Nightshade wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:11:08 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

If a husband doesn't have the
RIGHT to KNOW when HIS child is being killed, what "reproductive rights"
does ANY man have?

When men get pregnant, and give birth, then they will be entitled to
"reproductive rights".

Sorry; society and the law system don't work that way.
By your reasoning, only people with children in the
public school system should have the right to vote on
public education issues.

Nightshade wrote:

"Bill K."

If a husband doesn't have the
RIGHT to KNOW when HIS child is being killed, what "reproductive rights"
does ANY man have?

When men get pregnant, and give birth, then they will be entitled to
"reproductive rights".

Well at least you're willing to expose your hatred of men.

But as long as the woman is the one who has all the work, and
suffering, then the final say is hers. The male has no rights, and is
entitled to none.

This attitude has GREATLY contributed to the abandonment of children by
their fathers, who often feel that since women have all the "rights", they
should also have all the responsibility. This is not to say that I APPROVE
of this attitude, but it does EXPLAIN it.

By the way, "reproduction" occurs at CONCEPTION.

What's so funny about peace, love and "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov 2005
18:11:08 -0500 iin alt.atheism?

And then there's the phony issue of "reproductive rights". Samuel Alito is
being castigated by these same PHONIES for upholding a Pennsylvania law requiring husbands be
INFORMED when his wife seeks an abortion. If a husband doesn't have the
RIGHT to KNOW when HIS child is being killed, what "reproductive rights"
does ANY man have? If "reproductive rights' apply ONLY to women, they
DON'T EXIST as rights.

How manay men have gotten pregnant in the last, oh, ten years?

Women are not property,

as much as you might bemoan that fact. What
she does with her body is her business.

What's so funny about peace, love and "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov 2005
18:11:08 -0500 iin alt.atheism?

And then there's the phony issue of "reproductive rights". Samuel Alito is
being castigated by these same PHONIES for upholding a Pennsylvania law requiring husbands be
INFORMED when his wife seeks an abortion. If a husband doesn't have the
RIGHT to KNOW when HIS child is being killed, what "reproductive rights"
does ANY man have? If "reproductive rights' apply ONLY to women, they
DON'T EXIST as rights.

How manay men have gotten pregnant in the last, oh, ten years?

Women are not property, as much as you might bemoan that fact. What
she does with her body is her business.

What's so funny about peace, love and "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov 2005
18:11:08 -0500 iin alt.atheism?

And then there's the phony issue of "reproductive rights". Samuel Alito is
being castigated by these same PHONIES for upholding a Pennsylvania law requiring husbands be
INFORMED when his wife seeks an abortion. If a husband doesn't have the
RIGHT to KNOW when HIS child is being killed, what "reproductive rights"
does ANY man have? If "reproductive rights' apply ONLY to women, they
DON'T EXIST as rights.

How manay men have gotten pregnant in the last, oh, ten years?

Women are not property, as much as you might bemoan that fact. What
she does with her body is her business.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

IAAH wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

Bill K. wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Gaia lied:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Parsifal lied:

No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",

...it will have a ring of truth to it.

...be shot down

No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.

So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?

Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.

Nice non-answer.

No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.

I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.

What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.

Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?

Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.

Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!

The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...

Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?

I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.

Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.

Why do you obsess over fetuses, but not poor children with no medical
coverage.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

IAAH wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

Bill K. wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Gaia lied:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Parsifal lied:

No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",

...it will have a ring of truth to it.

...be shot down

No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.

So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?

Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.

Nice non-answer.

No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.

I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.

What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.

Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?

Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.

Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!

The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...

Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?

I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.

Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.

Why do you obsess over fetuses, but not poor children with no medical
coverage.

Why do you obsess over fetuses, but not poor children with no medical
coverage.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

IAAH wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

Bill K. wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

The Chief Instigator lied:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Gaia lied:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:

Parsifal lied:

No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",

...it will have a ring of truth to it.

...be shot down

No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.

So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?

Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.

Nice non-answer.

No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.

I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.

What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.

Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?

Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.

Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!

The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...

Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?

I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.

Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.

Wrong.