Religions > Bible > Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns....
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Omphalos " |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2003 09:56:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know any
European who wants their country to become like the United States of
America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond their mental
capacity.
.
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
26 Jul 2003 08:16:33 PM |
|
|
Omphalos <()> wrote in message news:<d1ff118f69af90fc160e6f63b777b746@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know any
European who wants their country to become like the United States of
America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond their mental
capacity.
You would be surprised. Not only are Europeans religious, they have
enough sense to live with state and church separated, in a way you
cannot, since you are anti-choice. European Christians I have met have
been compassionate, tolerant people who had faith in God and were
happy about it. American Christians I have met have been sexist,
oppressive people who use God as a motivation for all kinds of things
and who generally preach fire and brimstone. I have respect for
European Christians; I expect to be treated badly by American
Christians. If you ask me, European Christians are more true to the
teachings of Christ and always remember that God is love. Europeans
know how to get along with others, Americans are much more experienced
at making others do as they say. I like getting along. It's more
productive in the long run. European Christians inspire respect.
American Christians only inspire disgust, even in lots of other
Americans. European Christians don't get bashed or disliked nearly as
much - that's because they know how to behave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
27 Jul 2003 06:01:38 PM |
|
|
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
6ad026a95128c62145cd86c37f2c1f67@free.teranews.com...
On Sat 26 Jul 2003 09:16:33p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307261716.5177ab0c@posting.google.com:
Omphalos <()> wrote in message
news:<d1ff118f69af90fc160e6f63b777b746@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a ,crit dans le
message
de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know
any
European who wants their country to become like the United
States of
America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond
their
mental capacity.
You would be surprised. Not only are Europeans religious, they
have
enough sense to live with state and church separated, in a way you
cannot, since you are anti-choice.
Anti-choice? We are able to make many choices. Which particular one
are you
referring to?
Well what about abortion for a start?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dingleberry" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 11:42:45 AM |
|
|
(Laira) wrote in message news:<ecfa0d0f.0307261716.5177ab0c@posting.google.com>...
Omphalos <()> wrote in message news:<d1ff118f69af90fc160e6f63b777b746@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know any
European who wants their country to become like the United States of
America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond their mental
capacity.
You would be surprised. Not only are Europeans religious, they have
enough sense to live with state and church separated, in a way you
cannot, since you are anti-choice.
Europeans are not religious in the least.
European Christians I have met have
been compassionate, tolerant people who had faith in God and were
happy about it. American Christians I have met have been sexist,
oppressive people who use God as a motivation for all kinds of things
and who generally preach fire and brimstone. I have respect for
European Christians;
There are Christians in Europe?
I expect to be treated badly by American
Christians.
You expect too much.
If you ask me, European Christians are more true to the
teachings of Christ and always remember that God is love. Europeans
know how to get along with others, Americans are much more experienced
at making others do as they say. I like getting along. It's more
productive in the long run. European Christians inspire respect.
American Christians only inspire disgust, even in lots of other
Americans. European Christians don't get bashed or disliked nearly as
much - that's because they know how to behave.
More like they have abandoned everything that makes someone a Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 02:45:48 PM |
|
|
Dingleberry wrote:
If you ask me, European Christians are more true to the
teachings of Christ and always remember that God is love. Europeans
know how to get along with others, Americans are much more experienced
at making others do as they say. I like getting along. It's more
productive in the long run. European Christians inspire respect.
American Christians only inspire disgust, even in lots of other
Americans. European Christians don't get bashed or disliked nearly as
much - that's because they know how to behave.
More like they have abandoned everything that makes someone a Christian.
And they don't assume they have the absolute definite truth on (amongst
other things) what makes someone a "Christian".
It is not true btw that American Christians only inspire disgust. They also
inspire hysterical laughter. Read some of the creationist stuff - C-Decay
and "The incredible discovery of Noah's Ark".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
27 Jul 2003 07:49:56 PM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<6ad026a95128c62145cd86c37f2c1f67@free.teranews.com>...
On Sat 26 Jul 2003 09:16:33p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307261716.5177ab0c@posting.google.com:
Omphalos <()> wrote in message
news:<d1ff118f69af90fc160e6f63b777b746@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a ?crit dans le message
de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know any
European who wants their country to become like the United States of
America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond their
mental capacity.
You would be surprised. Not only are Europeans religious, they have
enough sense to live with state and church separated, in a way you
cannot, since you are anti-choice.
Anti-choice? We are able to make many choices. Which particular one are you
referring to?
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common usage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
27 Jul 2003 08:47:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun 27 Jul 2003 08:49:56p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307271649.1433f7bb@posting.google.com:
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<6ad026a95128c62145cd86c37f2c1f67@free.teranews.com>...
On Sat 26 Jul 2003 09:16:33p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307261716.5177ab0c@posting.google.com:
Omphalos <()> wrote in message
news:<d1ff118f69af90fc160e6f63b777b746@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 23 Jul 2003 09:08:28p, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bfndc1$gg8eu$48@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> a ?crit dans le
message de news: 377dfa5a.0307230907.4f273740@posting.google.com...
The world may hate us but they all want to be us.
No that is a myth that only US citizens believe. I don't know any
European who wants their country to become like the United States
of America, god forbid.
I didn't think that Eurotrash believed in God. Must be beyond their
mental capacity.
You would be surprised. Not only are Europeans religious, they have
enough sense to live with state and church separated, in a way you
cannot, since you are anti-choice.
Anti-choice? We are able to make many choices. Which particular one are
you referring to?
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common usage.
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling themselves, are
too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSBen" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
28 Jul 2003 04:50:48 PM |
|
|
"John of Aix" <j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message news:<bg39rl$jvu7r$18@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
68ebafc90dc0e2c004c8f2af733426c5@free.teranews.com...
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling
themselves, are
too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
It is not until it is viable which is at least six months and usually
more. Abortions are allowed in France up to 10 (or perhaps 12) weeks
unless there is grave medical danger for the pregnant woman. At that
stage the embryo is just a collection of barely differentiated cells.
It's only a blastocell (ball of cells) for a week or two.
At 8-10 weeks, an embryo already has a distinguishable head, has a
beating heart, arm and leg buds, and already looks different from most
other mammal embryos at a similar stage of development (although it
does have a tail bud). It won't survive outside the womb, but neither
would most people survive underwater, in space, or in conditions
similar to those of our own digestive tract (which means its a good
idea not to be swallowed by another creature).
By 12 weeks, the embryo already looks like a really tiny baby, mostly
developed in some respects (although lungs aren't really there yet,
skin is still porous to water, some organs don't work, etc). The big
difference - it is small enough to fit on a penny.
Most of the last 5 months of pregnancy involves the baby growing
larger - most of the organ development occurs early on.
Also, that embryo has potential - it could be the next Einstein or
Hitler, we just don't know. But how would life be different if Steven
Hawking had been aborted? Martin Luther King, Jr? Winston Churchill?
How many potential Hawkings, Kings, or Churchills have been killed in
the US since 1972, or in Europe from various dates earlier or later?
We do know that since 1972, there have been 42 million abortions in
the US. More than 90% of them are not done in cases of rape, incest,
life of mother in jeoprady, or if baby cannot survive to term. They
are done for convenience. Of course, there are those who are very poor
and could not afford another mouth to feed, even in the US, but why
not put the child up for adoption? Or send to a foster home? Or for
those who aren't very poor, work an extra job, cut down on
nonessentials to support the infant, or for teens put the kid under a
grandparent's or uncle/aunt's care?
Interestingly, some not-quite-radical feminist proposed a "pro-choice"
for men idea in which men forswear their responsibility to the infant
in a way aborting or sending away the infant would for a woman. I
don't like that idea, either. I think men should "be a man" and help
the woman he got pregnant (unfortunately, for teen-agers, 80% don't.),
if not downright marrying her. Indeed, if he does that, they will more
likely be able to raise the child, either through parent support or
through one of them getting a job.
-DanielSBen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
02 Aug 2003 02:46:37 AM |
|
|
(DanielSBen) wrote in message news:<1105fd88.0307281350.598afe88@posting.google.com>...
"John of Aix" <j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message news:<bg39rl$jvu7r$18@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
68ebafc90dc0e2c004c8f2af733426c5@free.teranews.com...
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling
themselves, are
too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
It is not until it is viable which is at least six months and usually
more. Abortions are allowed in France up to 10 (or perhaps 12) weeks
unless there is grave medical danger for the pregnant woman. At that
stage the embryo is just a collection of barely differentiated cells.
It's only a blastocell (ball of cells) for a week or two.
At 8-10 weeks, an embryo already has a distinguishable head, has a
beating heart, arm and leg buds, and already looks different from most
other mammal embryos at a similar stage of development (although it
does have a tail bud). It won't survive outside the womb, but neither
would most people survive underwater, in space, or in conditions
similar to those of our own digestive tract (which means its a good
idea not to be swallowed by another creature).
By 12 weeks, the embryo already looks like a really tiny baby, mostly
developed in some respects (although lungs aren't really there yet,
skin is still porous to water, some organs don't work, etc). The big
difference - it is small enough to fit on a penny.
So the fact that the fetus only LOOKs like a baby, but actually
doesn't have the physical properties of one, isn't important? Babies
don't have permeable skin, but they DO have lungs, brains, and nervous
systems. It's NOT a miniature baby. If it were, what's it waiting so
long in the uterus for?
Most of the last 5 months of pregnancy involves the baby growing
larger - most of the organ development occurs early on.
The nervous system and the brain aren't finished until the final
stages. Again, it's NOT just growing bigger. In fact, bigger babies
mean bigger risk for the mother - not a good evolutionary strategy.
Also, that embryo has potential - it could be the next Einstein or
Hitler, we just don't know. But how would life be different if Steven
Hawking had been aborted? Martin Luther King, Jr? Winston Churchill?
How many potential Hawkings, Kings, or Churchills have been killed in
the US since 1972, or in Europe from various dates earlier or later?
How many combinations of sperm and eggs could have potentially
resulted in the next incarnation of Jesus? If you insist on slitting
your wrists with Occam's razor, at least do it for something like
"What if there are parallel, unobservable universes?"
We do know that since 1972, there have been 42 million abortions in
the US. More than 90% of them are not done in cases of rape, incest,
life of mother in jeoprady, or if baby cannot survive to term. They
are done for convenience. Of course, there are those who are very poor
and could not afford another mouth to feed, even in the US, but why
not put the child up for adoption? Or send to a foster home? Or for
those who aren't very poor, work an extra job, cut down on
nonessentials to support the infant, or for teens put the kid under a
grandparent's or uncle/aunt's care?
Yeah, that's real responsible. Make it someone else's problem.
Interestingly, some not-quite-radical feminist proposed a "pro-choice"
for men idea in which men forswear their responsibility to the infant
in a way aborting or sending away the infant would for a woman. I
don't like that idea, either. I think men should "be a man" and help
the woman he got pregnant (unfortunately, for teen-agers, 80% don't.),
if not downright marrying her. Indeed, if he does that, they will more
likely be able to raise the child, either through parent support or
through one of them getting a job.
I don't know about you, but I want to really mean it if I say "I do"
one day. Marriage has nothing to do with sex, pregnancy, or
childbearing. In fact, those four things are very separate. Which, if
any, you choose to do is completely up to you. And where is your
problem with equality? And why do you want to punish young people who
make mistakes for the rest of their lives?
-DanielSBen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
31 Jul 2003 12:31:01 AM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
Yes, pro-abortionists,
We know how much you have to play word games in order to support your
position.
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> in <4f3c01fdb1ecc52d7e77c7887c2c3db9@free.teranews.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
29 Jul 2003 02:38:07 PM |
|
|
Omphalos wrote:
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common usage.
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling themselves, are
too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
They aren't "pro-abortion" - they are pro the choice to have an abortion.
You are attempting to smear them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
29 Jul 2003 09:36:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue 29 Jul 2003 03:38:07p, Paul Robson
<autismuk@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:bg6id5$nnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
Omphalos wrote:
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common usage.
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling themselves,
are too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
They aren't "pro-abortion" - they are pro the choice to have an
abortion. You are attempting to smear them.
You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because
abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion?
Pro-choice" means that no child has the right to be born, but every woman
has the right to kill her preborn child. That's not pro-abortion?
If you're not pro-abortion, which of the 4,400 preborn children
slaughtered daily do you think should not be killed?
"Pro-choice" is a euphemism for pro-abortion. If the issue were slavery,
"pro-choice" would be a euphemism for pro-slavery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
31 Jul 2003 12:32:15 AM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because
abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion?
We know how much you have to play word games in order to support your
position.
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> in <4f3c01fdb1ecc52d7e77c7887c2c3db9@free.teranews.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 06:29:28 AM |
|
|
Omphalos wrote:
They aren't "pro-abortion" - they are pro the choice to have an
abortion. You are attempting to smear them.
You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because
abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion?
Pro-choice" means that no child has the right to be born, but every woman
has the right to kill her preborn child. That's not pro-abortion?
If you're not pro-abortion, which of the 4,400 preborn children
slaughtered daily do you think should not be killed?
If you are anti-abortion you want to stop it.
If you are pro-choice you do demand it happen, you want the option to be
available.
"Pro-Choice" does not mean that no child has the right to be born. Nor does
it mean that every woman has the right to kill her preborn child either.
The first is essentially meaningless, the second is legally incorrect.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 07:41:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed 30 Jul 2003 05:11:37a, Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in news:MPG.19919c26c0ffe35698a5fb@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
In article <c72f8c1d8255d6f10cf3d7b5d5954087@free.teranews.com>,
omphalos@wp.pl says...
Subject: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns....
From: Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl>
Newsgroups: alt.france, alt.space.monkey.invaders, alt.spacebastards,
alt.chaos, alt.abortion, alt.startrek.vs.starwars, alt.bible
On Tue 29 Jul 2003 03:38:07p, Paul Robson
<autismuk@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:bg6id5$nnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
Omphalos wrote:
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common
usage.
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling
themselves, are too selfish to realize that that child inside a
pregant woman is a seperate, living being.
They aren't "pro-abortion" - they are pro the choice to have an
abortion. You are attempting to smear them.
You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because
abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion?
It's no more right to force a pregnant person to abort their pregnancy
(pro-abortion) than it is to force them to continue the pregnancy (pro-
birth). Both positions are anti-choice.
Pro-choice (the stance of the majority of people) means leaving the
decision of what to do about the medical condition affecting their body
to the person whose body is affected.
Why should someone be forced to have against their wishes or be denied
medical treatment of their preference for a medical condition? Should
you be forced to have medical treatment you don't want, or not have
medical treatment you do want? Or would you prefer to be able to choose
for yourself?
If people are to be denied that choice when the medical condition is
pregnancy, then to be fair *everybody* should be denied that choice,
regardless of what medical condition is involved. Including you.
I support the right of people to choose their medical treatment for
themselves, regardless of the medical condition involved.
Your body... your choice. Some other person's body... their choice.
The prefix pro means "for," not "forced." However, if pro-abortion means
"forced abortion," then "pro-choice" must mean "forced choice". In
reality, with the pressures women face against giving birth, the
pro-abortion concealment of facts, and the one-sided "counseling"
abortuaries provide, a "forced choice" is what most of today's abortions
really are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 02:44:17 PM |
|
|
Blinty wrote:
On Wed 30 Jul 2003 12:05:22p, Paul Robson
<autismuk@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:bg8q9t$r85$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
If not, why, exactly, do you want to force people to have medical
treatment they don't want, or not have medical treatment they do want?
Bet you 20 quid its religious....
Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
Really.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 02:14:14 PM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<ac36486b170cf6ac8ccb8bbe736e70a6@free.teranews.com>...
On Wed 30 Jul 2003 05:11:37a, Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in news:MPG.19919c26c0ffe35698a5fb@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
In article <c72f8c1d8255d6f10cf3d7b5d5954087@free.teranews.com>,
omphalos@wp.pl says...
Subject: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns....
From: Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl>
Newsgroups: alt.france, alt.space.monkey.invaders, alt.spacebastards,
alt.chaos, alt.abortion, alt.startrek.vs.starwars, alt.bible
On Tue 29 Jul 2003 03:38:07p, Paul Robson
<autismuk@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:bg6id5$nnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
Omphalos wrote:
The choice to abort a pregnancy; used above according to common
usage.
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling
themselves, are too selfish to realize that that child inside a
pregant woman is a seperate, living being.
They aren't "pro-abortion" - they are pro the choice to have an
abortion. You are attempting to smear them.
You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because
abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion?
It's no more right to force a pregnant person to abort their pregnancy
(pro-abortion) than it is to force them to continue the pregnancy (pro-
birth). Both positions are anti-choice.
Pro-choice (the stance of the majority of people) means leaving the
decision of what to do about the medical condition affecting their body
to the person whose body is affected.
Why should someone be forced to have against their wishes or be denied
medical treatment of their preference for a medical condition? Should
you be forced to have medical treatment you don't want, or not have
medical treatment you do want? Or would you prefer to be able to choose
for yourself?
If people are to be denied that choice when the medical condition is
pregnancy, then to be fair *everybody* should be denied that choice,
regardless of what medical condition is involved. Including you.
I support the right of people to choose their medical treatment for
themselves, regardless of the medical condition involved.
Your body... your choice. Some other person's body... their choice.
The prefix pro means "for," not "forced." However, if pro-abortion means
"forced abortion," then "pro-choice" must mean "forced choice". In
reality, with the pressures women face against giving birth, the
pro-abortion concealment of facts, and the one-sided "counseling"
abortuaries provide, a "forced choice" is what most of today's abortions
really are.
You should write examples of fallacies for logic textbooks. This chain
of equivocations is impressive. Also, using a premise you disagree
with to prove a point doesn't really work.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 08:43:17 AM |
|
|
Omphalos wrote:
I support the right of people to choose their medical treatment for
themselves, regardless of the medical condition involved.
Your body... your choice. Some other person's body... their choice.
The prefix pro means "for," not "forced." However, if pro-abortion means
"forced abortion," then "pro-choice" must mean "forced choice".
Yes, it means 'for' as in favour of. Pro-Abortion = in favour of abortion.
Pro-Choice = in favour of choice. You've got it now.
In reality, with the pressures women face against giving birth, the
pro-abortion concealment of facts, and the one-sided "counseling"
abortuaries provide, a "forced choice" is what most of today's abortions
really are.
You have no grasp of reality. It's morons like you that stand outside
hospitals and clinics bullying women.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
28 Jul 2003 09:16:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon 28 Jul 2003 09:34:21a, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bg39rl$jvu7r$18@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
68ebafc90dc0e2c004c8f2af733426c5@free.teranews.com...
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling themselves,
are too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
It is not until it is viable which is at least six months and usually
more. Abortions are allowed in France up to 10 (or perhaps 12) weeks
unless there is grave medical danger for the pregnant woman. At that
stage the embryo is just a collection of barely differentiated cells.
Viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is an
individual and a human being, regardless of viability. Furthermore,
nonviability is a transient state. Why should the fact that a preborn baby
is not yet capable of ex utero life be a reason for abortion? If anything,
nonviability is a compelling reason against abortion, because a baby so
young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to survive outside of
its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should be given to those who
need it most.
The mother's womb is the natural environment for a human being in his or
her first nine months of life. If a land-dwelling mammal were put into
water, it would not be viable. If a fish were put on dry land, it would
not be viable. Also, as a class, human beings are nonviable relative to
the ex-utero environment, yet only for the first five months of life.
Thus, for the young preborn, viability is lost only after an abortion; if
the procedure itself does not kill, removal from the natural environment
does.
Adopting the viability criteria simply means the following: the first five
months of pregnancy represent "open season" on babies. Thus, a murderous
time clock is established: "Kill your 'fetus' (preborn child) now, before
it's too late."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
28 Jul 2003 12:14:33 PM |
|
|
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
dd9e9fbf86e1f2092b9807356d5397fb@free.teranews.com...
On Mon 28 Jul 2003 09:34:21a, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bg39rl$jvu7r$18@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
68ebafc90dc0e2c004c8f2af733426c5@free.teranews.com...
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling
themselves,
are too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman
is a
seperate, living being.
It is not until it is viable which is at least six months and
usually
more. Abortions are allowed in France up to 10 (or perhaps 12)
weeks
unless there is grave medical danger for the pregnant woman. At
that
stage the embryo is just a collection of barely differentiated
cells.
Viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is
an
individual and a human being, regardless of viability.
It is not.
< Furthermore,
nonviability is a transient state. Why should the fact that a
preborn baby
is not yet capable of ex utero life be a reason for abortion?
It is not a *reason* for abortion, it is a reason to allow abortion
and little different to removing a cyst.
If anything,
nonviability is a compelling reason against abortion, because a baby
so
young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to survive outside
of
its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should be given to those
who
need it most.
But it isn't a 'baby' it is a collection of cells.
The mother's womb is the natural environment for a human being in
his or
her first nine months of life. If a land-dwelling mammal were put
into
water, it would not be viable. If a fish were put on dry land, it
would
not be viable. Also, as a class, human beings are nonviable relative
to
the ex-utero environment, yet only for the first five months of
life.
Thus, for the young preborn, viability is lost only after an
abortion; if
the procedure itself does not kill, removal from the natural
environment
does.
I'll acccept that with the proviso that it is not viable but *could
be* viable if it was left to get on with it.
Adopting the viability criteria simply means the following: the
first five
months of pregnancy represent "open season" on babies. Thus, a
murderous
time clock is established: "Kill your 'fetus' (preborn child) now,
before
it's too late."
Nonsense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 03:56:06 AM |
|
|
In article <dd9e9fbf86e1f2092b9807356d5397fb@free.teranews.com>,
omphalos@wp.pl says...
Viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is an
individual and a human being, regardless of viability.
Preborn? You mean it has already been born and then placed back in the
'oven' to reheat? Sorry, chum, but if you put a baby in na uterus it
will die pretty immediately from suffocation.
A baby, incidentally is certainly a human being. An embryo or foetus is
just as certainly not a human being... by definition.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
28 Jul 2003 03:26:08 PM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<dd9e9fbf86e1f2092b9807356d5397fb@free.teranews.com>...
On Mon 28 Jul 2003 09:34:21a, "John of Aix"
<j.murphyNOSPAM@libertysurf.fr> wrote in
news:bg39rl$jvu7r$18@ID-157326.news.uni-berlin.de:
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> a écrit dans le message de news:
68ebafc90dc0e2c004c8f2af733426c5@free.teranews.com...
Yes, pro-abortionists, or pro-choice as they enjoy calling themselves,
are too selfish to realize that that child inside a pregant woman is a
seperate, living being.
It is not until it is viable which is at least six months and usually
more. Abortions are allowed in France up to 10 (or perhaps 12) weeks
unless there is grave medical danger for the pregnant woman. At that
stage the embryo is just a collection of barely differentiated cells.
Viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is an
individual and a human being, regardless of viability.
Sure, if you say so. That's not clear in the slightest.
Furthermore,
nonviability is a transient state. Why should the fact that a preborn baby
is not yet capable of ex utero life be a reason for abortion?
Generally, women don't say "Oh! My fetus can't live without me! I'd
best have an abortion!" Viability is not the reason people have
abortions, but lack of it sure makes it VERY hard to argue it's a
separate person, and that it also has a right to use the woman's body
against her will.
If anything,
nonviability is a compelling reason against abortion, because a baby so
young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to survive outside of
its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should be given to those who
need it most.
At the price of the rights of another? How's that? Do I have a right
to kill you, if it would save my life? Can I just bludgeon you a
little? Maybe give you a good beating? I think the answer is no. If I
need a kidney, can I make you give it to me? After all, I'm suffering,
and you'll live.
The mother's womb is the natural environment for a human being in his or
her first nine months of life. If a land-dwelling mammal were put into
water, it would not be viable. If a fish were put on dry land, it would
not be viable. Also, as a class, human beings are nonviable relative to
the ex-utero environment, yet only for the first five months of life.
Human beings are not defined as living in wombs, they live on land,
outside the womb. That only adds to why it's not at all clear the
fetus is a person. And that doesn't matter, why does it have rights no
born person has? (I.e., to use someone's body against their will.)
Thus, for the young preborn, viability is lost only after an abortion; if
the procedure itself does not kill, removal from the natural environment
does.
So if it's a separate being, why does it need the woman, then?
Adopting the viability criteria simply means the following: the first five
months of pregnancy represent "open season" on babies. Thus, a murderous
time clock is established: "Kill your 'fetus' (preborn child) now, before
it's too late."
No, it means using some kind of compromise between abortion at all
stages (including the limiting case of right before birth) and banning
abortion altogether (what I seem to recall you advocating.) Maybe you
live in a very black and white world, where everything is completely
right or completely wrong. The rest of us see color, and it's not
clear how red falls on the scale between back and white. So we develop
systems for dealing with that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
28 Jul 2003 04:58:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon 28 Jul 2003 04:26:08p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307281226.1c78db6e@posting.google.com:
If anything, nonviability is a compelling reason against abortion,
because a baby so young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to
survive outside of its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should be
given to those who need it most.
At the price of the rights of another? How's that? Do I have a right
to kill you, if it would save my life? Can I just bludgeon you a
little? Maybe give you a good beating? I think the answer is no. If I
need a kidney, can I make you give it to me? After all, I'm suffering,
and you'll live.
99.99% of pregnacies aborted were no threat to the mother's life.
Should we get rid of all traffic laws because of that rare moment when you
might have to break one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns.... |
30 Jul 2003 04:01:46 AM |
|
|
In article <0fada54c486694b7c1402ca10ef4e4d6@free.teranews.com>,
omphalos@wp.pl says...
Subject: Re: Chiraq fiddles while the Eiffel Tower burns....
From: Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl>
Newsgroups: alt.france, alt.space.monkey.invaders, alt.spacebastards, alt.chaos, alt.abortion, alt.startrek.vs.starwars, alt.bible
On Mon 28 Jul 2003 04:26:08p, (Laira) wrote in
news:ecfa0d0f.0307281226.1c78db6e@posting.google.com:
If anything, nonviability is a compelling reason against abortion,
because a baby so young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to
survive outside of its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should be
given to those who need it most.
At the price of the rights of another? How's that? Do I have a right
to kill you, if it would save my life? Can I just bludgeon you a
little? Maybe give you a good beating? I think the answer is no. If I
need a kidney, can I make you give it to me? After all, I'm suffering,
and you'll live.
99.99% of pregnacies aborted were no threat to the mother's life.
Certainly not all pregnancies threaten the lives of mothers... generally
because many people who are pregnant are not mothers. But pregnancies ar
always threats to the life/health of the person who is pregnant (whether
that person is a mopther or not from a birth or adoption in the past).
All pregnancies are a threat to the life/health of the pregnant person.
Without exception. All pregnancies cause some degree of harm to the
pregnant person.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
