--sexkitten-- wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

--sexkitten-- wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:36:35 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:

It's not that it's "bad", -per se-, but if a consequence of
fucking is a human life, then I'm very sorry, but you can't just
breezily extinguish a human life.

And you can't just hand-wave away self-ownership, as you are
blithely trying to.

A woman doesn't own the child.

The fetus doesn't own the woman either.

non sequitur

The fetus, as a developing human being, ought to be seen as a
rights-holder in a just regime.

Its rights do not trump theose of the woman it is inhabiting.

A woman does not have a "right" to convenience and ease.

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <TLbjf.10582$aA2.5763@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <b07qo1hmjbdvhmadqfpjnebv02b4bglt6l@4ax.com>, IAAH
<iaah@dodgeit.com> 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.

Yep - because, "consequence-free fucking" is BAD.

It's not that it's "bad", -per se-, but if a
consequence of fucking is a human life, then I'm very
sorry, but you can't just breezily extinguish a human life.

I think you just like saying "fucking."

I like cutting through the *****.

This isn't about
"love" or "rights" for those who want to be able to
engage in consequence-free fucking; it's about how they
handle the consequences of their choice to engage in
it. But that's all it is: fucking.

I don't object in principle to the pursuit of purely
hedonistic pleasure; I do object to how people don't
want there to be any consequences to it.

That's
childlike. If you bungee-jump and seriously injure
yourself, that's your tough luck.

No one owes you a
fucking thing in compensation or help.

And further, no one breezily
extinguishes a human life (except, perhaps, the "pro-life" crowd.)

Yes, they do. Women in the millions getting abortions
every year clearly see it as little more than getting
some service done on the car or getting their hair done.

The *wish* to have unrestricted, consequence-free
hedonistic pleasures is not a mark of a mature adult in
the first place.

Says who?

Says everyone who has given adult thought to the idea
of moral and intellectual development. Children want
life to be like Disneyland; mature adults realize it
just isn't, and that no good can come from whining
about it.

When the childlike insistence on
having them anyway leads one to adopt murder as a means
of getting them, there's a big moral problem.

<Yawn> It isn't murder

Morally, it's murder.