Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:51:54 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in
news:Anljf.7276$N45.4992@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vTbjf.10585$aA2.8595@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
<snip>
No, that's what we always *have* had: complete
reproductive choice for women. If a woman wants to
have a baby, she has sex with a man and, if the timing
and plumbing are right, she has a baby about 40 weeks
later. If a woman *doesn't* want to have a baby, then
she can ensure that she doesn't become pregnant. There
are various ways of achieving that, beginning with
abstinence.
And abortion.
Yes, the existing legal climate is such that she can
get an abortion on demand. We're working on fixing
that defect.
No, you anti-choice loons are working on making abortion less safe for
pregnant women so that more of them will die.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a
deterrent to sex.
Pregnancy was a deterrent to hedonistic,
live-for-the-moment, "the Chardonnay was soooo yummy!"
sex for millennia. Not a perfect deterrent, as no
deterrent ever is perfect, but a powerful one all the
same. If it proved to be insufficient deterrent, the
result often was marriage and family, domesticity,
stability, community, and so civilization proceeded.
What's the problem?
A number of problems. First, there is nothing wrong with hedonism,
Sure there is. Note, though, that I'm not trying to
outlaw it. What I *do* want to see outlawed is
abortion-on-demand as a means of dealing with a
potential consequence of the pursuit of unbridled
hedonism. I think we'll get there, too.
Not in your lifetime, kook.
and second, you are like most who oppose abortion - you could not
care less about the child.
How could you possibly know that? I certainly care
enough about it not to want its life casually ended
merely because the woman finds it inconvenient to her
"lifestyle".
You anti-choice loons oppose abortion because you want to control other
people's sex and reproductive lives. You couldn't care less about the
"unborn" zefs.
Third, why would you care what a woman does?
Why do you limit it to women?
Do *you* care that Andrea Yates murdered her five
children? Are you suggesting that if a woman murders
her living children, men in society shouldn't care
about it? What the ***** is wrong with you? You're not
making any sense.
You never did, kook.
Forth, there is nothing morally wrong with sex
Nor have I suggested there is. But this isn't just
about "sex", dummy, as I suspect you know.
No, it's about you anti-choice loons trying to control other people's sex
and reproductive lives. And it will never happen as long as America
remains a free and democratic country. Loser.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:47:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Anljf.7276$N45.4992@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vTbjf.10585$aA2.8595@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
No, that's what we always *have* had: complete
reproductive choice for women. If a woman wants to
have a baby, she has sex with a man and, if the timing
and plumbing are right, she has a baby about 40 weeks
later. If a woman *doesn't* want to have a baby, then
she can ensure that she doesn't become pregnant. There
are various ways of achieving that, beginning with
abstinence.
And abortion.
Yes, the existing legal climate is such that she can
get an abortion on demand.
No she can't.
We're working on fixing
that defect.
Yeah - for the last 30 years. Nice going so far!
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Pregnancy was a deterrent to hedonistic,
live-for-the-moment, "the Chardonnay was soooo yummy!"
sex for millennia. Not a perfect deterrent, as no
deterrent ever is perfect, but a powerful one all the
same. If it proved to be insufficient deterrent, the
result often was marriage and family, domesticity,
stability, community, and so civilization proceeded.
What's the problem?
A number of problems. First, there is nothing wrong with hedonism,
Sure there is.
That's it? You say so?
Note, though, that I'm not trying to
outlaw it. What I *do* want to see outlawed is
abortion-on-demand as a means of dealing with a
potential consequence of the pursuit of unbridled
hedonism.
And what I want to know is "why?"
I think we'll get there, too.
Another thirty years?
and second, you are like most who oppose abortion - you could not care
less about the child.
How could you possibly know that? I certainly care
enough about it not to want its life casually ended
merely because the woman finds it inconvenient to her
"lifestyle".
So how many children have you adopted?
Third, why would you care what a woman does?
Why do you limit it to women?
When a man gets pregnant, I will be the first in line demanding he be
allowed to get an abortion if he likes. (In fact, THAT abortion I
might encourage!)
Do *you* care that Andrea Yates murdered her five
children?
Sure - and perhaps it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been so
pressured to have them when she clearly couldn't care for them.
Are you suggesting that if a woman murders
her living children, men in society shouldn't care
about it?
Not at all. Does ***** like this work with others?
What the ***** is wrong with you? You're not
making any sense.
You go off on a tangent and "I" am not making sense? We were speaking
of abortion.
Forth, there is nothing morally wrong with sex
Nor have I suggested there is. But this isn't just
about "sex", dummy, as I suspect you know.
Oh - I know. It is about YOU wanting to control sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:23:03 AM |
|
|
little davie barnes lied:
In article <Anljf.7276$N45.4992@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vTbjf.10585$aA2.8595@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
No, that's what we always *have* had: complete
reproductive choice for women. If a woman wants to
have a baby, she has sex with a man and, if the timing
and plumbing are right, she has a baby about 40 weeks
later. If a woman *doesn't* want to have a baby, then
she can ensure that she doesn't become pregnant. There
are various ways of achieving that, beginning with
abstinence.
And abortion.
Yes, the existing legal climate is such that she can
get an abortion on demand.
No she can't.
Yes, she can. Stop lying, davie.
We're working on fixing
that defect.
Yeah - for the last 30 years. Nice going so far!
There has been some progress. Look for more of it soon.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Pregnancy was a deterrent to hedonistic,
live-for-the-moment, "the Chardonnay was soooo yummy!"
sex for millennia. Not a perfect deterrent, as no
deterrent ever is perfect, but a powerful one all the
same. If it proved to be insufficient deterrent, the
result often was marriage and family, domesticity,
stability, community, and so civilization proceeded.
What's the problem?
A number of problems. First, there is nothing wrong with hedonism,
Sure there is.
That's it? You say so?
No, I just didn't bother to go into detail. I could,
and at length.
Note, though, that I'm not trying to
outlaw it. What I *do* want to see outlawed is
abortion-on-demand as a means of dealing with a
potential consequence of the pursuit of unbridled
hedonism.
And what I want to know is "why?"
Because it violates the rights of human beings.
I think we'll get there, too.
Another thirty years?
No, substantially less.
and second, you are like most who oppose abortion - you could not care
less about the child.
How could you possibly know that? I certainly care
enough about it not to want its life casually ended
merely because the woman finds it inconvenient to her
"lifestyle".
So how many children have you adopted?
What bearing does that have? This sounds suspiciously
similar to the "chickenhawk" argument cynically thrown
at some supporters of the war in Iraq and elsewhere (I
don't support the war in Iraq, in case you're curious;
I do support the invasion of Afghanistan.) The
"chickenhawk" accusation is based on logical fallacy,
and so is your implied argument that because I haven't
adopted children, I can't care about the welfare of
potential adoptees.
Third, why would you care what a woman does?
Why do you limit it to women?
When a man gets pregnant, I will be the first in line demanding he be
allowed to get an abortion if he likes. (In fact, THAT abortion I
might encourage!)
This gets back to the wrong belief that there are
special rights allocated on the basis of sex, sexual
orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.
Again: why did YOU limit it to women? The fact is,
davie, I care if *anyone* commits a morally
reprehensible act.
Do *you* care that Andrea Yates murdered her five
children?
Sure - and perhaps it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been so
pressured to have them when she clearly couldn't care for them.
Stop making excuses for a murderer.
Are you suggesting that if a woman murders
her living children, men in society shouldn't care
about it?
Not at all.
Then why did you pose your fuckwitted question? I
guess it was pure cynicism and dishonesty, right?
What the ***** is wrong with you? You're not
making any sense.
Forth, there is nothing morally wrong with sex
Nor have I suggested there is. But this isn't just
about "sex", dummy, as I suspect you know.
Oh - I know. It is about YOU wanting to control sex.
No, not at all. I have no wish to control sexual
activity, nor have I expressed anything that could
remotely be construed as such a wish. You've just
trotted out another shitty strawman, much like the
strawman about forbidding abortion being some form of
"punishment".
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 10:16:13 AM |
|
|
In article <rxxjf.7600$N45.4707@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
little davie barnes lied:
In article <Anljf.7276$N45.4992@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vTbjf.10585$aA2.8595@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
No, that's what we always *have* had: complete
reproductive choice for women. If a woman wants to
have a baby, she has sex with a man and, if the timing
and plumbing are right, she has a baby about 40 weeks
later. If a woman *doesn't* want to have a baby, then
she can ensure that she doesn't become pregnant. There
are various ways of achieving that, beginning with
abstinence.
And abortion.
Yes, the existing legal climate is such that she can
get an abortion on demand.
No she can't.
Yes, she can. Stop lying, davie.
You know, you "pro-life" idiots are all the same. The truth doesn't
fit so you modify the truth.
We're working on fixing
that defect.
Yeah - for the last 30 years. Nice going so far!
There has been some progress. Look for more of it soon.
There has been no progress.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Pregnancy was a deterrent to hedonistic,
live-for-the-moment, "the Chardonnay was soooo yummy!"
sex for millennia. Not a perfect deterrent, as no
deterrent ever is perfect, but a powerful one all the
same. If it proved to be insufficient deterrent, the
result often was marriage and family, domesticity,
stability, community, and so civilization proceeded.
What's the problem?
A number of problems. First, there is nothing wrong with hedonism,
Sure there is.
That's it? You say so?
No, I just didn't bother to go into detail. I could,
and at length.
YEAH!! You "could" but you just prefer not to. LOL!
Note, though, that I'm not trying to
outlaw it. What I *do* want to see outlawed is
abortion-on-demand as a means of dealing with a
potential consequence of the pursuit of unbridled
hedonism.
And what I want to know is "why?"
Because it violates the rights of human beings.
Prove that. Because the United States Supreme Court says otherwise.
I think we'll get there, too.
Another thirty years?
No, substantially less.
That is what you thought 29 years ago.
and second, you are like most who oppose abortion - you could not care
less about the child.
How could you possibly know that? I certainly care
enough about it not to want its life casually ended
merely because the woman finds it inconvenient to her
"lifestyle".
So how many children have you adopted?
What bearing does that have?
So we should assume "none."
This sounds suspiciously
similar to the "chickenhawk" argument cynically thrown
at some supporters of the war in Iraq and elsewhere (I
don't support the war in Iraq, in case you're curious;
I do support the invasion of Afghanistan.) The
"chickenhawk" accusation is based on logical fallacy,
and so is your implied argument that because I haven't
adopted children, I can't care about the welfare of
potential adoptees.
No - it is based on the apparent FACT that you claim adoption is a
solution, but want others to implement it. You are just your typical
hate filled ***** who wants to force a woman to have a child. You
are IRRESPONSIBLE. You refuse to take any responsibility for your
actions.
Third, why would you care what a woman does?
Why do you limit it to women?
When a man gets pregnant, I will be the first in line demanding he be
allowed to get an abortion if he likes. (In fact, THAT abortion I
might encourage!)
This gets back to the wrong belief that there are
special rights allocated on the basis of sex, sexual
orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.
What special right is that? You whacks on the Right think giving
someone the same rights as you means they are getting "special" rights.
Again: why did YOU limit it to women? The fact is,
davie, I care if *anyone* commits a morally
reprehensible act.
I don't limit it to women.
Do *you* care that Andrea Yates murdered her five
children?
Sure - and perhaps it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been so
pressured to have them when she clearly couldn't care for them.
Stop making excuses for a murderer.
If it were murder people would be prosecuted and go to jail for it.
Are you suggesting that if a woman murders
her living children, men in society shouldn't care
about it?
Not at all.
Then why did you pose your fuckwitted question? I
guess it was pure cynicism and dishonesty, right?
I guess I have to make it simpler for you. A fetus isn't a child.
What the ***** is wrong with you? You're not
making any sense.
Forth, there is nothing morally wrong with sex
Nor have I suggested there is. But this isn't just
about "sex", dummy, as I suspect you know.
Oh - I know. It is about YOU wanting to control sex.
No, not at all. I have no wish to control sexual
activity, nor have I expressed anything that could
remotely be construed as such a wish. You've just
trotted out another shitty strawman, much like the
strawman about forbidding abortion being some form of
"punishment".
Nah. You want to control women and sex. Your complaint wasn't that
women didn't use birth control - your complaint was that women "*****"
as you put it in your trailer trash way. You are nothing more than
your typical Right Wing hate monger.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 09:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Yeah, it's the old 'pregnancy as punishment' mentality again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:12:34 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Yeah, it's the old 'pregnancy as punishment' mentality again.
No, not at all. It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions. What's the
difference between forbidding abortion and forbidding
infanticide? If a woman has a baby, takes it home, and
at the end of the first week concludes, "***** it! This
baby cramps my 'lifestyle' too much!", should she be
permitted to kill the child? If we as a society say
"no", in what sense is she being "punished" by not
being permitted to kill the child?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 12:33:16 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:12:34 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
No, not at all. It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
How in the world is an abortion an attempt to "escape the
consequences" of an action?
What's the
difference between forbidding abortion and forbidding
infanticide?
The difference between excising a tumor and killing someone.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 02:02:37 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:12:34 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
No, not at all. It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
How in the world is an abortion an attempt to "escape the
consequences" of an action?
Come on, donnie. Stop playing more stupid than you
already are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 08:43:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:02:37 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:12:34 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
No, not at all. It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
How in the world is an abortion an attempt to "escape the
consequences" of an action?
Come on, donnie.
Come on, child. Answer the question. Stop dodging.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:59:03 AM |
|
|
In article <Chcjf.10595$aA2.1247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Yeah, it's the old 'pregnancy as punishment' mentality again.
No, not at all.
You are contradicting yourself. You said child bearing is a deterrent.
It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
What "consequences" are those?
What's the
difference between forbidding abortion and forbidding
infanticide?
In the former it is a fetus, in the latter a person.
If a woman has a baby, takes it home, and
at the end of the first week concludes, "***** it!
<See - You just like to say "*****.">
This
baby cramps my 'lifestyle' too much!", should she be
permitted to kill the child?
No - And your desire to make such a stupid claim means the reality of
the situation today won't fit your judgmental and controlling attitude.
If we as a society say
"no", in what sense is she being "punished" by not
being permitted to kill the child?
You tell us - you said abortion needs to be deterred by forcing
pregnant women to give birth against their will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:45:18 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Chcjf.10595$aA2.1247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Yeah, it's the old 'pregnancy as punishment' mentality again.
No, not at all.
You are contradicting yourself. You said child bearing is a deterrent.
But that doesn't equate to "punishment". My fear of
electrocution is a deterrent to me leaning my aluminum
ladder against the electric lines leading to my house;
but if I somehow do get electrocuted, that isn't
"punishment".
What a stupid person you are.
It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
What "consequences" are those?
In the case of fucking, the consequence is often enough
a new developing human being.
What's the
difference between forbidding abortion and forbidding
infanticide?
In the former it is a fetus, in the latter a person.
Begging the question, more formally known as petitio
principii.
If a woman has a baby, takes it home, and
at the end of the first week concludes, "***** it!
<See - You just like to say "*****.">
We are talking about fucking.
This baby cramps my 'lifestyle' too much!", should she be
permitted to kill the child?
No
Then you concede. Thanks for your candor.
If we as a society say
"no", in what sense is she being "punished" by not
being permitted to kill the child?
You tell us
I asked you. You seem to think pregnancy, which
generally leads to childbirth, is being conceived of as
"punishment" for fucking. The real issue is the BABY,
not the pregnancy. Pregnancy is simply the condition
of a woman carrying a developing baby inside her. So,
it's the *baby* that you are claiming, fatuously, to be
seen as some kind of just "punishment" for the fucking.
So, YOU tell us: in what sense is a woman being
"punished" by not being allowed to kill her baby?
Answer the question; stop dodging and answer the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:47:43 PM |
|
|
In article <Oyljf.7284$N45.6939@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Chcjf.10595$aA2.1247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
No, I'm right. "reproductive freedom" is a risible
dodge. They think it sounds more dignified than
"consequence-free fucking", but consequence-free
fucking is all they're after. Women already *have*
full reproductive freedom without even thinking about
abortion. Any woman or even girl who wants to get
pregnant may do so without fear of any legal
consequence; underage girls who get pregnant *never*
face any legal consequence for it at all. And the
state does not, ever, forcibly impregnate women against
their will. The choice to get pregnant is fully under
the woman's control.
Yeah - we can't have that.
Here you have it! The "pro-life" view getting pregnant as a deterrent
to sex.
Yeah, it's the old 'pregnancy as punishment' mentality again.
No, not at all.
You are contradicting yourself. You said child bearing is a deterrent.
But that doesn't equate to "punishment". My fear of
electrocution is a deterrent to me leaning my aluminum
ladder against the electric lines leading to my house;
but if I somehow do get electrocuted, that isn't
"punishment".
Except you used it in the context of "punishment."
What a stupid person you are.
(Ignoring your childish remarks...)
It's simply establishing a society in
which people cannot casually destroy human life to
escape the consequences of their actions.
What "consequences" are those?
In the case of fucking, the consequence is often enough
a new developing human being.
So lets say a woman has sex. And she is so "irresponsible" she doesn't
use birth control. And she gets pregnant. Now what? Stop bitching
about what they currently do and tell us what they SHOULD do, according
to you.
What's the
difference between forbidding abortion and forbidding
infanticide?
In the former it is a fetus, in the latter a person.
Begging the question, more formally known as petitio
principii.
You are wrong. This issue has been rehashed to death out here.
If a woman has a baby, takes it home, and
at the end of the first week concludes, "***** it!
<See - You just like to say "*****.">
We are talking about fucking.
<See - You just like to say "*****.">
This baby cramps my 'lifestyle' too much!", should she be
permitted to kill the child?
No
Then you concede. Thanks for your candor.
I concede that if a born alive baby cramps the "lifestyle" of a woman
she shouldn't be permitted to kill her baby and you figure I agree with
you? No wonder you are so ignorant on this.
If we as a society say
"no", in what sense is she being "punished" by not
being permitted to kill the child?
You tell us
I asked you. You seem to think pregnancy, which
generally leads to childbirth, is being conceived of as
"punishment" for fucking.
Not at all. I think YOU think that.
The real issue is the BABY,
not the pregnancy.
This is the FIRST time you have mention that.
Pregnancy is simply the condition
of a woman carrying a developing baby inside her. So,
it's the *baby* that you are claiming, fatuously, to be
seen as some kind of just "punishment" for the fucking.
No - that was YOUR idea, remember?
So, YOU tell us: in what sense is a woman being
"punished" by not being allowed to kill her baby?
Answer the question; stop dodging and answer the question.
YOU were the one who felt abortion takes away the "consequences" of sex
and encourages hedonism. YOU tell us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:00:20 AM |
|
|
davie barnes whined:
In article <Oyljf.7284$N45.6939@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Chcjf.10595$aA2.1247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:34 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <Ow1jf.7223$wf.1437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
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.
| | | | | | |
