32:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:43:33 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:47:21 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be6fc8.101680228@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:00:21 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:25:29 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44be1651.78777115@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:45:19 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:37:41 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bd001a.7553821@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are harmed in an abortion.
They're just killed painlessly, right?
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
It's actually Pro-Death
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 06:48:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 08:33:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:48:52 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 04:54:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:33:31 GMT,
(The Reverend) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:48:52 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
Nope when the new born takes it's first breath it becomes
a living soul. If it never takes a breath it's stillborn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 12:05:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:54:18 -0500, robpar <robpar@netportusa.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:33:31 GMT,
(The Reverend) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:48:52 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
Nope when the new born takes it's first breath it becomes
a living soul. If it never takes a breath it's stillborn.
I don't even want to get into the question of souls.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 10:18:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:33:31 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf859d.538634@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:48:52 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 10:54:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:18:05 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:33:31 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf859d.538634@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:48:52 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:32:08 GMT, renig'dde@angglikkan.ca (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bf22de.2829268@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
No babies are involved in an abortion.
They're just collateral damage, right?
Is the phrase too intellectual for you?
Try to learn what 'not involved' means.
Try to learn what "babies" means.
I do know. The term is so vague as to be meaningless, and is only
used for propaganda value.
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
The only propaganda agenda comes from your Pro-Death side, which
minimises the impact on the dead baby by referring to it in the
abstract as a "foetus".
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since the choice opens up the possibility of abortion, it's really
Pro-Death.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
In other words, Pro-Death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 01:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:39 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfa66e.809153@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
The only propaganda agenda comes from your Pro-Death side, which
minimises the impact on the dead baby by referring to it in the
abstract as a "foetus".
Nonsense. The anti-choice faction abandoned fact long ago when it
became apparent it was weaponless. Now your entire position is
defended by propaganda and a pathetic attempts to create guilt by
association through the use of terms with negative connotations. Terms
such as "pro-death", "murder", and the use of "baby" wherever
possible. The accurate use of such terms is obvious not one of your
considerations.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since the choice opens up the possibility of abortion, it's really
Pro-Death.
No it is not.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
In other words, Pro-Death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 03:34:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:23:07 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:39 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfa66e.809153@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
The only propaganda agenda comes from your Pro-Death side, which
minimises the impact on the dead baby by referring to it in the
abstract as a "foetus".
Nonsense. The anti-choice faction abandoned fact long ago when it
became apparent it was weaponless. Now your entire position is
defended by propaganda and a pathetic attempts to create guilt by
association through the use of terms with negative connotations. Terms
such as "pro-death", "murder", and the use of "baby" wherever
possible. The accurate use of such terms is obvious not one of your
considerations.
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since the choice opens up the possibility of abortion, it's really
Pro-Death.
No it is not.
It most certainly is.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
No it's not. Pro-abortion = pro-death even if you call it pro-choice.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
In other words, Pro-Death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
No it's not. Pro-abortion = pro-death even if you call it pro-choice.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
And pro-death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 04:00:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:34:48 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfe7d2.17549615@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:23:07 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:39 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfa66e.809153@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
The only propaganda agenda comes from your Pro-Death side, which
minimises the impact on the dead baby by referring to it in the
abstract as a "foetus".
Nonsense. The anti-choice faction abandoned fact long ago when it
became apparent it was weaponless. Now your entire position is
defended by propaganda and a pathetic attempts to create guilt by
association through the use of terms with negative connotations. Terms
such as "pro-death", "murder", and the use of "baby" wherever
possible. The accurate use of such terms is obvious not one of your
considerations.
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since the choice opens up the possibility of abortion, it's really
Pro-Death.
No it is not.
It most certainly is.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
No it's not. Pro-abortion = pro-death even if you call it pro-choice.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
In other words, Pro-Death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
No it's not. Pro-abortion = pro-death even if you call it pro-choice.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
And pro-death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 04:20:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:00:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:34:48 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfe7d2.17549615@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:23:07 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:54:39 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bfa66e.809153@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
So when you say "no babies are involved in an abortion" you're using a
term the meaning of which you don't know.
I know the definition. I know that by combining definitions from
various sources as well as 'common usage' it can cover anything from a
fetus to an 80 year old.
It is therefore too vague a term to really have much meaning. It's
use as a propaganda ploy is the mental image it calls up which is
based mostly on TV adds for baby products.
The term 'fetus' is much more accurate but you hate it because it does
not have the same propaganda value.
It's another meaningless term and you love it because it lets you kill
them easier.
It may be meaningless to you but minimal research will show it to be a
common and specific term covering a limited set of conditions and a
limited time frame.
Apparently you believe the terms used have a direct bearing on the
actions taken, which clearly indicates you have a propaganda agenda.
The only propaganda agenda comes from your Pro-Death side, which
minimises the impact on the dead baby by referring to it in the
abstract as a "foetus".
Nonsense. The anti-choice faction abandoned fact long ago when it
became apparent it was weaponless. Now your entire position is
defended by propaganda and a pathetic attempts to create guilt by
association through the use of terms with negative connotations. Terms
such as "pro-death", "murder", and the use of "baby" wherever
possible. The accurate use of such terms is obvious not one of your
considerations.
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
The choice isn't hers to make.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
I'm sure there are plenty of real ones.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
If the mother was pro-death and didn't want the baby, why not?
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
<b'rissed>
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
And Pro-Death
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
20 Jul 2006 04:54:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:20:50 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bff316.20433561@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
The choice isn't hers to make.
Of course it is. It certainly does not involve anyone else.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
I'm sure there are plenty of real ones.
And all are irrelevant. I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
If the mother was pro-death and didn't want the baby, why not?
The attitude of the woman is not involved with what is or is not a
medical advantage.
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 12:00:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:54:06 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:20:50 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bff316.20433561@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
The choice isn't hers to make.
Of course it is. It certainly does not involve anyone else.
It takes two to create a baby/foetus. It involves the father and the
abortion-to-be.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
I'm sure there are plenty of real ones.
And all are irrelevant.
Why don't you Pro-Death people use them, then, to show how aborted
foetuses are just pieces of meat?
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
If the mother was pro-death and didn't want the baby, why not?
The attitude of the woman is not involved with what is or is not a
medical advantage.
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
So you'd have no problem with it? When do you think the pro-death
faction will be able to get such laws changed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 05:27:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:00:24 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c05e03.1640609@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:54:06 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:20:50 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bff316.20433561@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
The choice isn't hers to make.
Of course it is. It certainly does not involve anyone else.
It takes two to create a baby/foetus. It involves the father and the
abortion-to-be.
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
I'm sure there are plenty of real ones.
And all are irrelevant.
Why don't you Pro-Death people use them, then, to show how aborted
foetuses are just pieces of meat?
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
If the mother was pro-death and didn't want the baby, why not?
The attitude of the woman is not involved with what is or is not a
medical advantage.
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not at this point. It would be a medical decision.
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
So you'd have no problem with it?
What I would or would not have a problem with is irrelevant. I am not
the one who is pregnant.
When do you think the pro-death
faction will be able to get such laws changed?
Since I am unaware of any pro-death faction I would have no idea.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 07:35:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:00:24 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c05e03.1640609@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:54:06 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:20:50 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44bff316.20433561@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
You, on the other hand, mask your obscene pro-abortion and pro-death
views with PC niceties such as this "pro-choice" *****.
I could not care less about PC. I do not care what her choice is,
only that she has one. You evidently are unwilling or unable to
understand that.
The choice isn't hers to make.
Of course it is. It certainly does not involve anyone else.
It takes two to create a baby/foetus. It involves the father and the
abortion-to-be.
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
But the child is just as much his as the mother's.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
According to your definition of a person.
No wonder you people are scared of images of aborted foetuses. It
brings it all home, doesn't it?
Not at all. Most of them are faked anyway - today a picture of
anything is possible.
I'm sure there are plenty of real ones.
And all are irrelevant.
Why don't you Pro-Death people use them, then, to show how aborted
foetuses are just pieces of meat?
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
Do you find images of dead foetuses uncomfortable in advocating your
pro-death position, then?
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
And abortion is a messier procedure than most others.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
You represent the pro-death camp, and dismissing an unborn baby as
"biowaste" further defines your position. Should stillborn
"biowaste" be incinerated too?
"Fetus" is more accurate by far.
So the day before a baby is born, it's still a "foetus"?
Once second before live birth it is a fetus.
And when it's halfway out, is it half-baby and half-foetus?
No, it is a fetus until live birth has occurred. Then it is an infant
and a person with rights.
So you'd have no problem killing it an hour before live birth is to
take place?
That happens to have a lot of legal restrictiosn, and while I am not a
doctor I doubt a doctor would recommend such a procedure. That late
in the pregnancy birth would probably be safer. I would support
whatever the doctor involved decided.
Why not just kill it anyway and deliver it stillborn?
Would there be a medical advantage in doing this at this point?
If the mother was pro-death and didn't want the baby, why not?
The attitude of the woman is not involved with what is or is not a
medical advantage.
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not at this point. It would be a medical decision.
The mother can always find a sympathetic pro-death doctor.
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
So you'd have no problem with it?
What I would or would not have a problem with is irrelevant. I am not
the one who is pregnant.
Evasion noted.
When do you think the pro-death
faction will be able to get such laws changed?
Since I am unaware of any pro-death faction I would have no idea.
You're part of the pro-death faction.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Death, in other words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 10:05:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:35:11 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0c87c.28897652@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
But the child is just as much his as the mother's.
Before live birth there is no child.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
According to your definition of a person.
According to the definition of society as reflected in law.
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
Do you find images of dead foetuses uncomfortable in advocating your
pro-death position, then?
I do not advocate any pro-death position and I ignore what you call
'images of dead foetuses'.
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
And abortion is a messier procedure than most others.
Not really. There is much less invasion done and it is actually a
minor out-patient procedure in most cases. Which is hardly true for
most surgical procedures.
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
You represent the pro-death camp,
I represent no one but myself and my position is not pro-death. It is
pro-choice.
and dismissing an unborn baby
Which doe snot exist
as "biowaste"
A standard term for any biological waste product which must be
disposed of under rather strict laws to prevent contamination.
further defines your position. Should stillborn
"biowaste" be incinerated too?
That is up to the local laws and those who make such decisions.
Personally I am going to be incinerated when I am dead.
Except that situation generally uses the term "cremation" but a dead
body would certainly fit the definition of biowaste.
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not at this point. It would be a medical decision.
The mother can always find a sympathetic pro-death doctor.
This is a most unlikely scenario considering she has had almost nine
months to make such a decision. In almost every case there is an
unexpected medical condition involved.
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
So you'd have no problem with it?
What I would or would not have a problem with is irrelevant. I am not
the one who is pregnant.
Evasion noted.
It is not an evasion. It simply is none of my business. I support
pro-choice without limitation, time or otherwise.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 10:29:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:05:41 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:35:11 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0c87c.28897652@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
But the child is just as much his as the mother's.
Before live birth there is no child.
Not if it's been aborted, no.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
According to your definition of a person.
According to the definition of society as reflected in law.
Never mind law, what about morals?
Laws are made by (often corrupt) politicians. You couldn't find a
more amoral bunch if you trawled the sewers!
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
Do you find images of dead foetuses uncomfortable in advocating your
pro-death position, then?
I do not advocate any pro-death position and I ignore what you call
'images of dead foetuses'.
Your anti-life position is pro-death.
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
And abortion is a messier procedure than most others.
Not really. There is much less invasion done and it is actually a
minor out-patient procedure in most cases. Which is hardly true for
most surgical procedures.
Look at the output, though. Do you recognise the head, the arms and
legs?
There is no dead baby after an abortion. A pregnancy simply does not
exist. The impadt on the fetus is irrelevant and an unimportant side
effect.
Just another piece of dead meat to be incinerated, eh?
Usually not even that.
Just something to be tossed aside.
Yes.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
You represent the pro-death camp,
I represent no one but myself and my position is not pro-death. It is
pro-choice.
It's anti-life and therfore pro-death. I don't understand why you
object to the term so much.
and dismissing an unborn baby
Which doe snot exist
If it's been aborted.
as "biowaste"
A standard term for any biological waste product which must be
disposed of under rather strict laws to prevent contamination.
An unborn child is not "biowaste".
further defines your position. Should stillborn
"biowaste" be incinerated too?
That is up to the local laws and those who make such decisions.
Personally I am going to be incinerated when I am dead.
Except that situation generally uses the term "cremation" but a dead
body would certainly fit the definition of biowaste.
Why not just put it in a bin and burn it with the other "biowaste"?
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not at this point. It would be a medical decision.
The mother can always find a sympathetic pro-death doctor.
This is a most unlikely scenario considering she has had almost nine
months to make such a decision. In almost every case there is an
unexpected medical condition involved.
Are you denying her the choice at that late stage? Circumstances may
have changed?
Why should there be an "unexpected medical condition"?
Not to mention all the restrictive laws governing this.
Why are there such restrictive laws? Is it because the "foetus"
looks like a "baby"?
No, because the anti-choice faction was able to pass laws setting such
restrictions. Looks are irrelevant.
So you'd have no problem with it?
What I would or would not have a problem with is irrelevant. I am not
the one who is pregnant.
Evasion noted.
It is not an evasion. It simply is none of my business. I support
pro-choice without limitation, time or otherwise.
So you would have no problem with abortion at 8.5 months if the law
allowed it?
Pro-Choice is Pro-Death
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 12:44:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:29:00 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0f103.2515416@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:05:41 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:35:11 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0c87c.28897652@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
But the child is just as much his as the mother's.
Before live birth there is no child.
Not if it's been aborted, no.
Irrelevant. There is no child before live birth.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
According to your definition of a person.
According to the definition of society as reflected in law.
Never mind law, what about morals?
Irrelevant.
Laws are made by (often corrupt) politicians. You couldn't find a
more amoral bunch if you trawled the sewers!
Agan, irrelevant.
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
Do you find images of dead foetuses uncomfortable in advocating your
pro-death position, then?
I do not advocate any pro-death position and I ignore what you call
'images of dead foetuses'.
Your anti-life position is pro-death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
And abortion is a messier procedure than most others.
Not really. There is much less invasion done and it is actually a
minor out-patient procedure in most cases. Which is hardly true for
most surgical procedures.
Look at the output, though. Do you recognise the head, the arms and
legs?
Most abortions are done long before there are any heads, arms, or
legs.
I see you did not answer the origional point but attempted to divert
the conversation.
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
You represent the pro-death camp,
I represent no one but myself and my position is not pro-death. It is
pro-choice.
It's anti-life and therfore pro-death. I don't understand why you
object to the term so much.
I understand why you use the term. Propaganda.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
and dismissing an unborn baby
Which doe snot exist
If it's been aborted.
It never existed.
as "biowaste"
A standard term for any biological waste product which must be
disposed of under rather strict laws to prevent contamination.
An unborn child is not "biowaste".
Biowaste is disposable biological material that is useless for any
other purpose.
further defines your position. Should stillborn
"biowaste" be incinerated too?
That is up to the local laws and those who make such decisions.
Personally I am going to be incinerated when I am dead.
Except that situation generally uses the term "cremation" but a dead
body would certainly fit the definition of biowaste.
Why not just put it in a bin and burn it with the other "biowaste"?
As I said, that depends on local laws.
Doesn't she have a "choice"?
Not at this point. It would be a medical decision.
The mother can always find a sympathetic pro-death doctor.
This is a most unlikely scenario considering she has had almost nine
months to make such a decision. In almost every case there is an
unexpected medical condition involved.
Are you denying her the choice at that late stage?
No.
Circumstances may
have changed?
No reason or justification is required.
Why should there be an "unexpected medical condition"?
Why should there not be? How about a dead fetus?
What I would or would not have a problem with is irrelevant. I am not
the one who is pregnant.
Evasion noted.
It is not an evasion. It simply is none of my business. I support
pro-choice without limitation, time or otherwise.
So you would have no problem with abortion at 8.5 months if the law
allowed it?
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion - she wants
it.
There is only one reason for a woman not to get an abortion - she
doesn't want it.
Do you see anything in there about time frame? I don't.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Reverend" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Our War |
21 Jul 2006 10:41:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:44:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:29:00 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0f103.2515416@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:05:41 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:35:11 GMT, (The
Reverend) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44c0c87c.28897652@news.onetel.net.uk> wrote:
The father is no longer necessary once pregnancy has occurred. In
fact, he does not even need to be alive.
But the child is just as much his as the mother's.
Before live birth there is no child.
Not if it's been aborted, no.
Irrelevant. There is no child before live birth.
There's an unborn baby before birth. And the closer to birth it
gets, the more it looks like a child.
A fetus, not being a person, is not someone who is involved.
According to your definition of a person.
According to the definition of society as reflected in law.
Never mind law, what about morals?
Irrelevant.
Only to the amoral.
Laws are made by (often corrupt) politicians. You couldn't find a
more amoral bunch if you trawled the sewers!
Agan, irrelevant.
Again, only to the amoral.
They are not necessary and most people would object to having any
surgical pictures shoved in their face.
Do you find images of dead foetuses uncomfortable in advocating your
pro-death position, then?
I do not advocate any pro-death position and I ignore what you call
'images of dead foetuses'.
Your anti-life position is pro-death.
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since you offer abortion as a viable option, you are obviously
anti-life.
I doubt pictures of any surgical procedure
would be well-received by the general public.
Surgery is a messy business.
The first true statement you have made.
And abortion is a messier procedure than most others.
Not really. There is much less invasion done and it is actually a
minor out-patient procedure in most cases. Which is hardly true for
most surgical procedures.
Look at the output, though. Do you recognise the head, the arms and
legs?
Most abortions are done long before there are any heads, arms, or
legs.
And the ones that aren't?
I see you did not answer the origional point but attempted to divert
the conversation.
I see you've totally neglected the psychological effects of abortion
on the mother-to-be (or not-to-be).
That encapsulates the Pro-Death camp's attitude.
There is no pro-death camp, and incineration is the disposal method
for most biowaste.
You represent the pro-death camp,
I represent no one but myself and my position is not pro-death. It is
pro-choice.
It's anti-life and therfore pro-death. I don't understand why you
object to the term so much.
I understand why you use the term. Propaganda.
I understand why you use the euphemism "pro-choice". It sounds more
palatable than "anti-life".
Since I support the choice without interest in what choice is made
that statement is obviously false.
Since you advocate abortion as an option, you are evidently anti-life.
and dismissing an unborn baby
Which doe snot exist
If it's been aborted.
It never existed.
It existed as an unborn baby until it was aborted.
as "biowaste"
A standard term for any biological waste product which must be
disposed of under rather strict laws to prevent contamination.
An unborn child is not "biowaste".
Biowaste is disposable biological material that is useless for any
other purpose.
So an unborn child is useless?
further defines your position. Should stillborn
"biowaste" be incinerated too?
That is up to the local laws and those who make such decisions.
Personally I am going to be incinerated when I am dead.
Except that situation generally uses the term "cremation" but a dead
body would certainly fit the definition of biowaste.
Why not just put it in a bin and burn it with the other "biowaste"?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
