| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"David W. Barnes" |
| Date: |
10 Dec 2004 08:39:21 PM |
| Object: |
Sound Familiar? |
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the
country to greater danger."
No - it isn't the Republicans, or the White House. It was Herman
Goering at the Nuremberg trials.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
13 Dec 2004 09:15:27 PM |
|
|
In article <niuqr0p4rguc17g35738h1p8688i870q9a@4ax.com>, Zaghadka
<zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
In article <1102886501.9c797b1048dd78f5bd423410740f6f17@bubbanews>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:121220041246301822%spam@aol.com:
In article <1102882930.0d09db81aafbbef7ea6f54512560c12d@bubbanews>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:121220041158178244%spam@aol.com:
In article <1102876319.0ed2c7b18ab980785fd2d62a3ef2c00d@bubbanews>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpi1p6$r3n$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:0kunr09dnev0aifcm7b30kjh5e1pudll5u@4ax.com:
David W. Barnes bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed...
Finally, do you really think the
agenda put foward by the liberals is what is best for America?
Absolutely. The agenda put forward by liberals IS America.
I don't know that the agenda put forth by what Republicans
*call* liberals is any good. I think in many places it isn't.
What I do know is that America was founded on Liberalism,
Which has nothing in common with modern liberalism.
It had everything in common with modern liberalism.
I don't recall legalized abortion, creating a welfare state, and
advancing the cause of militant homosexuality on the Founding
Father's agenda.
Abortion was legal then.
Proof please.
History.
In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s.
Read this:
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa012200.htm
Abortion was only legal before the fetus could be felt. Even then the
legality of abortion was a state issue.
Why are you changing the subject? This whole "state issue" thing is
irrelevant. And my point is made. Abortion was legal when the
Constitution was written and as such there was no reason to even
consider it.
He's right. Fear of God was a lot more popular back then too, though. ;^)
Fortunately, the Constitution does give women the right
to choose.
So it has been determined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is
one of the sloppiest majority opinions I have ever seen, though. It has holes
you could drive a truck through and someday, someone's going to do it. You
realize that it is based on a non-enumerated Constitutional right to
"privacy",
yes?
Sure. But the right to privacy exists, enumerated or not. And it
isn't just with regard to abortion. This is settled law.
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that the
Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
I don't
actually disagree with you entirely, but the "right to choose" seems like a
myth to me. We do not even give people the "right to choose" which side of the
steet to drive on, why should we give them the "right to choose" abortion?
Kind of disingenuous, aren't you? The phrase "Right To Choose" does
not mean the right to choose anything. It mens the right choose with
to give birth. Do you feel it is acceptable to create a law that
forces you to give up a kidney (you only need one) or a portion of your
liver (it grows back) in order to save a life?
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 07:17:58 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that the
Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw abortion as
a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an innocent?" I
think it is. It's one of those awful situations where one person's inalienable
rights rub up against another's. The baby doesn't get access to counsel though,
does he? and the mother *willingly* took steps to end up in her predicament.
This doesn't seem equitable to me.
The rest is a cheap smokescreen. I call pro-lifer's by that name, and I call
pro-choicer's by their selected name, because they are fighting two distinct
wars on the same battlefield. If one pro-choice person would stand up and say,
"Oh. Mindless slaughter. I get it." or if one pro-lifer would say "Oh, ruining
one life and possibly creating another ruined life," we'd begin to make
progress here. Until then, it's like the issue of slavery. I think you know who
I think the slavers are.
My belief that life begins at conception is just that. It is purely religious.
It is not a matter of law or precedent. I accept the killing of others in a war
because it is beyond me. It would be inconsistent for me to not consider the
same in abortion. You can't legislate faith. That's a very wise tenet, IMHO.
Abortion, for the nonce, is *not* murder. We can't call it murder until there
is a resonable consensus as to what is actually going on. I leave it up to God
at this point. I think we live in a country of laws, and the law is "separation
of Church and state." Disrespecting millenia of law is much worse than just
leaving it up to the women involved.
A time for every purpose under heaven...
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 10:06:04 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own body
is used.
You don't have that right.
People aren't your slaves, control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 02:06:30 AM |
|
|
Gactimus bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own body
is used.
You don't have that right.
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences. I don't go so far as to say allowing your menstrual cycle to
occur is killing, but if it were illegal, then I would understand the arguments
of having no right to use someone's body. No one is forcing women to have sex
here. (see below, BTW before you cry "rape!")
The bottom line is, the pregnant woman made love, she had access to birth
control, and if the birth control fails, she'll have to deal with it. At that
point, she's allowed a life to settle inside her, and while she had the right
to decide what to do with her body before, once that life is there, she has no
right to destroy it if it doesn't threaten *her* life. Rights versus rights,
plain and simple.
In cases of threat to the mother's life, or rape, I am a good deal more
sympathetic to the woman and defer to her judgement entirely.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 09:20:04 PM |
|
|
In article <morvr09kts84kdk4elve6uit0eo1pjv4sm@4ax.com>, Zaghadka
<zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gactimus bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own body
is used.
You don't have that right.
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal
with
the consequences. I don't go so far as to say allowing your menstrual cycle to
occur is killing, but if it were illegal, then I would understand the
arguments
of having no right to use someone's body. No one is forcing women to have sex
here. (see below, BTW before you cry "rape!")
The bottom line is, the pregnant woman made love, she had access to birth
control, and if the birth control fails, she'll have to deal with it.
Abortion is dealing with it.
At that
point, she's allowed a life to settle inside her, and while she had the right
to decide what to do with her body before, once that life is there, she has no
right to destroy it if it doesn't threaten *her* life. Rights versus rights,
plain and simple.
It does threaten her. Besides, a fetus has no rights.
In cases of threat to the mother's life, or rape, I am a good deal more
sympathetic to the woman and defer to her judgement entirely.
Why rape?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 02:01:16 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
The bottom line is, the pregnant woman made love, she had access to birth
control, and if the birth control fails, she'll have to deal with it.
Abortion is dealing with it.
So is shooting your parents because they abuse you. The question is if it is a
reasonable means of dealing with it.
At that
point, she's allowed a life to settle inside her, and while she had the right
to decide what to do with her body before, once that life is there, she has no
right to destroy it if it doesn't threaten *her* life. Rights versus rights,
plain and simple.
It does threaten her. Besides, a fetus has no rights.
Under current law, yes, and I think that's a tragedy bred from the extreme
level of abstraction between a living human being and a foetus. That's why
pro-lifers try to pass off suction sounds as screams. To make it real.
With careful medical attention, pre-natal care, a pregnancy threatens the life
of the mother no more than the flu. There is no reasonable cure to such a
condition and there is an issue of reasonable risk. As it is, and as a person
who has defended women's medical clinics, a woman who wants to get a pap smear
has to have a towel thrown over her head while two oceans of crazed fanatics
(they are on both sides) sing various hymns or "we shall not be moved." It's a
circus.
It is about time we all started respecting each other, and it starts with
respecting the life within a pregnant women.
BTW, after the protest, the first thing I did was cross the line and shake the
hand of my opponent thanking him for not resorting to violence and standing up
for what he believes in. That is a real gem of a person that can do that,
especially when the issue to him is murder.
In cases of threat to the mother's life, or rape, I am a good deal more
sympathetic to the woman and defer to her judgement entirely.
Why rape?
Because at that point, it is no longer an issue of a woman being responsible
for her actions and becomes a true case of rights versus rights.
Truly, if I followed my ideas to their logical conclusion, the woman should
carry the baby for nine months. But I've known rape victims, and to ask a woman
to carry the child of her attacker for 9 months is like asking her to spend
nine months in something worse than solitary confinement as punishment for
being attacked. That can cause critical psychological damage beyond the rape
itself. Hell, just the rape usually causes PTSD. I consider psychological
injury that causes psychological fatality to be a threat to the mother's life.
There is no justification to torture someone for 9 months carrying a life that
may not even come to term, IMHO.
The short story is it is an ethical mess, and we are talking about matters of
law here, not truth. In the case of an ethical mess, you leave it to the person
involved to make their peace with God.
Perhaps you could set up some kind of arbitration, but I have no idea how that
would work.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 11:02:30 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Gactimus bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own body
is used.
You don't have that right.
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences.
By getting an abortion, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
[...]
The bottom line is, the pregnant woman made love, she had access to birth
control, and if the birth control fails, she'll have to deal with it.
And not you, so it's really not your damn business HOW she deals with
it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 02:02:04 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences.
By getting an abortion, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
By shooting her abusive husband, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
It's a BAD way that should not be tolerated when she can wait 9 months and put
the child up for adoption.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:29:27 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Ray Fischer
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences.
By getting an abortion, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
By shooting her abusive husband, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
There are other ways to deal with an abuser. There are no other ways
of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
Which you should know, but apparently being anti-abortion has rotted
your brain and your morals, as it has done to so many others.
It's a BAD way that should not be tolerated when she can wait 9 months and put
the child up for adoption.
Then let's strip you of all of YOUR money and force you to work at
hard labor for nine months. We'll use the money to save the lives of
children.
Just a minor inconvenience for you, isn't it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 02:27:16 AM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences.
By getting an abortion, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
By shooting her abusive husband, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
It's a BAD way that should not be tolerated when she can wait 9 months and put
the child up for adoption.
Which is an even worse way of dealing with it. Are you aware that
pregnancy and childbirth are physically damaging, even when the
pregnancy is reasonably problem-free? Not to mention the emotional and
financial toll it takes on the woman, her existing children, her family
and on down the road the adopted child.
Ask me about it- I've been there.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
--
--sexkitten--A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who,
however, has never learned to walk forward.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:24:51 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Zaghadka wrote:
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
I disagree, the woman *did* have that right, back when she let someone join
with her body and release semen within her. Even for the most romantic and
beautiful of reasons, that woman has taken a responsible act and must deal with
the consequences.
By getting an abortion, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
By shooting her abusive husband, if that's her chosen way of dealing with it.
It's a BAD way that should not be tolerated when she can wait 9 months and put
the child up for adoption.
Which is an even worse way of dealing with it. Are you aware that
pregnancy and childbirth are physically damaging, even when the
pregnancy is reasonably problem-free? Not to mention the emotional and
financial toll it takes on the woman, her existing children, her family
and on down the road the adopted child.
Ask me about it- I've been there.
Worse than killing an innocent? I find that hard to believe, especially in
cases when the woman has made her own bed (consensual sex). Bad things happen
to all sorts of people all the time for no good reason, that's no reason to
give up and say any solution is fine.
I truly sympathise with the toll a pregnancy can take, I've watched my wife go
through it twice. The first time she had eclampsia and I swore I'd never want
to see that again. They dumped her on the curb in 24 hours with severe damage
from a very deep episiotomy. She needed a week of home care that could have
been achieved in 2 days at a hospital. God bless the HMO.
But, IMO, pregnancy is a natural extension of sex. If you have sex, you risk
pregnancy and the woman should be a big girl and deal with the consequences,
because the only alternative is slaughter.
It's what I believe the alternative to be that gives my opinion its strength.
If you think it's a lump of cells, or something non-human, then the whole
argument falls apart and the mother absolutely takes precedence. If it's not
human, its a removal of tissue.
I feel compassion for that mother, the same way I would feel compassion if she
contracted AIDS, but the simple fact, to me, is that AIDS is a virus and a
pregnancy is a human being. I could condone curing AIDS and killing HIV, I
can't condone manslaughter.
If you want to tell me about your experience, I'm all ears. People interest me.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:33:22 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
--sexkitten--
Which is an even worse way of dealing with it. Are you aware that
pregnancy and childbirth are physically damaging, even when the
pregnancy is reasonably problem-free? Not to mention the emotional and
financial toll it takes on the woman, her existing children, her family
and on down the road the adopted child.
Ask me about it- I've been there.
Worse than killing an innocent?
You don't care about killing innocents.
I find that hard to believe, especially in
cases when the woman has made her own bed (consensual sex).
And there it is again: Sex is a crime that must be punished.
I suggest that you take your issues with women to a psychologist
rather than trying to make all women suffer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 06:30:06 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and
that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First
ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of
faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an
innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own
body
is used.
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies against their wills.
If a woman does not have the right to decide whom may use her body, how
it may be used, when it may be used, how it may not be used, what
medical treatment to get for anything that she perceives to be wrong
with it, what medical treatment to refuse for what ever reason, and all
other uses of her body, then who does? Be specific.
To the best of my knowledge, the law consistently sides with the woman
having control of her body, and being able to determine all manners of
usage for it.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 06:41:15 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and
that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First
ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of
faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an
innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own
body
is used.
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
If a person does not have the right to determine whom may use his or
her body, how it may be used, for what purpose that it may be used,
when it may be used, and what medical treatments the person wants to
undergo, and what medical treatments need to be attended to, then who
does? And why do they have that right?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 06:43:02 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cpncdm$a6f$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
David W. Barnes
BTW. I believe that the abortion issue is a matter of faith and
that
the Constitution prohibits legislating faith in the First
ammendment.
So you believe all one has to do is claim an issue is a matter of
faith
to get around the law? Besides, this isn't "legislating faith."
You misunderstand me. I think we do *not* have the right to outlaw
abortion as a function of the 1st Ammendment.
The fundamental question, IMHO, is "is this the killing of an
innocent?"
I think it is.
You think wrong. In fact, the basic premise of your argument, that
abortion is about killing, is incorrect. It's nothing but pro-lie
propaganda. Abortion is about the right to decide how your own
body
is used.
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
If a person does not have the right to determine whom may use his or
her body, how it may be used, for what purpose that it may be used,
when it may be used, and what medical treatments the person wants to
undergo, and what medical treatments need to be attended to, then who
does? And why do they have that right?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 07:49:27 PM |
|
|
On 14 Dec 2004 16:43:02 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
pontificated:
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
Sure do, if it is illegal to have an abortion.
If a person does not have the right to determine whom may use his or
her body, how it may be used, for what purpose that it may be used,
when it may be used, and what medical treatments the person wants to
undergo, and what medical treatments need to be attended to, then who
does? And why do they have that right?
The woman made the decision when she opened her legs
and knew that she could get pregnant. If you don't
want to have a baby, then keep your legs closed. There
are possible consequences to your actions.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 10:06:55 PM |
|
|
Dave
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
Sure do, if it is illegal to have an abortion.
You have no right to make it illegal.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 02:15:58 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Dave
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
Sure do, if it is illegal to have an abortion.
You have no right to make it illegal.
Under the law, we all have the right to choose our lawmakers and attempt to
make *anything* illegal. Or have you forgotten Prohibition? Please respect the
law.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
14 Dec 2004 08:29:55 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 16:43:02 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
pontificated:
You don't have that right.
And you do not have the right to demand that women continue unwanted
pregnancies to completion against their wills.
Sure do, if it is illegal to have an abortion.
And thus, making the woman a slave, since she no longer has the right
to control her own body.
If a person does not have the right to determine whom may use his or
her body, how it may be used, for what purpose that it may be used,
when it may be used, and what medical treatments the person wants to
undergo, and what medical treatments need to be attended to, then
who
does? And why do they have that right?
The woman made the decision when she opened her legs
and knew that she could get pregnant.
So what? She decided that she wanted to have sex. And especially if
she was taking reasonable precautions, that is all she wanted.
If you don't
want to have a baby, then keep your legs closed.
I cannot have a baby. I am male.
What she wanted was to have sex. If she does not want to remain
pregnant, she should not be forced to suffer the torment of an unwanted
pregnancy just because you want to punish her for having sex and
ignoring your hateful dictates. She is not bound by your beliefs.
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
Mark Sebree
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 02:13:36 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
And just because women can have babies and men can't doesn't make it unfair to
say that such decisions are entirely up to the woman. We have equal rights
under the law, we are far from equal.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 10:59:09 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
One consequence of sex is an abortion.
Why do YOU get to decide the outcome?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 01:47:47 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
One consequence of sex is an abortion.
Why do YOU get to decide the outcome?
I don't. Society does. I have a right to *influence* the outcome.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:24:52 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Ray Fischer
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
One consequence of sex is an abortion.
Why do YOU get to decide the outcome?
I don't. Society does.
Don't play chickenshit games with me, coward.
YOU are the one insisting that women do what you want.
Justify yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:02:38 AM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and
screamed...
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the
consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the
decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a
buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be
surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you
die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
One consequence of sex is an abortion.
Why do YOU get to decide the outcome?
I don't. Society does. I have a right to *influence* the outcome.
You should not decide the outcome, and society should not decide the
outcome. Only the woman that is pregnant has the right to decide the
outcome.
Her body, her life, her choice.
Mark Sebree
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:03:28 AM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and
screamed...
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the
consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the
decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a
buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be
surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you
die as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
One consequence of sex is an abortion.
Why do YOU get to decide the outcome?
I don't. Society does. I have a right to *influence* the outcome.
You should not decide the outcome, and society should not decide the
outcome. Only the woman that is pregnant has the right to decide the
outcome.
Her body, her life, her choice.
Mark Sebree
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
15 Dec 2004 11:53:35 AM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and
screamed...
There
are possible consequences to your actions.
Yes. The one that she was after was an orgasm. And the
consequence
of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is abortion. And the
decision
is hers, and nobody else's.
And if you eat fugu sushi, the experience that you are after is a
buzz from
what little of the blowfish poison is left. One shouldn't be
surprised though,
if a completely competant and vigilant fugu chef fucks up and you die
as a
result. You takes your chances you lose sometimes.
However, you are allowed to get medical attention to try to prevent
that death. Anti-choice advocates are saying that the woman is not
allowed to get medical attention to correct an unwanted medical
condition.
What's the effectiveness of a condom up to? 99.9% or something?
Not quite. 97% when used correctly, IIRC. However, latex is a natural
product, and therefore some people are allegic to it. Those people
cannot use condoms, or allow their use, because of an adverse physical
reaction.
And just because women can have babies and men can't doesn't make it
unfair to
say that such decisions are entirely up to the woman.
And just because the man wants her to continue her pregnancy does not
mean that she should be forced to do so.
We have equal rights
under the law, we are far from equal.
Perhaps. However, forcing woment to continue their pregnancies OR
force them to get abortions because of the man's desires does not
repect the woman, and violates her rights to self-determination.
Answer this question, if the woman wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and the man has the opposite desire, then who decides
and why?
Since the woman is most directly affected by the pregnancy, since the
pregnancy occurs within her body and affects her body, she has the
greatest stake in the matter, so her opinion and desire has greater
weight. And since logically there is nobody else that is affected,
then nobody else has any say. And your religion does not matter, since
she is not likely to follow your religious beliefs.
Her life, her body, her choice.
Mark Sebree
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 01:47:09 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Answer this question, if the woman wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and the man has the opposite desire, then who decides
and why?
In my philosophy, neither would have the right to ask a hitman to kill the life
within her. In this light, your hypothetical becomes quite irrelevant.
By extension, if the woman must carry the baby to term, then the man can always
take the infant off her hands if he wants it so badly. He should have no such
power to make her care for the baby, just as she should have no right to sue
him for child support if she carries the baby and he wants nothing to do with
it.
We're talking about 9 months here, not a lifetime. I'm not asking the mother to
risk death, in such a case I advocate treating such a medical condition. AFAIC,
if the mother's life is truly threatened, the mother's life takes precedence,
especially in cases where the child is not viable.
However, pregnancy is a very unique medical condition whose power cannot be
disrespected. Talk to a devout Wiccan about it. It is a big deal.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:23:44 PM |
|
|
Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Answer this question, if the woman wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and the man has the opposite desire, then who decides
and why?
In my philosophy, neither would have the right to ask a hitman to kill the life
within her.
Pro-liar strawman. There is no right to kill.
If she doesn't want a fetus inside of HER body then she has the right
to have it removed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
16 Dec 2004 10:00:42 AM |
|
|
Zaghadka wrote:
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames of truth, and
screamed...
Answer this question, if the woman wants to continue her pregnancy
or
get an abortion, and the man has the opposite desire, then who
decides
and why?
In my philosophy, neither would have the right to ask a hitman to
kill the life
within her.
However, the woman has the right to end the attack on her body that
originates within her. There is no "hitman" involved.
In this light, your hypothetical becomes quite irrelevant.
Not at all. Your dodge is noted. Therefore, the woman has the right
to control her own body and decides what uses it can be put to and
when. Which means that she gets an abortion if she does not want to
continue her pregnancy.
By extension, if the woman must carry the baby to term,
There is no reason that a woman must be forced to continue a pregnacy
to term against her will. Doing such reduces her to the status of a
slave.
then the man can always
take the infant off her hands if he wants it so badly.
If he wants it so badly, then he can have the embryo implanted in him
and continue her pregnancy. There is no reason to force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy.
He should have no such
power to make her care for the baby,
So she gets an abortion.
just as she should have no right to sue
him for child support if she carries the baby and he wants nothing to
do with
it.
That, I will agree with. To a point.
We're talking about 9 months here, not a lifetime.
However, that 9 months can affect a person's entire life.
I'm not asking the mother to
risk death,
Yes you are. Pregnancy carries with it the risk of death and permanent
injury.
in such a case I advocate treating such a medical condition.
Which is what abortion is, treating an unwanted medical condition.
AFAIC, if the mother's life is truly threatened,
Which it always is by a pregnnacy.
the mother's life takes precedence,
Which is why she gets an abortion. He life takes precedence, and if
she does not want to continue her pregnancy, then she should not be
forced to.
especially in cases where the child is not viable.
However, pregnancy is a very unique medical condition whose power
cannot be
disrespected.
And if it is an unwanted medical condition, it needs to be treated ASAP
so that it does not worsen and cause greater or permanent injury to the
woman.
Talk to a devout Wiccan about it. It is a big deal.
I have. I know several and count them as friends. However, my premise
is that nobody should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy
against her will. Doing so effectively takes away her right to
self-determination, and disrespects her beliefs and goals.
Her life, her body, her choice.
Mark Sebree
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound Familiar? |
17 Dec 2004 03:31:51 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
By extension, if the woman must carry the baby to term,
There is no reason that a woman must be forced to continue a pregnacy
to term against her will. Doing such reduces her to the status of a
slave.
Sex is a choice, to ask someone to bear the responsible results of a choice is
not to make them a slave.
Next you'll be arguing that casinos engage in theft.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
