Religions > Atheism > Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mr. Young" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2006 12:45:15 AM |
| Object: |
Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey shows women considering an
abortion want to know information about the risks and dangers associated
with it beforehand. The survey stands in stark contrast to the position
abortion advocates take in opposition to legislation allowing women to know
the potential medical problems abortion presents.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published the results of the survey of 187
women in July.
The survey polled women seeking obstetric and gynecological services at a
Wisconsin women's health clinic and they were asked to give their opinions
about receiving information for elective medical procedures.
In the survey they ranked the kind of information they would want beforehand
and ranked the severity of different kinds of complications form a medical
procedure ranging from a headache to death.
The results showed 95 percent of patients wished to be informed of all the
risks of a procedure and 65 percent would want to know all of the possible
alternatives beforehand -- not just those alternatives a doctor presents.
In the ranking of risks, women placed mental and emotional health
consequences very high on the list -- only slightly below the risk of death
or heart disease.
Dr. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute and one of co-authors of
the study, said the finding may be especially important vis-a-vis abortion
decisions since recent peer-reviewed studies have linked abortion to
increased rates of mental health problems.
Some problems coming from an abortion, according to various studies, include
suicidal behavior, clinical depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse,
and sleep disorders.
"Doctors should anticipate that most women desire information on every
potential risk, even risks that doctors may judge to be less serious or
inconsequentially rare, and they will generally consider this information to
be relevant to their decisions regarding elective procedures," the authors
wrote in the study.
Reardon, in a statement sent to LifeNews.com, said the survey "demonstrates
that women have a high level of interest in being informed of any risk that
is statistically associated with the procedure, including psychological
risks."
While abortion businesses may regard some abortion risks as relatively
minor, Dr. Reardon said women don't regard them that way.
"It also reveals that while some experts may consider some associations,
such as a 10 percent higher risk of breast cancer, as relatively
unimportant, most women would consider it to be very important to their
decision making process," he said.
Reardon also said the study refutes the claim that abortion practitioners
should withhold information about studies identifying abortion risks simply
because he believes that future studies may someday disprove the earlier
findings.
"Our survey shows that most women don't want doctors to screen which
information they are told about risks," he said. "They want to judge the
evidence for themselves."
Reardon concluded that the study showed women "clearly prefer to be fully
informed about all possible complications, even if abortion providers insist
that the causal links between abortion and these statistically linked
complications have yet to be fully proven to the abortionist's
satisfaction."
Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor at Bowling Green State University, was
another one of the authors of the new study.
--
----------
Mr. J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Mr. Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 01:22:40 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1157004143.512191.113820@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Mr. Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt
that you're not even as respectable as pond scum, IBen.
so instead of directing your attention to the issue, you decided to go
for a personal attack against the poster. Can't any of you debate an
issue at all????
You're never going to change people like "Patrick", so just ignore him (
like everyone else does ).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 10:03:28 PM |
|
|
Mr. Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Just like plantation owners really only had the best interests of
their slaves at heart.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 12:57:57 AM |
|
|
Mr. Young a =E9crit :
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
No it isn't. Pro-choice is pro-freedom, ergo pro woman. But since you
hate freedom, women (and gays, Jews, Muslims, democrats, liberals...)
and everything your country stands for, you can't understand that very
simple concept.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
How about refering to more credible sources if you want to be taken
seriously?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 12:59:56 AM |
|
|
Got that quoted-printable back in, huh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
10 Sep 2006 03:47:23 AM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
Mr. Young a =E9crit :
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
No it isn't. Pro-choice is pro-freedom, ergo pro woman. But since you
hate freedom, women (and gays, Jews, Muslims, democrats, liberals...)
and everything your country stands for, you can't understand that very
simple concept.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
How about refering to more credible sources if you want to be taken
seriously?
How about not resorting to broad-brushed bromides if you want to be
taken seriously?
In argument, a person who resorts to universals such as "everything
your country stands for," and who engages in ad hominem attacks (e.g.,
"you can't understand that very simple concept"), reveals herself to be
doubtful of her own cause, hostile, and inarticulate.
Good going, sis.
Lisa Lundgren
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 05:11:34 PM |
|
|
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey shows women considering an
abortion want to know information about the risks and dangers associated
with it beforehand. The survey stands in stark contrast to the position
abortion advocates take
Only person who does not know what abortion advocates are advocating
could make such grossly misinformed statement as 'stark contrast'
Pro-choice advocates for abortiona as medicalprocedure.
Which is saying that should pregnancy be dangerous for woman she should
have a right to chose abortion as viable medical option.
Which is saying: should woman be in no condition that incapacitates her
to support pregnancy she should have a right to chose abortion as
viable medical option.
which is saying: should woman find them selves a victim of rape and
feel she can not emotionally support pregnancy she should have a right
to abortion as one of viable medical options.
Which is saying: should woman be in situation where she can not
emotionally and financially care for the child she should have a right
to abourtion as viable medical option.
All of above treat abortion as a medical option. All medical options
are discussed with professionals whose function is to educate person of
possible risk and benefits of invasive procedure.
in opposition to legislation allowing women to know
the potential medical problems abortion presents.
They would know of potential risks (which are minimal by the way) as
anyone who is undergoing any invasive procedure- it's standard of care.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published the results of the survey of 187
women in July.
The survey polled women seeking obstetric and gynecological services at a
Wisconsin women's health clinic and they were asked to give their opinions
about receiving information for elective medical procedures.
In the survey they ranked the kind of information they would want beforehand
and ranked the severity of different kinds of complications form a medical
procedure ranging from a headache to death.
The results showed 95 percent of patients wished to be informed of all the
risks of a procedure and 65 percent would want to know all of the possible
alternatives beforehand -- not just those alternatives a doctor presents.
In the ranking of risks, women placed mental and emotional health
consequences very high on the list -- only slightly below the risk of death
or heart disease.
Dr. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute and one of co-authors of
the study, said the finding may be especially important vis-a-vis abortion
decisions since recent peer-reviewed studies have linked abortion to
increased rates of mental health problems.
Excuse me? That's just plain crap.
Some problems coming from an abortion, according to various studies, include
suicidal behavior, clinical depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse,
and sleep disorders.
According to whom?
"Doctors should anticipate that most women desire information on every
potential risk, even risks that doctors may judge to be less serious or
inconsequentially rare, and they will generally consider this information to
be relevant to their decisions regarding elective procedures," the authors
wrote in the study.
Reardon, in a statement sent to LifeNews.com, said the survey "demonstrates
that women have a high level of interest in being informed of any risk that
is statistically associated with the procedure, including psychological
risks."
So does any human being. Man seek info about such procedure as well.
While abortion businesses may regard some abortion risks as relatively
minor, Dr. Reardon said women don't regard them that way.
"It also reveals that while some experts may consider some associations,
such as a 10 percent higher risk of breast cancer, as relatively
unimportant, most women would consider it to be very important to their
decision making process," he said.
There is no study that links abortion to breast cancer.
Reardon also said the study refutes the claim that abortion practitioners
should withhold information about studies identifying abortion risks simply
because he believes that future studies may someday disprove the earlier
findings.
This is a piece of emotional crap that has little or nothing to do with
reality and that has everything to do with propaganda.
--
----------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
02 Sep 2006 12:39:04 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey shows women considering an
abortion want to know information about the risks and dangers associated
with it beforehand. The survey stands in stark contrast to the position
abortion advocates take
Only person who does not know what abortion advocates are advocating
could make such grossly misinformed statement as 'stark contrast'
There are no abortion advocates. That's just pro-lie propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
02 Sep 2006 02:35:42 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
suznet@hwcn.org <suznet@hwcn.org> wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey shows women considering an
abortion want to know information about the risks and dangers associated
with it beforehand. The survey stands in stark contrast to the position
abortion advocates take
Only person who does not know what abortion advocates are advocating
could make such grossly misinformed statement as 'stark contrast'
There are no abortion advocates. That's just pro-lie propaganda.
There are advocates, mostly at places (countries) that view abortion as
illegal or unethical....you know, those still stuck in mid-evil age.
See responce 181 from
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 11:56:57 PM |
|
|
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
*****, you sanctimonious prat.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2552.html
Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey shows women considering an
abortion want to know information about the risks and dangers associated
with it beforehand. The survey stands in stark contrast to the position
abortion advocates take in opposition to legislation allowing women to know
the potential medical problems abortion presents.
It so happens that every medical facility worth its salt, including
abortion clinics, already disclose the risks of whatever procedure is
proposed. The insurance companies make 'em do that. And what abortion
rights advocates object to is legislation that requires doctors to lie
to their patients.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 11:24:41 AM |
|
|
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose. So, since they're all liars, nothing they
say can be trusted and they've already lost. "Pro-life" is constantly
used by supporters of war, capital punishment, and weaker standards
regarding gun control.
Wouldn't it be funny if a "pro-lifer" could come up with some logical
explanation why we should take anything they say seriously when their
very label is a lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 12:04:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose.
And so have atheist, so using your logic we can say that atheist are
not "pro-life".
So, since they're all liars,
Atheist lie too. Have you ever lied?
nothing they
say can be trusted and they've already lost.
So nothing can be trusted that atheist say since they have lied as
well, and since you probably told a lie or two, or many for all we
know, nothing you say can be trusted and you've already lost.
See how easy this is to just lump people into a category yet? It's
what you are doing.
"Pro-life" is constantly
used by supporters of war, capital punishment, and weaker standards
regarding gun control.
So there are no people on the "pro-choice" side that support war,
capital punishment, and weaker standards regarding gun control?
How about atheist, are there any that support war, capital punishment,
and/or weaker standards regarding gun control?
Which by the way, we have more than enough gun control laws now.
Wouldn't it be funny if a "pro-lifer" could come up with some logical
explanation why we should take anything they say seriously when their
very label is a lie?
Wouldn't it be funny if you, most likely another atheist, could come up
with some logical explanation as to why you should be taken seriously,
especially since you have probably lied in your life?
By the way, I am a trained marksman in the state of Delaware with the
Department of Corrections. I do own a firearm, I am licensed to carry.
So what's your problem with that, since you brought up gun control.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 08:54:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1157043867.226848.184300@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose.
And so have atheist, so using your logic we can say that atheist are
not "pro-life".
So, since they're all liars,
Atheist lie too. Have you ever lied?
Osprey Defense (If you can claim others do what you are accused of, you
are correct in what you do.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
31 Aug 2006 11:44:22 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose.
And so have atheist, so using your logic we can say that atheist are
not "pro-life".
Yes, but the pro-choice heathens aren't calling themselves "pro-life",
they're calling themselves pro-choice BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FUCKING
TALKING ABOUT. CHOICE. How can somebody this blatantly deceptive be
expected to be taken seriously? You of all people shouldn't be like
this, because by behaving in this manner you might scare someone into
grabbing a coathanger and hopefully ridding the world of someone who
may be something like you.
So, since they're all liars,
Atheist lie too. Have you ever lied?
Everyone has lied, but that doesn't make your entire essence of being a
lie. In context, the point I made had to refer to the labels of
"pro-life" and "pro-choice". If your argument is anti-lie, why stick to
this label? Is that the point, that calling yourself "pro-life" is okay
even though it's deceptive? If not, please respectfully explain your
retarded *****.
nothing they
say can be trusted and they've already lost.
So nothing can be trusted that atheist say since they have lied as
well,
First of all, we all make typos, but realize there is more than one
atheist, so learn to spell. I would never say that all under one label
are the same just as I would never say all Christians suck as much as
you. My point was merely was once you catch a liar in a lie, and they
keep trying to work from that, it's dumbassed to pretend they're being
honest.
By the fucking way, it might be of interest to any sane person that you
haven't even attempted to say you aren't a liar. You've just defended
lying. Is this really the level to which you wanted to sink?
and since you probably told a lie or two, or many for all we
know, nothing you say can be trusted and you've already lost.
About what? Maybe I lied about having a drink and left a beer can on my
chest and passed out. I wouldn't trust my argument for sobriety. We're
evaluating a situation, and so far your argument has been "YOU CAN BE
WRONG TOO"! Of course I can. Just because the other party is CAPABLE of
being wrong does NOT mean that you are correct in any way. Your
argument sounds like you're trying to be the Malcolm X of people who
are wrong and lie. I can't be black, I can be wrong, and I can lie.
Maybe you're a freedom fighter for idiots. But don't you have anything
better to fight for than being wrong? Oh, nevermind.
See how easy this is to just lump people into a category yet? It's
what you are doing.
Even the word "people" is a category, idiot. Nouns are all labels.
"Pro-life" is constantly
used by supporters of war, capital punishment, and weaker standards
regarding gun control.
So there are no people on the "pro-choice" side that support war,
capital punishment, and weaker standards regarding gun control?
Of course there are, I'm just pointing out that the label is dogshit,
doesn't describe the people it's supposed to, and it's basically
propaganda of a caliber that makes Hitler sound like James Joyce. Keep
up, little man.
How about atheist, are there any that support war, capital punishment,
and/or weaker standards regarding gun control?
You're using labels also, by the way. Labels are strictly economy. We
sum ***** up because we're not omnicient, like God, who only sums *****
up and sends groups to hell because he's drunk and lazy.
Which by the way, we have more than enough gun control laws now.
Okay, this is why we have labels. How did I know you felt this way?
Wouldn't it be funny if a "pro-lifer" could come up with some logical
explanation why we should take anything they say seriously when their
very label is a lie?
Wouldn't it be funny if you, most likely another atheist, could come up
with some logical explanation as to why you should be taken seriously,
especially since you have probably lied in your life?
Um, because people who lie have a motive, whether or not they even
realize it. Maybe "atheist" isn't a logical label for me because I
don't have faith in "no God"...I'm a non-faith person...although it's
hard to "not believe" in something so vaguely defined and ambiguous
anyway. I'd have better luck being a Bigfoot atheist, because at least
there's pictures of Bigfoot. Even if your argument succeeded it would
still be "you're wrong too" so why do you even bother? Pathetic.
By the way, I am a trained marksman in the state of Delaware with the
Department of Corrections. I do own a firearm, I am licensed to carry.
So what's your problem with that, since you brought up gun control.
People as stupid as you are dangerous enough without the fucking guns.
Well, more articulate versions of you, I should say. Pro-life. If
somebody lost all faith in humanity because of your ***** and took
fuckers along with them to hell, would you still use this schizo retard
label? Could you look in the mirror and say it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 12:51:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
osprey wrote:
wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose.
And so have atheist, so using your logic we can say that atheist are
not "pro-life".
Yes, but the pro-choice heathens aren't calling themselves "pro-life",
they're calling themselves pro-choice BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FUCKING
TALKING ABOUT. CHOICE.
So what's wrong with someone CHOOSING to oppose abortion???
How can somebody this blatantly deceptive be
expected to be taken seriously? You of all people shouldn't be like
this, because by behaving in this manner you might scare someone into
grabbing a coathanger and hopefully ridding the world of someone who
may be something like you.
Oh my, you are really mature aren't you???
So, since they're all liars,
Atheist lie too. Have you ever lied?
Everyone has lied,
Then you are a liar!
but that doesn't make your entire essence of being a
lie. In context, the point I made had to refer to the labels of
"pro-life" and "pro-choice". If your argument is anti-lie, why stick to
this label? Is that the point, that calling yourself "pro-life" is okay
even though it's deceptive? If not, please respectfully explain your
retarded *****.
I am not sure if you are grown up enough, you are acting very childish
and I don't think you can comprehend my explanation.
nothing they
say can be trusted and they've already lost.
So nothing can be trusted that atheist say since they have lied as
well,
First of all, we all make typos, but realize there is more than one
atheist, so learn to spell.
Oh, you want a spelling war too? No problem, just make sure you are
perfect.
I would never say that all under one label
are the same just as I would never say all Christians suck as much as
you.
And you expect to be taken seriously, acting like you are????
My point was merely was once you catch a liar in a lie, and they
keep trying to work from that, it's dumbassed to pretend they're being
honest.
By the fucking way, it might be of interest to any sane person that you
haven't even attempted to say you aren't a liar.
I would be lying if I said I never lied. Of course I have, we all
have.
You've just defended
lying. Is this really the level to which you wanted to sink?
ROFL, reading this post and your response...and you want to talk about
sinking to a certain level???
Oh puh-lease.
and since you probably told a lie or two, or many for all we
know, nothing you say can be trusted and you've already lost.
About what? Maybe I lied about having a drink and left a beer can on my
chest and passed out. I wouldn't trust my argument for sobriety. We're
evaluating a situation, and so far your argument has been "YOU CAN BE
WRONG TOO"! Of course I can. Just because the other party is CAPABLE of
being wrong does NOT mean that you are correct in any way. Your
argument sounds like you're trying to be the Malcolm X of people who
are wrong and lie. I can't be black, I can be wrong, and I can lie.
Maybe you're a freedom fighter for idiots. But don't you have anything
better to fight for than being wrong? Oh, nevermind.
See how easy this is to just lump people into a category yet? It's
what you are doing.
Even the word "people" is a category, idiot. Nouns are all labels.
You are lumping people, based on what they believe or don't believe,
into a category. It's bigotry to say the very least, not to mention
dishonest.
"Pro-life" is constantly
used by supporters of war, capital punishment, and weaker standards
regarding gun control.
So there are no people on the "pro-choice" side that support war,
capital punishment, and weaker standards regarding gun control?
Of course there are, I'm just pointing out that the label is dogshit,
doesn't describe the people it's supposed to, and it's basically
propaganda of a caliber that makes Hitler sound like James Joyce. Keep
up, little man.
How about atheist, are there any that support war, capital punishment,
and/or weaker standards regarding gun control?
You're using labels also, by the way. Labels are strictly economy. We
sum ***** up because we're not omnicient, like God, who only sums *****
up and sends groups to hell because he's drunk and lazy.
Which by the way, we have more than enough gun control laws now.
Okay, this is why we have labels. How did I know you felt this way?
Wouldn't it be funny if a "pro-lifer" could come up with some logical
explanation why we should take anything they say seriously when their
very label is a lie?
Wouldn't it be funny if you, most likely another atheist, could come up
with some logical explanation as to why you should be taken seriously,
especially since you have probably lied in your life?
Um, because people who lie have a motive, whether or not they even
realize it. Maybe "atheist" isn't a logical label for me because I
don't have faith in "no God"...I'm a non-faith person...although it's
hard to "not believe" in something so vaguely defined and ambiguous
anyway. I'd have better luck being a Bigfoot atheist, because at least
there's pictures of Bigfoot. Even if your argument succeeded it would
still be "you're wrong too" so why do you even bother? Pathetic.
By the way, I am a trained marksman in the state of Delaware with the
Department of Corrections. I do own a firearm, I am licensed to carry.
So what's your problem with that, since you brought up gun control.
People as stupid as you are dangerous enough without the fucking guns.
Well, if you think you can convince the department to strip me of my
job, go for it.
Other than that, I think enough time has been wasted on you. There are
enough children to argue with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 01:27:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1157089906.106131.198850@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
Mr. Young wrote:
Just one more example proving beyond doubt; pro-life is pro-woman.
Firstly, I'd like to reinstate that people who call themselves
"pro-life" obviously have many views that show they aren't. Most of
them are christians, and christianity has killed people already born
unlike the right to choose.
And so have atheist, so using your logic we can say that atheist are
not "pro-life".
Yes, but the pro-choice heathens aren't calling themselves "pro-life",
they're calling themselves pro-choice BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FUCKING
TALKING ABOUT. CHOICE.
So what's wrong with someone CHOOSING to oppose abortion???
Choose it until you are blue in the face - just stop trying to impose
it on others.
How can somebody this blatantly deceptive be
expected to be taken seriously? You of all people shouldn't be like
this, because by behaving in this manner you might scare someone into
grabbing a coathanger and hopefully ridding the world of someone who
may be something like you.
Oh my, you are really mature aren't you???
You are an idiot.
So, since they're all liars,
Atheist lie too. Have you ever lied?
Everyone has lied,
Then you are a liar!
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 10:24:58 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 10:29:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 06:27:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1157124578.243931.123760@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
Osprey's hate comes out.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
But Osprey claims "pro-abortion" does not mean "favor abortion."
Dishonest little spud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 10:48:22 AM |
|
|
No, no, no, no, no. You have not thought this through.
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
His post touched on a good point, I don't think I've ever replied to
him before so we're not exactly in bed together. I don't care. I can't
trust your judgement and frankly I really don't give a ***** if he is
dishonest because the post I replied to was fine.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
At least you're trying to address the issue instead of dodging it,
that's a start.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
So far, so good...
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
OK...
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
Pro-choice couldn't possibly mean that you do, because selections are
contrary to selections and to favor one is to have no favor for the
other.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
Here you go again with this ***** about me liking something some guy on
Usenet said. Even a child rapist is capable of making a good point,
probably not what daycare you should put your kid in, but something
else. I have no idea what the ***** you're talking about and you
shouldn't expect me to. Just because his post carried implications that
I thought really addressed the behavior of some of the posters here
doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's ever said or done.
Damn, this ***** is ridiculous.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
Sometimes you can tell the truth and not be able to back it up because
of a lack of resources. If someone was talking about gravity but
couldn't explain it, it would not be a lie. Ignorance or lack of
resources don't qualify something as a lie. I don't know if David
Barnes is as dishonest as you say he is or not, because your judgement
is not sound in any way. I'd agree with you, too, if you made a point
with any foundation whatsoever. That wouldn't exactly make us best
friends, now would it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 10:56:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
No, no, no, no, no. You have not thought this through.
osprey wrote:
wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
His post touched on a good point, I don't think I've ever replied to
him before so we're not exactly in bed together. I don't care. I can't
trust your judgement and frankly I really don't give a ***** if he is
dishonest because the post I replied to was fine.
You are truly an idiot. You can't trust someones judement from a
messageboard? What fool would trust ANYONES judgement from a
messageboard????
Are you that naive??????
You haven't even gotten a clue yet as to what my position is on many of
the issues, and you want to base your trust on one or two postings???
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
At least you're trying to address the issue instead of dodging it,
that's a start.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
So far, so good...
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
OK...
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
Pro-choice couldn't possibly mean that you do,
And pro-life couldn't possibly mean what you want it to sound like.
So the point I am making is this, we can attack both terms.
You didn't like it when your term got attacked did you?
because selections are
contrary to selections and to favor one is to have no favor for the
other.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
Here you go again with this ***** about me liking something some guy on
Usenet said. Even a child rapist is capable of making a good point,
probably not what daycare you should put your kid in, but something
else. I have no idea what the ***** you're talking about and you
shouldn't expect me to. Just because his post carried implications that
I thought really addressed the behavior of some of the posters here
doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's ever said or done.
Damn, this ***** is ridiculous.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
Sometimes you can tell the truth and not be able to back it up because
of a lack of resources. If someone was talking about gravity but
couldn't explain it, it would not be a lie. Ignorance or lack of
resources don't qualify something as a lie. I don't know if David
Barnes is as dishonest as you say he is or not, because your judgement
is not sound in any way. I'd agree with you, too, if you made a point
with any foundation whatsoever. That wouldn't exactly make us best
friends, now would it?
ROFL, o.k., you go on now. I think I heard enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 06:27:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1157126207.107888.27640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
No, no, no, no, no. You have not thought this through.
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
His post touched on a good point, I don't think I've ever replied to
him before so we're not exactly in bed together. I don't care. I can't
trust your judgement and frankly I really don't give a ***** if he is
dishonest because the post I replied to was fine.
You are truly an idiot. You can't trust someones judement from a
messageboard? What fool would trust ANYONES judgement from a
messageboard????
Are you that naive??????
You haven't even gotten a clue yet as to what my position is on many of
the issues, and you want to base your trust on one or two postings???
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
At least you're trying to address the issue instead of dodging it,
that's a start.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
So far, so good...
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
OK...
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
Pro-choice couldn't possibly mean that you do,
And pro-life couldn't possibly mean what you want it to sound like.
So the point I am making is this, we can attack both terms.
You didn't like it when your term got attacked did you?
because selections are
contrary to selections and to favor one is to have no favor for the
other.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
Here you go again with this ***** about me liking something some guy on
Usenet said. Even a child rapist is capable of making a good point,
probably not what daycare you should put your kid in, but something
else. I have no idea what the ***** you're talking about and you
shouldn't expect me to. Just because his post carried implications that
I thought really addressed the behavior of some of the posters here
doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's ever said or done.
Damn, this ***** is ridiculous.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
Sometimes you can tell the truth and not be able to back it up because
of a lack of resources. If someone was talking about gravity but
couldn't explain it, it would not be a lie. Ignorance or lack of
resources don't qualify something as a lie. I don't know if David
Barnes is as dishonest as you say he is or not, because your judgement
is not sound in any way. I'd agree with you, too, if you made a point
with any foundation whatsoever. That wouldn't exactly make us best
friends, now would it?
ROFL, o.k., you go on now. I think I heard enough.
All roads with Osprey lead to this location.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 09:46:10 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
No, no, no, no, no. You have not thought this through.
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
His post touched on a good point, I don't think I've ever replied to
him before so we're not exactly in bed together. I don't care. I can't
trust your judgement and frankly I really don't give a ***** if he is
dishonest because the post I replied to was fine.
You are truly an idiot. You can't trust someones judement from a
messageboard? What fool would trust ANYONES judgement from a
messageboard????
Are you that naive??????
You were just behaving like I should believe the ***** that you spew on
this board. I said I would not, and this somehow this led your twisted
logic to call me naive. You really are a character.
You haven't even gotten a clue yet as to what my position is on many of
the issues, and you want to base your trust on one or two postings???
Of course I don't, I just know you're an idiot because something tells
me you're actually being serious at least part of the time.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
At least you're trying to address the issue instead of dodging it,
that's a start.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
So far, so good...
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
OK...
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
Pro-choice couldn't possibly mean that you do,
And pro-life couldn't possibly mean what you want it to sound like.
What I want it to sound like...?
So the point I am making is this, we can attack both terms.
You didn't like it when your term got attacked did you?
We can, but one is more misleading because it implies that the other
side is anti-life, people who are often much more peaceful and
anti-violence. Yes, maybe "pro-abortion choice" would be a little more
description, but "pro-choice" in context is very clear. To simplify my
point, the term was chosen very carefully, like "war on terror" when
terror is very ambiguous. We're talking wordplay, propaganda designed
to mislead logic through emotion.
because selections are
contrary to selections and to favor one is to have no favor for the
other.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
Here you go again with this ***** about me liking something some guy on
Usenet said. Even a child rapist is capable of making a good point,
probably not what daycare you should put your kid in, but something
else. I have no idea what the ***** you're talking about and you
shouldn't expect me to. Just because his post carried implications that
I thought really addressed the behavior of some of the posters here
doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's ever said or done.
Damn, this ***** is ridiculous.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
Sometimes you can tell the truth and not be able to back it up because
of a lack of resources. If someone was talking about gravity but
couldn't explain it, it would not be a lie. Ignorance or lack of
resources don't qualify something as a lie. I don't know if David
Barnes is as dishonest as you say he is or not, because your judgement
is not sound in any way. I'd agree with you, too, if you made a point
with any foundation whatsoever. That wouldn't exactly make us best
friends, now would it?
ROFL, o.k., you go on now. I think I heard enough.
From your replies I'm shocked you were paying attention at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 06:27:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1157125702.902262.32390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<"thedeviliam@hotmail.com"> wrote:
No, no, no, no, no. You have not thought this through.
osprey wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
His post touched on a good point, I don't think I've ever replied to
him before so we're not exactly in bed together. I don't care. I can't
trust your judgement and frankly I really don't give a ***** if he is
dishonest because the post I replied to was fine.
Forgive Osprey.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
At least you're trying to address the issue instead of dodging it,
that's a start.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
So far, so good...
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
OK...
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
Pro-choice couldn't possibly mean that you do, because selections are
contrary to selections and to favor one is to have no favor for the
other.
Don't get logical with him.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
Here you go again with this ***** about me liking something some guy on
Usenet said. Even a child rapist is capable of making a good point,
probably not what daycare you should put your kid in, but something
else. I have no idea what the ***** you're talking about and you
shouldn't expect me to. Just because his post carried implications that
I thought really addressed the behavior of some of the posters here
doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's ever said or done.
Damn, this ***** is ridiculous.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
Sometimes you can tell the truth and not be able to back it up because
of a lack of resources. If someone was talking about gravity but
couldn't explain it, it would not be a lie. Ignorance or lack of
resources don't qualify something as a lie. I don't know if David
Barnes is as dishonest as you say he is or not, because your judgement
is not sound in any way. I'd agree with you, too, if you made a point
with any foundation whatsoever. That wouldn't exactly make us best
friends, now would it?
Osprey just hates me to the point that anyone who appears to support
anything I say is "bad."
To get back to what I was saying, when Osprey says, "Have you ever
lied? Yes? Then you are a liar!" he is minimizing something to make
what he does acceptable. (I have long called it the "Osprey Defense -
if you can find someone else that does it, it is acceptable.) Osprey
is a prolific liar. He excuses this by finding small lies of others to
minimize his habitual lies.
Morality, in my mind, is subjective. What you view as unacceptable
killing I may find acceptable. The religious say that THEIR morality
is the "right" morality, and that makes no sense.
I certainly don't support Muslim extremists, but clearly their morality
is different than most Americans. So who is right? Bush seems to feel
like many in the Christian Right. Christian morality, whatever that
is, is correct, and if your morality is contrary then you are "wrong."
This is the danger of religion, and I believe the smartest thing the
U.S. ever did was work hard to keep religion out of the government. It
is one of the reasons the Republicans today are so dangerous to
American society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 04:50:18 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2006 08:29:38 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1157124578.243931.123760@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
It is generally understood that the definition of the word
'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or to terminate it. Any attempt to expand the
usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
because no argument can be sustained within the original and
correct usage.
If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
the word 'bug' no one will assume you are speaking of
termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
transparent and pathetic ploy.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
01 Sep 2006 11:48:19 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 08:29:38 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1157124578.243931.123760@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Ever kill an ant on the sidewalk? Yes? Then the war in Iraq is the
right thing!
I think you've touched on a very good concept: many of these people
we're corresponding with tend to look at morality as much more simple
than it is. They don't like the idea of having to look inside
themselves or make hard decisions for something as minute and
elementary as morality. They'll argue that killing is absolutely wrong,
but the fact that owning a gun is at odds with that is too much for
them. The idea that morality is so dynamic and complex that their way
of looking at it is, in fact, immoral makes their heads want to
explode. This is the type of thinking that produces horribly deceptive
labels like "pro-life" that don't even address what they actually are
talking about.
<snicker>
If you only had a clue as to just how dishonest David Barnes is and
whom you just decided to associate with.
Let's talk about how horribly deceptive labels like "pro-choice" are.
Let's take the term pro
It means to "favor"
Let's take the term choice
It means "selection"
Do you favor all selections on all issues at all times?
It is generally understood that the definition of the word
'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or to terminate it. Any attempt to expand the
usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
because no argument can be sustained within the original and
correct usage.
If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
the word 'bug' no one will assume you are speaking of
termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
transparent and pathetic ploy.
If you want to play this game on "terms", we can. Or you can line up
with a liar and you two can lie together.
You did say you don't like liars right?
Just thought you might want to know before you buddy up with David
Barnes.
He makes claims about people that he can't back up.
That would be "lying", right???
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Except people like yourself and within your ilk are not "pro-freedom".
You were the one who said you think that Parents who teach their
children about God, it should be considered child abuse and should be
outlawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
03 Sep 2006 04:23:31 PM |
|
|
An Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:48:19 -0700, osprey hat geschreibt:
You were the one who said you think that Parents who teach their
children about God, it should be considered child abuse and should be
outlawed.
You were the one who said that you are unconcerned about what your
legislators do except that you are to follow the laws they enact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
03 Sep 2006 05:35:19 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:48:19 -0700, osprey hat geschreibt:
You were the one who said you think that Parents who teach their
children about God, it should be considered child abuse and should be
outlawed.
You were the one who said that you are unconcerned about what your
legislators do except that you are to follow the laws they enact.
I did NOT say that and I find your dishonesty to be pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows |
18 Sep 2006 01:14:54 PM |
|
|
An Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:35:19 -0700, osprey hat geschreibt:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:48:19 -0700, osprey hat geschreibt:
You were the one who said you think that Parents who teach their
children about God, it should be considered child abuse and should be
outlawed.
You were the one who said that you are unconcerned about what your
legislators do except that you are to follow the laws they enact.
I did NOT say that and I find your dishonesty to be pathetic.
These were your exact words:
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
