| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Snubis" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2004 04:55:58 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Notions of equality |
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person and
that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so they
claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman is in
danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
.
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 05:03:16 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person and
that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so they
claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman is in
danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not if
you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really slavery,
either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in opposition to
abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really something else?
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 07:45:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote
in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not
if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really
slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really
something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 09:12:16 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion with
message-id <Xns9468D3392F28Fsnubis@130.133.1.4> wrote:
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not
if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really
slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really
something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 08:02:46 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis < > wrote
in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not
if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really
slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really
something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
But that's not consistent with equality either. Let me break it down. If
it's a true balance, half the time you can ask the mother. Of the other
half, you figure that half the time of that (or 25% of the total) the
Unborn "wins." The other half of the time the mother "wins." Regardless
of your desire to ban abortion, if you see it as an issue of "equality" you
have to allow some abortions. I guess it might be an issue of morality for
you if your "morality" doesn't include equality.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 08:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:02:46p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote
in news:afpmvvolcbaf6altufqoa32qa0osqbheno@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
wrote in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi.
Not if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't
really slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it
really something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
But that's not consistent with equality either. Let me break it down.
If it's a true balance, half the time you can ask the mother. Of the
other half, you figure that half the time of that (or 25% of the total)
the Unborn "wins." The other half of the time the mother "wins."
Regardless of your desire to ban abortion, if you see it as an issue of
"equality" you have to allow some abortions. I guess it might be an
issue of morality for you if your "morality" doesn't include equality.
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 08:29:56 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:02:46p, Galen Hekhuis < > wrote
in news:afpmvvolcbaf6altufqoa32qa0osqbheno@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis < >
wrote in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi.
Not if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't
really slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it
really something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
But that's not consistent with equality either. Let me break it down.
If it's a true balance, half the time you can ask the mother. Of the
other half, you figure that half the time of that (or 25% of the total)
the Unborn "wins." The other half of the time the mother "wins."
Regardless of your desire to ban abortion, if you see it as an issue of
"equality" you have to allow some abortions. I guess it might be an
issue of morality for you if your "morality" doesn't include equality.
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Minuscule or not, you don't really base your desire to have abortion made
illegal on any kind of equality, do you?
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 10:43:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:29:56p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote
in news:68rmvv8am1do1u6h715ogd21uln0ttj6f3@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:02:46p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
wrote in news:afpmvvolcbaf6altufqoa32qa0osqbheno@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
wrote in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two
equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit
reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life
is not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for
anyone who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws
because of that rare instance when someone might have to break
them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi.
Not if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't
really slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance
in opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it
really something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
But that's not consistent with equality either. Let me break it down.
If it's a true balance, half the time you can ask the mother. Of the
other half, you figure that half the time of that (or 25% of the
total) the Unborn "wins." The other half of the time the mother
"wins." Regardless of your desire to ban abortion, if you see it as an
issue of "equality" you have to allow some abortions. I guess it
might be an issue of morality for you if your "morality" doesn't
include equality.
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Minuscule or not, you don't really base your desire to have abortion
made illegal on any kind of equality, do you?
What does equality have to do with abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 09:00:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 04:43:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:29:56p, Galen Hekhuis < > wrote
in news:68rmvv8am1do1u6h715ogd21uln0ttj6f3@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 09:02:46p, Galen Hekhuis < >
wrote in news:afpmvvolcbaf6altufqoa32qa0osqbheno@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 01:45:51 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis < >
wrote in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two
equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit
reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life
is not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for
anyone who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws
because of that rare instance when someone might have to break
them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi.
Not if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't
really slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance
in opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it
really something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
But that's not consistent with equality either. Let me break it down.
If it's a true balance, half the time you can ask the mother. Of the
other half, you figure that half the time of that (or 25% of the
total) the Unborn "wins." The other half of the time the mother
"wins." Regardless of your desire to ban abortion, if you see it as an
issue of "equality" you have to allow some abortions. I guess it
might be an issue of morality for you if your "morality" doesn't
include equality.
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Minuscule or not, you don't really base your desire to have abortion
made illegal on any kind of equality, do you?
What does equality have to do with abortion?
A guess you missed the paragraph of mine you quoted that mentioned that
many "pro-lifers" see it as a "balancing" of rights between equals.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 03:50:45 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
[...]
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Then what is? Her death? Is that what you want?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:12:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:50:45a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:lilnvv0pakd6v0ntot9saq1khrs9lgtl4j@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
[...]
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Then what is? Her death? Is that what you want?
So you would allow the deaths of one million children a year so that a
procedure can remain legal which isn't even used to save a few mothers' lives
that are in danger?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 12:41:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:12:26 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<029d0092401542fe80c8e0bf36079f37@news.teranews.com> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:50:45a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:lilnvv0pakd6v0ntot9saq1khrs9lgtl4j@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
[...]
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Then what is? Her death? Is that what you want?
So you would allow the deaths of one million children a year so that a
procedure can remain legal which isn't even used to save a few mothers' lives
that are in danger?
No children are involved in an abortion.
The freedom of choice does not have any health requirement. In fact,
it has no restrictions an does not need justification or explanation.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion - she wants
it.
There is only one reason for a woman not to get an abortion - she
doesn't want it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:33:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:12:26 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:50:45a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:lilnvv0pakd6v0ntot9saq1khrs9lgtl4j@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 02:10:25 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
[...]
The number of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are
minescule and abortion is not the remedy.
Then what is? Her death? Is that what you want?
So you would allow the deaths of one million children a year so that a
procedure can remain legal...
Abortion does not result in the deaths of children. In fact, the death
rate for abortion is considerably lower than that of childbirth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 08:14:46 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in news:Xns9468D3392F28Fsnubis@130.133.1.4:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
wrote
in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not
if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really
slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really
something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
what a silly thing to say.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 03:51:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:14:46 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in news:Xns9468D3392F28Fsnubis@130.133.1.4:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 06:03:16p, Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
wrote
in news:6bfmvvgs4tar1qi1i0n2u4d8av8btrh8hl@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pfbuuvcr5jfhbm3ah24n6h7qcae5qs57hj@4ax.com>...
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule. Even then, the procedure done to save the mother's life is
not an abortion. This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it. You don't get rid of all the traffic laws because of
that rare instance when someone might have to break them.
But you don't allow slavery in just a few counties in Mississippi. Not
if you're morally opposed to slavery. You don't say it isn't really
slavery, either. Do you think you have some "moral" stance in
opposition to abortion because of the fetus being equal, or is it really
something else?
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
what a silly thing to say.
It's a fucking selfish and hateful thing to say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 03:49:40 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:13:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:49:40a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:hglnvv0ob7ebionlc35jkh440lno8jihj1@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion is
the remedy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 12:45:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:57 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<f97b6c8337c2fe17934488e3c8e6fd9f@news.teranews.com> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:49:40a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:hglnvv0ob7ebionlc35jkh440lno8jihj1@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion is
the remedy.
Irrelevant. A pregnant woman has the freedom of choice without regard
to any health requirement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:42:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:57 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:49:40a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:hglnvv0ob7ebionlc35jkh440lno8jihj1@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion
(Not what you define as abortion, anyway.)
is
the remedy.
do you think the pregnancy is continue once a laparotomy is performed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 07:03:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:57 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:49:40a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:hglnvv0ob7ebionlc35jkh440lno8jihj1@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion is
the remedy.
You are either ignorant or lying.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 07:34:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:03:02 GMT, Lawrence E. McKnight
<lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:57 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 04:49:40a, Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in
news:hglnvv0ob7ebionlc35jkh440lno8jihj1@4ax.com:
On 6 Jan 2004 14:55:58 -0800, (Snubis) wrote:
[...]
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
As in of very little importance?
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion is
the remedy.
You are either ignorant or lying.
I'll bet it's both.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 06:00:03 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in
news:f97b6c8337c2fe17934488e3c8e6fd9f@news.teranews.com:
There is never a case of a mother's life being in danger where abortion is
the remedy.
what are your medical credentials?
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 10:22:45 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person and
that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so they
claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman is in
danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
This is no reason to keep abortion legal for anyone
who wants it.
And there is no reason to allow you any freedom.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
06 Jan 2004 10:54:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 11:22:45p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:btg1ik$ts7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
Why are you trying to compare permanent acts (taking organs and property) to
pregnancy (a temporary 9 month phase). Probably because you're an idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 04:45:49 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 04:54:28 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion with
message-id <Xns9468F333965D5snubis@130.133.1.4> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 11:22:45p, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:btg1ik$ts7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born person
and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals. But
self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly, so
they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the woman
is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
Why are you trying to compare permanent acts (taking organs and property) to
pregnancy (a temporary 9 month phase). Probably because you're an idiot.
The effects of pregnancy can easily be anything but temporary. A
doctor can usually tell if a woman has given birth. If the effects
were temporary that would not be true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:13:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 05:45:49a, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in
news:foonvv8h8smjvkkq93i42rr2la4doemb7o@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 04:54:28 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion with
message-id <Xns9468F333965D5snubis@130.133.1.4> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 11:22:45p, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:btg1ik$ts7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
Why are you trying to compare permanent acts (taking organs and
property) to pregnancy (a temporary 9 month phase). Probably because
you're an idiot.
The effects of pregnancy can easily be anything but temporary. A
doctor can usually tell if a woman has given birth. If the effects
were temporary that would not be true.
And what's wrong with giving birth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 12:43:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:09 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<4f72361707fa488ea097a59a97c8eacd@news.teranews.com> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 05:45:49a, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in
news:foonvv8h8smjvkkq93i42rr2la4doemb7o@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 04:54:28 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion with
message-id <Xns9468F333965D5snubis@130.133.1.4> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 11:22:45p, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:btg1ik$ts7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
Why are you trying to compare permanent acts (taking organs and
property) to pregnancy (a temporary 9 month phase). Probably because
you're an idiot.
The effects of pregnancy can easily be anything but temporary. A
doctor can usually tell if a woman has given birth. If the effects
were temporary that would not be true.
And what's wrong with giving birth?
Nothing if that is the choice of the pregnant woman, Who said there
was?
The issue is in forcing a woman to give birth against her will. Or by
lying to her, withholding information, or intimidating her into a
course of action she would not choose if she was completely free to
make her own choice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 11:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:09 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 05:45:49a, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in
news:foonvv8h8smjvkkq93i42rr2la4doemb7o@4ax.com:
On 7 Jan 2004 04:54:28 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion with
message-id <Xns9468F333965D5snubis@130.133.1.4> wrote:
On Tue 06 Jan 2004 11:22:45p, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:btg1ik$ts7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net>
Much is made about the fetus having identical rights to a born
person and that there is a need to balance the rights of two equals.
But self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" often support (albeit reluctantly,
so they claim) an exception to banning abortion if the life of the
woman is in danger.
The cases where a pregnancy leaves a mother's life in danger are
miniscule.
Similarly, taking one of your kidneys, all of your money and property,
and some of your blood and marrow, would be unlikely to kill you and
would save even more lives than preventing an abortion.
Why are you trying to compare permanent acts (taking organs and
property) to pregnancy (a temporary 9 month phase). Probably because
you're an idiot.
The effects of pregnancy can easily be anything but temporary. A
doctor can usually tell if a woman has given birth. If the effects
were temporary that would not be true.
And what's wrong with giving birth?
A major problem if you are forced to do it against your will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 08:32:03 PM |
|
|
Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in message news:<68hovv4e5m4ituabknme25gnk9lbr7imfc@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:09 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
And what's wrong with giving birth?
A major problem if you are forced to do it against your will.
That doesn't prove direct abortion isn't murder, retard. You have to
prove that unborn children aren't human beings. And you can't do that
because they have human parents. Everyone knows that non-humans don't.
Thus the direct abortion of a living child is objectively murder. QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 09:24:23 PM |
|
|
(golddodgearies) wrote in
news:44e87bc2.0401071832.b127ab7@posting.google.com:
Thus the direct abortion of a living child is objectively murder. QED
no living child has ever been aborted.
--
"James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support
legalized abortion."
-coward bobby heishman lying as "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
news:1eednfCfCfJV3nOiRVn-hg@comcast.com:
"I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized
abortion as well."
-Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in
<ouednVs5R7Zs5m2iRVn-vA@comcast.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Notions of equality |
07 Jan 2004 08:50:18 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2004 18:32:03 -0800,
(golddodgearies) in alt.abortion with message-id
<44e87bc2.0401071832.b127ab7@posting.google.com> wrote:
Krisblake <bambinasangels@juno.com> wrote in message news:<68hovv4e5m4ituabknme25gnk9lbr7imfc@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:13:09 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
And what's wrong with giving birth?
A major problem if you are forced to do it against your will.
That doesn't prove direct abortion isn't murder, retard. You have to
prove that unborn children aren't human beings. And you can't do that
because they have human parents. Everyone knows that non-humans don't.
Thus the direct abortion of a living child is objectively murder. QED
Since abortion is legal whether a fetus is a child or not does not
matter. Abortion cannot be murder.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
