| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jon Young" |
| Date: |
18 Feb 2004 02:14:24 PM |
| Object: |
Some things I'd like to know. |
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies? Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement? It seems you're only permitted to agree
with their choices.When you try to show these pictures to a confused
,pregnant woman;Expect to be called every name under the sun.By the
way, shouldn't there be a little consistancy?; Why are most of these
same people against the death penalty or the loudest anti-smoking
zealots? If your pro-death, be pro-death.Finally, why can't the
pro-abortion movement engage in meaningful dialogue without resorting
to name calling, profanity, and other vulgarities?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 10:45:51 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote
When exactly did the womens movement change from
a fight for equality in the work force,education,
recreational opportunities,ect.., to an advocacy for the
right to kill babies?
There was not a single woman on the Supreme Court when
the Roe-v-Wade decision was handed down.
Nobody has a right to the body of another person. Nobody.
Not under any circumstances. If a child will die without
a Kidney, bone or blood from a parent, and the parent does
not want to give it to them, under our laws the child will
die.
It's not about "Women." Men have the same right. Even when
we're dead, nobody has a "right" to your body or any part
there of, even if their life depends on it.
There's no reason why a living woman shouldn't have the
exact same rights as a dead man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 10:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
I've never heard of anyone advocating a "right to kill babies". Least of all
the women's movement.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 02:37:32 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
Now that that's clarified, you might re-read your opening sentence and
figure out the answer all by yourself.
Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement?
Again, re-read your rant and then tell me about "venomous diatribes".
It seems you're only permitted to agree with their choices.
You're mistaken. I don't care about your "choice". All I ask is you butt out
of mine. It's frankly none of your business.
When you try to show these pictures to a confused
,pregnant woman;Expect to be called every name under the sun.
Are you one of those protesters accosting women attempting to enter a
clinic, screaming and shoving "pictures" in their faces? If so, you should
be able to answer your own question.
By the
way, shouldn't there be a little consistancy?; Why are most of these
same people against the death penalty or the loudest anti-smoking
zealots?
Are they? I'd like to see your evidence to back up that broad
generalization.
FWIW, I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and have no problems with
courteous smokers.
If your pro-death, be pro-death.Finally, why can't the
pro-abortion movement engage in meaningful dialogue without resorting
to name calling, profanity, and other vulgarities?
Polite, intellectual inquiries are usually met with same. That said, I'm not
sure yours meets that standard.
"The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his
life by altering his attitudes of mind."~William James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 03:12:13 PM |
|
|
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote in message
news:g2QYb.10700$hm4.2405@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
Now that that's clarified, you might re-read your opening sentence and
figure out the answer all by yourself.
Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement?
Again, re-read your rant and then tell me about "venomous diatribes".
the rest of this losers rant snipped<<<<
Silly me. I gave "Jon Young" the benefit of the doubt that his post was _at
least somewhat_ sincere. My bad. Having just checked his PH, it's clear the
guy is a troll, a nut, and a moron. Not to leave out hypocrite and bigot.
Just a sample of his "wisdom":
<If those sand-niggers don't like it,let them take their camel humping
selves back to where ever the hell they were hatched>
<The ugliest, sorriest,women I know of; and would never even think of
impregnating, belong to N(ot)O(ne)W(inner).>
<Which is about the only use a muslim girl has; Take a nice splash of
sperm in the face.>
http://tinyurl.com/3f8ku
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
24 Feb 2004 04:12:41 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:12:13 GMT, "Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com>
wrote:
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote in message
news:g2QYb.10700$hm4.2405@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
Now that that's clarified, you might re-read your opening sentence and
figure out the answer all by yourself.
Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement?
Again, re-read your rant and then tell me about "venomous diatribes".
the rest of this losers rant snipped<<<<
Silly me. I gave "Jon Young" the benefit of the doubt that his post was _at
least somewhat_ sincere. My bad. Having just checked his PH, it's clear the
guy is a troll, a nut, and a moron. Not to leave out hypocrite and bigot.
Just a sample of his "wisdom":
<If those sand-niggers don't like it,let them take their camel humping
selves back to where ever the hell they were hatched>
<The ugliest, sorriest,women I know of; and would never even think of
impregnating, belong to N(ot)O(ne)W(inner).>
<Which is about the only use a muslim girl has; Take a nice splash of
sperm in the face.>
VERY clever!
The proper words would be:
"... Take a nice splash of semen in the face..."
Semen is the liquid. Sperm are the wigglies in the liquid. "Sperm"
would not splash.
John W
http://tinyurl.com/3f8ku
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 03:05:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:37:32 GMT, "Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com>
wrote:
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
According to the State of California they are.
By the
way, shouldn't there be a little consistancy?; Why are most of these
same people against the death penalty or the loudest anti-smoking
zealots?
Are they? I'd like to see your evidence to back up that broad
generalization.
This does seem logical, as it tends to be the more political liberal
groups that support pro-choice in abortion, are against the death
penalty, and look to stamp out smoking (via outright bans or monstrous
taxes).
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 04:43:26 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, a stranger
called by some Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
According to the State of California they are.
The Peterson case? That was a case-specific decision that rested on
testimony that Laci Peterson's stated intent was to have the baby, and
that Connor would have been born healthy. It is not the standard.
I could quote you three other cases in which it was ruled that fetuses
are not people.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
19 Feb 2004 01:20:16 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:uhq730tcjsljih9m3s8064gn83dhs1e2rh@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, a stranger
called by some Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
According to the State of California they are.
The Peterson case? That was a case-specific decision that rested on
testimony that Laci Peterson's stated intent was to have the baby, and
that Connor would have been born healthy. It is not the standard.
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint. What about the health? Would Connor have been less human if he
would had been born with a defect of some kind?
It seems to me that if the case rested on the desire of the mother and/or
the health of the fetus prior to death then it is purely an irrational way
to charge someone. Do you have any reference that states maternal desire
and/or fetal health can determine what charges can be filed?
I could quote you three other cases in which it was ruled that fetuses
are not people.
I'm not interested in other cases since clearly there is inconsistancy in
the way the laws are applied and that is not in dispute. However,you have
now asserted that in this particular case the reasons are maternal desire to
have the child and/or good fetal health. I simply want to see evidence that
this was indeed the reasoning behind the charges filed in this particular
case. To me either an unborn human life has rights or it doesn't, the
circumstances around it should not determine it. For instance, if Mary is 8
months pregnant and wants the child and the fetus is killed then the person
can be charged with murder. If Joan is 8 months pregnant and doesn't want
the child she can have it killed and it wouldn't be murder. It seems kind of
subjective doesn't it?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 02/14/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
19 Feb 2004 11:06:10 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
20 Feb 2004 12:34:03 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c144k1$2t2$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it be
born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is something
known as mutual consent. Rape is illegal in all 50 states as well as most of
the western world. Personally I don't know anyone that doesn't view rape as
a crime, do you? In the case of the killing of a fetus the laws vary, the
only thing that doesn't vary is one of the two lives involved can't give
consent..
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have been
viable outside of the womb, I don't believe it had anything to do with his
mother wanting him or not wanting him. I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
If you have a reference to prove the assertion that it was his mothers
desire that he be born that lead to the charges then please post it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
20 Feb 2004 10:45:48 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
[...]
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
"Consent"
I don't believe it had anything to do with his
mother wanting him or not wanting him.
You believe wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
21 Feb 2004 06:17:06 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c16npr$lkc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it
be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because
this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent. In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
[...]
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
OK. So quote the law that says differently.
"Consent"
I don't believe it had anything to do with his
mother wanting him or not wanting him.
You believe wrong.
You convinced me.....not. Once again, do you have a reference to the law
that says Scott was charged because Laci wanted the baby? Do you think if
Laci had decided to have an abortion the following day that the same charges
wouldn't have been filed? Seriously you need to back it up not just say you
believe wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
21 Feb 2004 08:13:05 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that it
be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only because
this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
OK. So quote the law that says differently.
Section 187 of the California penal code.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
21 Feb 2004 09:25:19 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c1937h$isc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that
it
be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only
because
this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an
objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
Not really I was talking mutual consent and there is no mutual consent in
abortion, there is just predators and prey.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
No disagreement, but what's your point? How was the fetus suppose to protect
himself from harm?
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have
been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
OK. So quote the law that says differently.
Section 187 of the California penal code.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
21 Feb 2004 11:59:38 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires that
it
be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only
because
this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an
objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
Not really I was talking mutual consent and there is no mutual consent in
abortion,
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
No disagreement, but what's your point?
Don't play stupid. I don't have any patience for assholes who pretend
stupidity when their hypocrisy is exposed. Women get to protect
themselves from the harm of pregnancy.
Deal with it.
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have
been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
OK. So quote the law that says differently.
Section 187 of the California penal code.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want to
enslave pregannt women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
22 Feb 2004 08:42:02 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c19gg9$2h3$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Just a question. Is the fetus a baby when the mother desires
that
it
be born
and not a baby when the mother doesn't desire it? I ask only
because
this
sounds rather subjective rather than determining it from an
objective
standpoint.
Is sex "making love" when a woman desires it but "rape" when she
doesn't?
"Sounds rather subjective".
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
Perhaps to you.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
Not really I was talking mutual consent and there is no mutual consent in
abortion,
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion is
not.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
Why because you built a strawman and I saw it for what it was?
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
No disagreement, but what's your point?
Don't play stupid. I don't have any patience for assholes who pretend
stupidity when their hypocrisy is exposed. Women get to protect
themselves from the harm of pregnancy.
Hmm....name calling. I believe I have treated you with respect even though I
disagree with you. It's really a shame that you can't do the same.
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity. Less than 5% of all
abortions are done because the pregnancy is causing a life threatening
condition in the female. Pregnancy in itself is not a disease.
Deal with it.
I think the reason Scott could be charged was the fetus would have
been
viable outside of the womb,
Wrong.
OK. So quote the law that says differently.
Section 187 of the California penal code.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want to
enslave pregannt women.
On the contrary. I am a woman. I am prochoice before conception and prolife
after conception. I am willing to compromise on the abortion issue although
ethically I feel taking a human life is wrong in most instances. Once
viability is reached abortion should only proceed if there is clear and
present danger to the mother. For some reason neither side wants to
compromise and that's simply a shame.
Furthermore I believe that slavery is wrong as is killing another human
life. My point was although something may be legal it doesn't mean it is
ethical.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
22 Feb 2004 01:13:19 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
Perhaps to you.
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
Not really I was talking mutual consent and there is no mutual consent in
abortion,
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion is
not.
So you think that a fetus should be prosecuted?!?
Bizarre.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
Why because you built a strawman and I saw it for what it was?
Because it isn't a strawman. It's an analogy which just happens to
show what a hypocrite you are.
You demand that abject servitude of pregnant women in order to keep
fetuses alive, but you remain free to let children die of hunger.
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
No disagreement, but what's your point?
Don't play stupid. I don't have any patience for assholes who pretend
stupidity when their hypocrisy is exposed. Women get to protect
themselves from the harm of pregnancy.
Hmm....name calling. I believe I have treated you with respect even though I
disagree with you.
I don't have any patience for cowards who play stupid in order to
avoid addressing a point.
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity.
Dying is a natural consequence of being alive.
If forcing women to give birth is justifiable, then why isn't killing
you justifiable? Both are "natural".
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want to
enslave pregnant women.
On the contrary. I am a woman.
Non sequitur.
I am prochoice before conception and prolife
after conception.
No, you're a control freak who doesn't care about human lives.
[...]
Furthermore I believe that slavery is wrong
Even as you argue for the enslavement of pregnant women.
as it is killing another human
life.
So you have no objection if a woman simply removes a fetus from within
her body and hands it to you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
22 Feb 2004 02:26:23 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c1av0e$c2d$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of
abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
Perhaps to you.
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
Never said or implied that Ray. I was talking about mutual consent in regard
to your rape example. There is no mutual consent in abortion, one choses
whether another will live or die.
In an abortion 2 lives are involved yet only one can
give consent.
What stupidity. That's like arguing that unless the rapist consents
to prison it's not really a crime.
Not really I was talking mutual consent and there is no mutual consent
in
abortion,
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion is
not.
So you think that a fetus should be prosecuted?!?
Bizarre.
Good try. I believe that women who kill a viable fetus should be prosecuted
because unlike you whether a human life is worthy of protection isn't
subjective to me.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
Why because you built a strawman and I saw it for what it was?
Because it isn't a strawman. It's an analogy which just happens to
show what a hypocrite you are.
Perhaps in your opinion.
You demand that abject servitude of pregnant women in order to keep
fetuses alive, but you remain free to let children die of hunger.
People do not need consent to protect themselves from harm.
No disagreement, but what's your point?
Don't play stupid. I don't have any patience for assholes who pretend
stupidity when their hypocrisy is exposed. Women get to protect
themselves from the harm of pregnancy.
Hmm....name calling. I believe I have treated you with respect even
though I
disagree with you.
I don't have any patience for cowards who play stupid in order to
avoid addressing a point.
You mean like someone asking if a fetus should be prosecuted for being
killed?
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity.
Dying is a natural consequence of being alive.
Yup. And if I shot you between the eyes it would not be a natural death, it
would be murder.
If forcing women to give birth is justifiable, then why isn't killing
you justifiable? Both are "natural".
Killing others is natural? You must be posting from the abortion group.
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law
made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want to
enslave pregnant women.
On the contrary. I am a woman.
Non sequitur.
Not really. My opinion matters more than yours does because you are a man
and have never been pregnant.
I am prochoice before conception and prolife
after conception.
No, you're a control freak who doesn't care about human lives.
So you say.
[...]
Furthermore I believe that slavery is wrong
Even as you argue for the enslavement of pregnant women.
There is no enslavement of pregnant women, you are irrational.
as it is killing another human
life.
So you have no objection if a woman simply removes a fetus from within
her body and hands it to you?
None whatsoever. I already have 2 adopted children. Are you saying that
killing human lives is the way to handle social problems? Sorry but society
is failing women when their only choice is to abort or to abort.
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
22 Feb 2004 05:46:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:26:23 -0500, "Scout Lady"
<huoauk502@sneakemail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c1bbkh$1hbomm$1@ID-87237.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
Never said or implied that Ray. I was talking about mutual consent in regard
to your rape example. There is no mutual consent in abortion, one choses
whether another will live or die.
There is no 'another' involved. Only one person is involved - the
pregnant woman.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion is
not.
So you think that a fetus should be prosecuted?!?
Bizarre.
Good try. I believe that women who kill a viable fetus should be prosecuted
because unlike you whether a human life is worthy of protection isn't
subjective to me.
Then do you support keeping all women constantly pregnant to insure
every possible individual have a chance to exist? If not, why?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
22 Feb 2004 08:12:22 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of
abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
Perhaps to you.
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
Never said or implied that Ray.
Yes you have. You think that whther she consents to the pain and
injury and expense and risk of childbirth doesn't count for anything.
You want her body used to make a baby.
I was talking about mutual consent in regard
to your rape example.
There isn't any, just as you don't want any "mututal consent" in using
her body to make a baby.
There is no mutual consent in abortion,
Just like in rape.
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion is
not.
So you think that a fetus should be prosecuted?!?
Bizarre.
Good try. I believe that women who kill a viable fetus should be prosecuted
because unlike you whether a human life is worthy of protection isn't
subjective to me.
You don't think human life is worthy of protection.
If you did then you'd be protecting people's lives instead of
demanding the obedience and servitude of pregnant women.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
Why because you built a strawman and I saw it for what it was?
Because it isn't a strawman. It's an analogy which just happens to
show what a hypocrite you are.
Perhaps in your opinion.
You don't care of children die.
You're just a control freak.
You demand that abject servitude of pregnant women in order to keep
fetuses alive, but you remain free to let children die of hunger.
[...]
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity.
Dying is a natural consequence of being alive.
Yup.
Anmd if it's okay to force women to give birth, then it's okay to kill
you, because they're both "natural".
And if I shot you between the eyes it would not be a natural death, it
would be murder.
And forcing a women to give birth is not a natural birth.
If forcing women to give birth is justifiable, then why isn't killing
you justifiable? Both are "natural".
Killing others is natural?
Forcing women to give birth is natural?
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law
made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want to
enslave pregnant women.
On the contrary. I am a woman.
Non sequitur.
Not really.
Really.
My opinion matters more than yours does because you are a man
and have never been pregnant.
Your opinion only matters about YOUR pregnancy.
I am prochoice before conception and prolife
after conception.
No, you're a control freak who doesn't care about human lives.
So you say.
And proven.
[...]
Furthermore I believe that slavery is wrong
Even as you argue for the enslavement of pregnant women.
There is no enslavement of pregnant women, you are irrational.
You demand the forced servitude of pregnant women.
That is slavery.
as it is killing another human
life.
So you have no objection if a woman simply removes a fetus from within
her body and hands it to you?
None whatsoever. I already have 2 adopted children.
Good! Then if you cannot manage to keep alive a 3-month fetus then
YOU can go to prison for murdering the child.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
23 Feb 2004 05:00:38 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c1bni6$eqv$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Certainly provided the partner wants it as well because there
is
something
known as mutual consent.
Ah! "Consent"!
Ya don't suppose that's at all relevant to the subject of
abortion?
Yes mutual consent.
Everybody who's pregnant.
That doesn't address it Ray.
Yes, it does.
Perhaps to you.
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
Never said or implied that Ray.
Yes you have. You think that whther she consents to the pain and
injury and expense and risk of childbirth doesn't count for anything.
You want her body used to make a baby.
Nonsense. A new life has already been made or there would be no need to kill
the fetus.
I was talking about mutual consent in regard
to your rape example.
There isn't any, just as you don't want any "mututal consent" in using
her body to make a baby.
There is no mutual consent in abortion,
Just like in rape.
Just like there's no mutual consent in rape.
My point exactly. However rape is a crime punishable by law, abortion
is
not.
So you think that a fetus should be prosecuted?!?
Bizarre.
Good try. I believe that women who kill a viable fetus should be
prosecuted
because unlike you whether a human life is worthy of protection isn't
subjective to me.
You don't think human life is worthy of protection.
If you did then you'd be protecting people's lives instead of
demanding the obedience and servitude of pregnant women.
At this point there is no need to continue the conversation. You are
incapable of rational discussion and like most extremist prochoicers feel
the need to make things up rather than actually listening to what someone
else has to say.
10,000+ people die of hunger every day worldwide. Did you get
their
consent to spent your money on your toys instead of spend it on
food
for them?
Strawman.
You're a coward and a hypocrite.
Why because you built a strawman and I saw it for what it was?
Because it isn't a strawman. It's an analogy which just happens to
show what a hypocrite you are.
Perhaps in your opinion.
You don't care of children die.
You're just a control freak.
You demand that abject servitude of pregnant women in order to keep
fetuses alive, but you remain free to let children die of hunger.
[...]
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual activity.
Dying is a natural consequence of being alive.
Yup.
Anmd if it's okay to force women to give birth, then it's okay to kill
you, because they're both "natural".
And if I shot you between the eyes it would not be a natural death, it
would be murder.
And forcing a women to give birth is not a natural birth.
If forcing women to give birth is justifiable, then why isn't killing
you justifiable? Both are "natural".
Killing others is natural?
Forcing women to give birth is natural?
I will conceed that point to you. It's sick but then again the law
made
slavery legal at one time so it's not surprising.
It's pretty damn stupid of you to whine about slavery when you want
to
enslave pregnant women.
On the contrary. I am a woman.
Non sequitur.
Not really.
Really.
My opinion matters more than yours does because you are a man
and have never been pregnant.
Your opinion only matters about YOUR pregnancy.
I am prochoice before conception and prolife
after conception.
No, you're a control freak who doesn't care about human lives.
So you say.
And proven.
[...]
Furthermore I believe that slavery is wrong
Even as you argue for the enslavement of pregnant women.
There is no enslavement of pregnant women, you are irrational.
You demand the forced servitude of pregnant women.
That is slavery.
as it is killing another human
life.
So you have no objection if a woman simply removes a fetus from within
her body and hands it to you?
None whatsoever. I already have 2 adopted children.
Good! Then if you cannot manage to keep alive a 3-month fetus then
YOU can go to prison for murdering the child.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 02/18/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
23 Feb 2004 10:48:50 PM |
|
|
Scout Lady <huoauk502@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
You seem to think that the consent of pregnant women doesn't count for
anything. Much like a rapist doesn't consider the consent of women to
be worth anything.
Never said or implied that Ray.
Yes you have. You think that whther she consents to the pain and
injury and expense and risk of childbirth doesn't count for anything.
You want her body used to make a baby.
Nonsense.
Then she is free to refuse the use of her body and end the pregnancy
whenever she wishes.
Good try. I believe that women who kill a viable fetus should be prosecuted
because unlike you whether a human life is worthy of protection isn't
subjective to me.
You don't think human life is worthy of protection.
If you did then you'd be protecting people's lives instead of
demanding the obedience and servitude of pregnant women.
At this point there is no need to continue the conversation.
You're going to run away because you realize that your position is
completely immoral and hypocritical, and you can no longer offer
even a pretence of a credible defense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 05:05:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:43:26 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, a stranger
called by some Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
According to the State of California they are.
The Peterson case? That was a case-specific decision that rested on
testimony that Laci Peterson's stated intent was to have the baby, and
that Connor would have been born healthy. It is not the standard.
The Peterson case was/is the most recent, but there are others, in
different states as well. I think what the states have here (with all
apologies to "Cool Hand Luke") is a "failure to communicate!"
I could quote you three other cases in which it was ruled that fetuses
are not people.
Sure, but we could go back and forth on it. All that shows is that
federalism is alive and well...
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
21 Feb 2004 04:32:37 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:37:32 GMT, "Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com>
wrote:
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
According to the State of California they are.
Washington State, too. When my ex- was pregnant, we had to go to the
local clinic in Seattle. Since it was publicly (federally) funded,
there were certain "rules" to their helping me. Our first visit, i
was asked to leave the examining room. While I was out, the nurse
offered my wife an abortion, and got quite insistent. She refused, and
I was invited back into the exam room. I was then told that she had
been offered / and refused an abortion. I said if she had agreed, I'd
have divorced her. The nurse said I had NOTHING to say about whether
she had the child or not. "You're just the father!" it was explained.
We went back several weeks later, I was told to leave the room, and
AGAIN, they demanded that she have an abortion. She refused, I was
told, and I was AGAIN informed that i had NO say as to whether she
carried the child or not.
In Washington State, if you go to a public health clinic, abortion is
ALWAYS the first option offered.
John W
By the
way, shouldn't there be a little consistancy?; Why are most of these
same people against the death penalty or the loudest anti-smoking
zealots?
Are they? I'd like to see your evidence to back up that broad
generalization.
This does seem logical, as it tends to be the more political liberal
groups that support pro-choice in abortion, are against the death
penalty, and look to stamp out smoking (via outright bans or monstrous
taxes).
Alberich
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Silver Blaze" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
23 Feb 2004 07:08:18 PM |
|
|
In article <o1de30ha1ti3h2n5hsgd0dktodgv9mlnhf@4ax.com>, John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:37:32 GMT, "Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com>
wrote:
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
According to the State of California they are.
Washington State, too. When my ex- was pregnant, we had to go to the
local clinic in Seattle. Since it was publicly (federally) funded,
there were certain "rules" to their helping me. Our first visit, i
was asked to leave the examining room. While I was out, the nurse
offered my wife an abortion, and got quite insistent. She refused, and
I was invited back into the exam room. I was then told that she had
been offered / and refused an abortion. I said if she had agreed, I'd
have divorced her. The nurse said I had NOTHING to say about whether
she had the child or not. "You're just the father!" it was explained.
We went back several weeks later, I was told to leave the room, and
AGAIN, they demanded that she have an abortion. She refused, I was
told, and I was AGAIN informed that i had NO say as to whether she
carried the child or not.
In Washington State, if you go to a public health clinic, abortion is
ALWAYS the first option offered.
John W
Having identified the clinic I have no doubt they could sue you for libel here
I suggest you do not repeat this post which is clearly your interpretation
of events that may or may not have happened in some other sense
Your story would suggest that the hospital had reached some very clear
conclusions about your wifes best interests and her attitudes to her
situation and family
I think they were trying to help her by granting options and freedoms you
sought to deny. I guess American freedom is only acceptable to you when
it serves your personal interests
Which is a very sick way to behave and severely seditious and subversive
But then Fundamentalism is the core of terrorism!
+++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
24 Feb 2004 04:09:50 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:08:18 +1100,
(Silver Blaze) wrote:
In article <o1de30ha1ti3h2n5hsgd0dktodgv9mlnhf@4ax.com>, John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:05:07 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:37:32 GMT, "Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com>
wrote:
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
You're mistaken, Jon. No one is killing "babies".
According to the State of California they are.
Washington State, too. When my ex- was pregnant, we had to go to the
local clinic in Seattle. Since it was publicly (federally) funded,
there were certain "rules" to their helping me. Our first visit, i
was asked to leave the examining room. While I was out, the nurse
offered my wife an abortion, and got quite insistent. She refused, and
I was invited back into the exam room. I was then told that she had
been offered / and refused an abortion. I said if she had agreed, I'd
have divorced her. The nurse said I had NOTHING to say about whether
she had the child or not. "You're just the father!" it was explained.
We went back several weeks later, I was told to leave the room, and
AGAIN, they demanded that she have an abortion. She refused, I was
told, and I was AGAIN informed that i had NO say as to whether she
carried the child or not.
In Washington State, if you go to a public health clinic, abortion is
ALWAYS the first option offered.
John W
Having identified the clinic I have no doubt they could sue you for libel here
One cannot be sued for libel when one tells the truth.
I suggest you do not repeat this post which is clearly your interpretation
of events that may or may not have happened in some other sense
I suggest you shut up when you cannot POSSIBLY know the laws of every
city on the planet, demoniac!
Your story would suggest that the hospital had reached some very clear
conclusions about your wifes best interests and her attitudes to her
situation and family
That is quite hilarious, you sick, twisted, lying, demon. The nurse
practitioner MERELY determined that we were there for a pregnancy
consultation, which took 5 minutes, FIRST VISIT. AFTER I was allowed
back into the room, it was explained that this was state law, and it
was required by federal law for federal matching funds.
You truly are one ignorant piece of work. One can see that any
"education" you slept through didn't take.
I think
No! YOu do not. You psychotic demoniac!
John W
they were trying to help her by granting options and freedoms you
sought to deny. I guess American freedom is only acceptable to you when
it serves your personal interests
Which is a very sick way to behave and severely seditious and subversive
But then Fundamentalism is the core of terrorism!
+++++++++++++
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Silver Blaze" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
27 Feb 2004 06:02:27 AM |
|
|
In article <5j8m3055ug968dkfr9frjl24po2cf7h4do@4ax.com>, jw
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
I suggest you shut up when you cannot POSSIBLY know the laws of every
city on the planet, demoniac!
On the contrary they are almost all available via the internet and I have
top level legal advice when I need it
Which is why I strongly advise you to drop this thread which seems to me
to allege malpractice
Libel that constitutes harassment can be indictable
That means you can go to jail or into a psychiatric hospital indefinitiely
under a compulsory schedule
+++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
24 Feb 2004 06:10:43 AM |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2004 10:09:50 GMT, jw <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is quite hilarious, you sick, twisted, lying, demon. The nurse
practitioner MERELY determined that we were there for a pregnancy
consultation, which took 5 minutes, FIRST VISIT. AFTER I was allowed
back into the room, it was explained that this was state law, and it
was required by federal law for federal matching funds.
You truly are one ignorant piece of work. One can see that any
"education" you slept through didn't take.
LOL!!!
I think
No! YOu do not. You psychotic demoniac!
John W
--
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them
that take refuge in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
24 Feb 2004 08:48:57 AM |
|
|
In article <lofm30hk9i3h20hkkuk2tk6s631g61eqpo@4ax.com>, CB says...
On 24 Feb 2004 10:09:50 GMT, jw <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is quite hilarious, you sick, twisted, lying, demon. The nurse
practitioner MERELY determined that we were there for a pregnancy
consultation, which took 5 minutes, FIRST VISIT. AFTER I was allowed
back into the room, it was explained that this was state law, and it
was required by federal law for federal matching funds.
You truly are one ignorant piece of work. One can see that any
"education" you slept through didn't take.
LOL!!!
I think
No! YOu do not. You psychotic demoniac!
Psychotic demoniac?
Is that anything like a Satanic mechanic? (Yes, I did just watch Rocky Horror
Picture Show).
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skeetor" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 01:46:22 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies?
it was probably a different group that rode on the coat-tails of the
equality movement. I may be wrong. Just like the pedophile groups are happy
to see a change in the definition of marraige, that the homosexuals are
attempting.
Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.
the loudest gear gets the oil.
Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement? It seems you're only permitted to agree
with their choices.When you try to show these pictures to a confused
,pregnant woman;Expect to be called every name under the sun.By the
way, shouldn't there be a little consistancy?; Why are most of these
same people against the death penalty or the loudest anti-smoking
zealots? If your pro-death, be pro-death.
sounds good to me.
Finally, why can't the
pro-abortion movement engage in meaningful dialogue without resorting
to name calling, profanity, and other vulgarities?
Emotionally charged dialog is not conducive to well formed logical
arguments. Since they have no logical argument to "stand on," they must
resort to other avenues of attack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Some things I'd like to know. |
18 Feb 2004 02:30:51 PM |
|
|
"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0402181214.2730c4e5@posting.google.com...
When exactly did the womens movement change from a fight for equality
in the work force,education,recreational opportunities,ect.., to an
advocacy for the right to kill babies? Why is it that the same people
who scream about their rights,want to deny others the right to free
speech?Try protesting outside of one of these baby killing mills, or
have your child try to recite a prayer in school, or even just say the
Pledge of Allegiance before class, and listen to the howls of
protest.Just what is it about those pictures of live babies in a
mothers womb that provokes the most venomous diatribe from the
so-called pro-choice movement? It seems you're only permitted to agree
with their choices.When y | |
