Re: Is it Human?

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Kathy wrote:

> Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
> developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
> abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root
> of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.

Is that right? And where is this "fact" coming from?

> Andrew Hacker, writing in Harper’s magazine, made this point: “In
> fact, abortion conceals a basic social conflict, but one we are not
> prepared to discuss. The subject is sexual intercourse.” For many
> people sex is a very important pastime. They want to enjoy it fully,
> but they do not want the responsibility of taking care of a natural
> consequence of sex—a baby! Abortion is a method of birth control—a
> very sick method—used not only in Japan but in many parts of the
> world.

So what?

> Many people are addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. Their respect
> for life is overshadowed by their selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure.

Oooh, get on the phone and call the pleasure police!

> The Bible says: “In the last days critical times hard to deal with
> will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves” and “lovers of
> pleasures rather than lovers of God.” Is it not obvious that this
> condition prevails in our day?—2 Timothy 3:1-4.

Who gives a flying **** what the Bible says?

> Proponents of abortion use expressions to cover the real atrocity
> that is committed. They refer to “the products of conception” and the
> “contents of the uterus.” The actual act of abortion is called the
> “termination of pregnancy.” They try to avoid the moral issue. But
> the honest truth, simply put, is this: Abortion is the killing of a
> human.

No, it isn't. A fetus is not a human, no matter how hard you ****ed up
religionists are trying to twist biology.

> It makes no difference whether the life is snuffed out in the
> uterus within 12 weeks of conception or whether it is choked to death
> 12 minutes after it is born! It has been killed.

Only in the mind of a ****ed up religionist.

> In Britain, after a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes,
> it is reported that two of the nurses had “horrific nightmares.” Some
> have quit their profession after such abortion incidents. Seeing the
> helpless aborted fetus struggling to live is not a pleasant
> experience!

You don't say? And what other imaginary events have taken place in your
fantasy world?

"... a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes..."

Lying for Jesus again, are we?

Lying ****.


--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Somewriter]

On 9 Jun 2005 23:42:50 -0000,
(Kathy) wrote:

>
>
>Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
>developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
>abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness...

I bet you had your children to satisfy some duty you have to your
deity.

[Ordog]

"Ben Goren" > wrote in message

-SNIP-
>> Either because what is inside her does not yet meet her definition
>> of human (even if it meets your definition) or because she is in
>> the tragic position of having to choose between her life and
>> safety and the life of another.\

>That is your morbid excuse for all abortions?

I give you a good reason:
Women should be in command of their life and their body, all bodily
functions like reproduction included. Something like a nonexistent
supernatural nobody or a group of self righteous (patriarchal) zealots
who have nothing better to do with their life than making others feel
miserable should have no say in this matter. Don't like it then go and
jump! Good riddance.
Demonising sex, prohibiting birth control, idealising asceticism and
calling all this good moral do nothing for creating a healthy society.
Unwanted children are a drain on social resources and a real curse on
the life of everyone (including their own). Sounds harsh to put it in
these terms? Yes, it is harsh. Do you think child abuse is not?
Do you think that a church controlled orphanage is a glorious solution?
Do you not know that rejected children suffer psychologically sometimes
till the end of their natural life?
Is suffering the true goal of human existence?

> > I
> > know of nobody who thinks of abortion as a good thing; simply
> > something that, on occasion, is that which causes the least harm
> > to the fewest people.
>
> Occasion?
> Are abortion clinics open on Christmas and July 4th. etc?
> Or are abortions performed as part of marriage ceremonies?
> What occasion are you referring to?
-SNIP-

What kind of silly argument line are you following here? I could not
care less about your July 4th just as much as I do not expect you to
care about March 15th. (I bet you have no clue what I am talking about.
You would never have heard of the country, which celebrates March 15th.
Do you even know where Europe is on a world map?)

> > It's never a good choice, but it may well be the least worst
> > choice. Regardless, the choice must ever be the woman's (with the
> > advice (but not consent) ideally of the father and certainly the
> > physician).

> Too bad it isn't written into law like that, huh?

Thanks to idiots like you? There are so many bad laws around and you
are feel proud that this is so!

Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw

[Ray Fischer]

Kathy > wrote:
>Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
>developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
>abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root
>of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.

Which is why you would rather sit on your ass and play with computers
while 10,000+ people die of hunger each and every day.

Apparently being selfish is bad, but being selfish and a hypocrite
is good.

--
Ray Fischer

[Johnny]

Is it mosquito?
Is it a biracial baby?

[Bill]

Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious beliefs.
That's fine.
If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.

People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
"PROVIDED" they do
not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.

Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is and should be the women's personal
choice
without their choice be FORCED OR MANDATED by others.

"Kathy" > wrote in message
news:CCZXTJSS38512.821412037@anonymous...
>
>
> Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
> developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
> abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root
> of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.
>
> Andrew Hacker, writing in Harper’s magazine, made this point: “In
> fact, abortion conceals a basic social conflict, but one we are not
> prepared to discuss. The subject is sexual intercourse.” For many
> people sex is a very important pastime. They want to enjoy it fully,
> but they do not want the responsibility of taking care of a natural
> consequence of sex—a baby! Abortion is a method of birth control—a
> very sick method—used not only in Japan but in many parts of the
> world.
>
> Many people are addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. Their respect
> for life is overshadowed by their selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure.
> The Bible says: “In the last days critical times hard to deal with
> will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves” and “lovers of
> pleasures rather than lovers of God.” Is it not obvious that this
> condition prevails in our day?—2 Timothy 3:1-4.
>
> Proponents of abortion use expressions to cover the real atrocity
> that is committed. They refer to “the products of conception” and the
> “contents of the uterus.” The actual act of abortion is called the
> “termination of pregnancy.” They try to avoid the moral issue. But
> the honest truth, simply put, is this: Abortion is the killing of a
> human. It makes no difference whether the life is snuffed out in the
> uterus within 12 weeks of conception or whether it is choked to death
> 12 minutes after it is born! It has been killed.
>
> In Britain, after a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes,
> it is reported that two of the nurses had “horrific nightmares.” Some
> have quit their profession after such abortion incidents. Seeing the
> helpless aborted fetus struggling to live is not a pleasant
> experience!
>
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>
>
>
>

[Johnny]

"Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious beliefs.
> That's fine.
> If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.
>
> People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
> "PROVIDED" they do
> not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.

Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?

> Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is and should be the women's personal
> choice
> without their choice be FORCED OR MANDATED by others.

Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?

[robpar]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:31:58 -0400, "Johnny" >
wrote:

>
>"Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious beliefs.
>> That's fine.
>> If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.
>>
>> People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
>> "PROVIDED" they do
>> not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.
>
>Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?
>
Look stupid, abortions are not forced on anyone. However their are
a large number of self righteous bigots, like your self that would
deny women any rights at all. Returning us to the dark ages when women
were property, with no rights. That's the christian way, hate filled
nosy busy bodies. The scum of the earth.

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Johnny wrote:

> Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
> Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?

Allowing certain people certain freedoms that in no way impinge on anyone
else's freedoms cannot be called "forcing upon" by any stretch of imagination.

Therefore your statement above is pure nonsense, unless you have an example
of anyone being forced to undergo abortion against her wishes.




--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Johnny]

"Attila" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:31:58 -0400, "Johnny" >
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious
>>> beliefs.
>>> That's fine.
>>> If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.
>>>
>>> People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
>>> "PROVIDED" they do
>>> not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.
>>
>>Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?
>
> Exactly how is someone who is opposed to abortion forced to do
> anything under R v W?

They are forced to agree with an unrepresentative, unconstitutionally
'enacted' provision and with living in a nation that is divided by that
provision.

> Exactly how did their lives change from 1972 to 1974? Please be
> specific and detail the exact requirements under R v W that has
> changed their lives.

72 to 74?
Why aren't you concerned about today?
2005.

>>
>>> Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is and should be the women's
>>> personal
>>> choice
>>> without their choice be FORCED OR MANDATED by others.
>>
>>Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?
>>
>
> Exactly how is someone who is opposed to abortion forced to do
> anything under R v W?

They are forced by life to be subject to an abortionist governmental
provision which fails to represent all people in common. They are forced by
birth to adapt, somehow, to a government that allows abortion on demand to
be in force via opinion and not by representation.

[Johnny]

"robpar" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:31:58 -0400, "Johnny" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious
>>> beliefs.
>>> That's fine.
>>> If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.
>>>
>>> People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
>>> "PROVIDED" they do
>>> not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.
>>
>>Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?
>>
> Look stupid, abortions are not forced on anyone.

Bull****. Abortion on demand is the unrepresentative dictate of the Supreme
Court since 1973.

> However their are
> a large number of self righteous bigots, like your self that would
> deny women any rights at all.

There you go falling down on the sexist line again.
Why do you ignore and neglect men in the USA?
Why are you so partial based on gender?
Why don't you go ahead and make up the lie that abortion on demand is only
for women and that the full responsibility falls upon them with regard to
childbearing and the choices of abortion or no abortion in each pregnancy?
Why are you SO ****ING STUPID when it comes to knowing how to require MEN to
behave properly?
Has to be because you are not well-behaved as a man enough.
Your excuses are unattractive and they are full of disrepsect for women AND
men.

> Returning us to the dark ages when women
> were property, with no rights.

You're the unrighteous, bigoted, misbehaved, erroneous excuse maker here.
How many more excuses you need?
How many times you going to your criminal friends whether they are relatives
or otherwise and arranging some wicked scheme to protect yourself while you
KNOW that you are doing harm, actual harm to others in the USA?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!

> That's the christian way, hate filled
> nosy busy bodies.

You are the person who is filled with hate.
Believe it.
Take the GOD DAMNED LOG OUT OF YOUR OWN EYE, ASSHOLE, and stop trying to
remove a miniscule speck from the eyes of those who are proven to outperform
you in almost every aspect of life.

> The scum of the earth.

YOU and your ilk.

[Johnny]

"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
> Johnny wrote:
>
>> Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>> Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon
>> them?
>
> Allowing certain people certain freedoms that in no way impinge on anyone
> else's freedoms cannot be called "forcing upon" by any stretch of
> imagination.

BULL****.
Read the Constitution and notice how Roe V Wade is an unrepresentative,
unconstitutional edict by too few persons in the USA.

> Therefore your statement above is pure nonsense,

Bull****.
Your statement is not in line with the Constitutional framework of
government in the USA.

> unless you have an example of anyone being forced to undergo abortion
> against her wishes.

That is NOT the issue.
The issue is that Roe V Wade is illegal.

[Daniel T.]

In article >,
"Johnny" > wrote:

> "Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Johnny wrote:
> >
> >> Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
> >> Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon
> >> them?
> >
> > Allowing certain people certain freedoms that in no way impinge on anyone
> > else's freedoms cannot be called "forcing upon" by any stretch of
> > imagination.
>
> BULL****.
> Read the Constitution and notice how Roe V Wade is an unrepresentative,
> unconstitutional edict by too few persons in the USA.

Your going to have to prove your assertion here. Please cite some source
that says that the majority of people in the USA want to stop others
from having abortions.

[robpar]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:53:35 -0400, "Johnny" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>> Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon
>>> them?
>>
>> Allowing certain people certain freedoms that in no way impinge on anyone
>> else's freedoms cannot be called "forcing upon" by any stretch of
>> imagination.
>
>BULL****.
>Read the Constitution and notice how Roe V Wade is an unrepresentative,
>unconstitutional edict by too few persons in the USA.
>
>> Therefore your statement above is pure nonsense,
>
>Bull****.
>Your statement is not in line with the Constitutional framework of
>government in the USA.
>
>> unless you have an example of anyone being forced to undergo abortion
>> against her wishes.
>
>That is NOT the issue.
>The issue is that Roe V Wade is illegal.
>


Nope the issue is do self righteous bigots have the rights to
make decisions, for others. The supreme court rightly decided that you
do not have that right, that women have the right to make such
decisions for them selves. And that self righteous bigots cannot force
their beliefs on others.
The laws prohibiting women from having a choice was illegal
(unconstitional). Probably the best ruling the court has ever made.

[Ray Fischer]

Johnny > wrote:
>
>"Attila" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:31:58 -0400, "Johnny" >
>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>> Your opposition to abortion is obviously based on your religious
>>>> beliefs.
>>>> That's fine.
>>>> If you can convince a women not to abort a fetus that is fine.
>>>>
>>>> People should however be able to conform to their own religious beliefs
>>>> "PROVIDED" they do
>>>> not attempt to FORCE their beliefs on others.
>>>
>>>Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>>Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon them?
>>
>> Exactly how is someone who is opposed to abortion forced to do
>> anything under R v W?
>
>They are forced to agree with an unrepresentative, unconstitutionally

Try not to be such a stupid asshole. They struck down laws that were
unconstitutional.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

Johnny > wrote:
>
>"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean people are not supposed to be represented in the USA via
>>> Constitutional government and to accept Roe V Wade being FORCED upon
>>> them?
>>
>> Allowing certain people certain freedoms that in no way impinge on anyone
>> else's freedoms cannot be called "forcing upon" by any stretch of
>> imagination.
>
>BULL****.
>Read the Constitution and notice how Roe V Wade is an unrepresentative,
>unconstitutional edict

So I read the constitution and find that you're a lying moron.

--
Ray Fischer

[Amber Bohnett]

I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it is
not just a debate with religion. When people do it because they feel that
they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of another
human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
caused to happen. My own mother gave birth to me at 16 years old and had
gotten pregnant with me while still 15 and had three more little accidents
follow. Against the wishes of my grandfather, she chose not to terminate her
pregnancy when she discovered I was on the way. She may have had to drop out
of school, but she has done an excellent job at handling the responsibility
of raising the four children she ended up with. Now, at 16 myself, I
appreciate the life she let me keep and I know that on every occasion my
grandfather sees me, he eats the words he once said to his pregnant daughter
because he would have never known his grandchild if she had killed me.
Another instance of abortion in my family came up before my mother conceived
me. This was when my aunt decided to have one after finding that she was
knocked up from the decision that SHE and her boyfriend had made to have
unprotected sex. Being a person with a conscience she ended up being very
depressed when the realization of what she had done hit her. When she
finally got married and wanted children she could not have them no matter
how hard she and my uncle tried, and this was because of what damage the
abortion had done to her uterus. Luckily for her, she did end up by some
miracle conceiving my cousin, but still to this day regrets ending the life
of her first child who we never had a chance to meet. In some cases abortion
could be considered necessary, such as rape(how many women would want that
permanent attachent to their attacker which they did nothing to provoke?),
incest(for the risk of mental problems and physical deformities), or
possibly losing your own life carrying or delivering your child(what can you
do for your child if you are dead?). I feel these are the ONLY exceptions
doctors should allow for abortions to be carried out. All other reasons for
abortions, whether it be one night stands or sex with a serious partner,
that you do not want to accept responsibility for because you are too damn
lazy or selfish, deserve no less than utter rejection.



"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
> Kathy wrote:
>
> > Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
> > developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
> > abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root
> > of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.
>
> Is that right? And where is this "fact" coming from?
>
> > Andrew Hacker, writing in Harper’s magazine, made this point: “In
> > fact, abortion conceals a basic social conflict, but one we are not
> > prepared to discuss. The subject is sexual intercourse.” For many
> > people sex is a very important pastime. They want to enjoy it fully,
> > but they do not want the responsibility of taking care of a natural
> > consequence of sex—a baby! Abortion is a method of birth control—a
> > very sick method—used not only in Japan but in many parts of the
> > world.
>
> So what?
>
> > Many people are addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. Their respect
> > for life is overshadowed by their selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure.
>
> Oooh, get on the phone and call the pleasure police!
>
> > The Bible says: “In the last days critical times hard to deal with
> > will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves” and “lovers of
> > pleasures rather than lovers of God.” Is it not obvious that this
> > condition prevails in our day?—2 Timothy 3:1-4.
>
> Who gives a flying **** what the Bible says?
>
> > Proponents of abortion use expressions to cover the real atrocity
> > that is committed. They refer to “the products of conception” and the
> > “contents of the uterus.” The actual act of abortion is called the
> > “termination of pregnancy.” They try to avoid the moral issue. But
> > the honest truth, simply put, is this: Abortion is the killing of a
> > human.
>
> No, it isn't. A fetus is not a human, no matter how hard you ****ed up
> religionists are trying to twist biology.
>
> > It makes no difference whether the life is snuffed out in the
> > uterus within 12 weeks of conception or whether it is choked to death
> > 12 minutes after it is born! It has been killed.
>
> Only in the mind of a ****ed up religionist.
>
> > In Britain, after a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes,
> > it is reported that two of the nurses had “horrific nightmares.” Some
> > have quit their profession after such abortion incidents. Seeing the
> > helpless aborted fetus struggling to live is not a pleasant
> > experience!
>
> You don't say? And what other imaginary events have taken place in your
> fantasy world?
>
> "... a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes..."
>
> Lying for Jesus again, are we?
>
> Lying ****.
>
>
> --
> Come down off the cross
> We can use the wood
>
> Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Amber Bohnett wrote:

> I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it is
> not just a debate with religion. When people do it because they feel that
> they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
> prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of another
> human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
> caused to happen.
[snip bullcrap]
> In some cases abortion
> could be considered necessary, such as rape(how many women would want that
> permanent attachent to their attacker which they did nothing to provoke?),
> incest(for the risk of mental problems and physical deformities), or
> possibly losing your own life carrying or delivering your child(what can you
> do for your child if you are dead?). I feel these are the ONLY exceptions
> doctors should allow for abortions to be carried out.

How so? First you claim that abortion is "destroying the life of another
human being", then you proceed to claim with a straight face that it is
perfectly acceptable to destroy the "life of another human being" if his
father happens to be a rapist. Doesn't that strike you as a little hypocritical?

> All other reasons for
> abortions, whether it be one night stands or sex with a serious partner,
> that you do not want to accept responsibility for because you are too damn
> lazy or selfish, deserve no less than utter rejection.

So don't do it. No one is forcing you to abort if you don't want to.
However, you can't have it both ways - protect the "life of another human
being" when it suits your parochial definition of the day, then "destroy" it
when you happen to feel like it.




--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Ron Peterson]

Amber Bohnett wrote:
> I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it is
> not just a debate with religion.

It's a question of whether society should punish a woman for choosing
to have an abortion. Society has the alternative of compensating a
woman for not having an abortion.

--
Ron

[robpar]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:12:40 GMT, "Amber Bohnett"
> wrote:

So don't have one. What gives you the right to make such a
important decision for others? Why are you such a bigot that you
believe that everyone should live according to your beliefs?
Incidentally many christians believe that certain people should not be
allowed to have children. Where other should be brood sows to produce
more christians.

>I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it is
>not just a debate with religion. When people do it because they feel that
>they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
>prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of another
>human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
>caused to happen. My own mother gave birth to me at 16 years old and had
>gotten pregnant with me while still 15 and had three more little accidents
>follow. Against the wishes of my grandfather, she chose not to terminate her
>pregnancy when she discovered I was on the way. She may have had to drop out
>of school, but she has done an excellent job at handling the responsibility
>of raising the four children she ended up with. Now, at 16 myself, I
>appreciate the life she let me keep and I know that on every occasion my
>grandfather sees me, he eats the words he once said to his pregnant daughter
>because he would have never known his grandchild if she had killed me.
>Another instance of abortion in my family came up before my mother conceived
>me. This was when my aunt decided to have one after finding that she was
>knocked up from the decision that SHE and her boyfriend had made to have
>unprotected sex. Being a person with a conscience she ended up being very
>depressed when the realization of what she had done hit her. When she
>finally got married and wanted children she could not have them no matter
>how hard she and my uncle tried, and this was because of what damage the
>abortion had done to her uterus. Luckily for her, she did end up by some
>miracle conceiving my cousin, but still to this day regrets ending the life
>of her first child who we never had a chance to meet. In some cases abortion
>could be considered necessary, such as rape(how many women would want that
>permanent attachent to their attacker which they did nothing to provoke?),
>incest(for the risk of mental problems and physical deformities), or
>possibly losing your own life carrying or delivering your child(what can you
>do for your child if you are dead?). I feel these are the ONLY exceptions
>doctors should allow for abortions to be carried out. All other reasons for
>abortions, whether it be one night stands or sex with a serious partner,
>that you do not want to accept responsibility for because you are too damn
>lazy or selfish, deserve no less than utter rejection.
>
>
>
>"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
>> Kathy wrote:
>>
>> > Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
>> > developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
>> > abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root
>> > of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.
>>
>> Is that right? And where is this "fact" coming from?
>>
>> > Andrew Hacker, writing in Harper’s magazine, made this point: “In
>> > fact, abortion conceals a basic social conflict, but one we are not
>> > prepared to discuss. The subject is sexual intercourse.” For many
>> > people sex is a very important pastime. They want to enjoy it fully,
>> > but they do not want the responsibility of taking care of a natural
>> > consequence of sex—a baby! Abortion is a method of birth control—a
>> > very sick method—used not only in Japan but in many parts of the
>> > world.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> > Many people are addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. Their respect
>> > for life is overshadowed by their selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure.
>>
>> Oooh, get on the phone and call the pleasure police!
>>
>> > The Bible says: “In the last days critical times hard to deal with
>> > will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves” and “lovers of
>> > pleasures rather than lovers of God.” Is it not obvious that this
>> > condition prevails in our day?—2 Timothy 3:1-4.
>>
>> Who gives a flying **** what the Bible says?
>>
>> > Proponents of abortion use expressions to cover the real atrocity
>> > that is committed. They refer to “the products of conception” and the
>> > “contents of the uterus.” The actual act of abortion is called the
>> > “termination of pregnancy.” They try to avoid the moral issue. But
>> > the honest truth, simply put, is this: Abortion is the killing of a
>> > human.
>>
>> No, it isn't. A fetus is not a human, no matter how hard you ****ed up
>> religionists are trying to twist biology.
>>
>> > It makes no difference whether the life is snuffed out in the
>> > uterus within 12 weeks of conception or whether it is choked to death
>> > 12 minutes after it is born! It has been killed.
>>
>> Only in the mind of a ****ed up religionist.
>>
>> > In Britain, after a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes,
>> > it is reported that two of the nurses had “horrific nightmares.” Some
>> > have quit their profession after such abortion incidents. Seeing the
>> > helpless aborted fetus struggling to live is not a pleasant
>> > experience!
>>
>> You don't say? And what other imaginary events have taken place in your
>> fantasy world?
>>
>> "... a 24-week-old aborted fetus lived for 10 minutes..."
>>
>> Lying for Jesus again, are we?
>>
>> Lying ****.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Come down off the cross
>> We can use the wood
>>
>> Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
>

[Ray Fischer]

Amber Bohnett > wrote:
>I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong,

And I think you're wrong. Do I get to force you to suffer and even
die in order to obey me?

> so you see it is
>not just a debate with religion.

It's ALWAYS about the arrogant belief that you're better than
everybody else.

> When people do it because they feel that
>they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
>prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of another
>human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
>caused to happen.

And why are YOU allowed to "destroy" human lives? Why are YOU allowed
to sit on your ass and let children die?

--
Ray Fischer

[Amber Bohnett]

"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
> Amber Bohnett wrote:
>
> > I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it
is
> > not just a debate with religion. When people do it because they feel
that
> > they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
> > prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of
another
> > human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
> > caused to happen.
> [snip bullcrap]
> > In some cases abortion
> > could be considered necessary, such as rape(how many women would want
that
> > permanent attachent to their attacker which they did nothing to
provoke?),
> > incest(for the risk of mental problems and physical deformities), or
> > possibly losing your own life carrying or delivering your child(what can
you
> > do for your child if you are dead?). I feel these are the ONLY
exceptions
> > doctors should allow for abortions to be carried out.
>
> How so? First you claim that abortion is "destroying the life of another
> human being", then you proceed to claim with a straight face that it is
> perfectly acceptable to destroy the "life of another human being" if his
> father happens to be a rapist. Doesn't that strike you as a little
hypocritical?
>
Not in the least bit. I case you didn't notice the point I argue is that
pregnant mothers should be taking responsibility for the actions they CHOSE
to take. Rape is NOT a choice but rather a disgusting act forced on a woman
by her attacker. Therefore she should not be forced to carry the burden of
what has happened to her as a result of her rape unless she chooses to which
would take one hell of a strong woman to do and I am in no way saying that
these women SHOULD abort their children,but should be some of the very few
who should be allowed to have that choice.


> > All other reasons for
> > abortions, whether it be one night stands or sex with a serious
partner,
> > that you do not want to accept responsibility for because you are too
damn
> > lazy or selfish, deserve no less than utter rejection.
>
> So don't do it. No one is forcing you to abort if you don't want to.
> However, you can't have it both ways - protect the "life of another human
> being" when it suits your parochial definition of the day, then "destroy"
it
> when you happen to feel like it.
>
> Again I see we weren't paying attention. Linking abortions again to
religion...I do not hold what you refer to as a parochial definition of
anything, but rather see things as a person who has a conscience. I see
nothing on here other than a bashing of religion as support of your
pro-choice beliefs leading me to think you are just using that as an excuse
to justify what is probably your own guilt over your own issues with
abortions. Let me guess, you just do not want to be seen as a bad person,
right? Not doing a very good job...

>
>
> --
> Come down off the cross
> We can use the wood
>
> Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Ray Fischer]

Amber Bohnett > wrote:
>"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message

>> How so? First you claim that abortion is "destroying the life of another
>> human being", then you proceed to claim with a straight face that it is
>> perfectly acceptable to destroy the "life of another human being" if his
>> father happens to be a rapist. Doesn't that strike you as a little hypocritical?
>>
>Not in the least bit. I case you didn't notice the point I argue is that
>pregnant mothers should be taking responsibility for the actions they CHOSE
>to take. Rape is NOT a choice but rather a disgusting act forced on a woman
>by her attacker. Therefore she should not be forced to carry the burden of
>what has happened to her as a result of her rape unless she chooses to which
>would take one hell of a strong woman to do and I am in no way saying that
>these women SHOULD abort their children,but should be some of the very few
>who should be allowed to have that choice.

So your entire argument is that sex is a crime and motherhood is the
punishment.

A particularly perverse attitude. You hate other people having fun.

--
Ray Fischer

[Somewriter]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:47:21 GMT, "Amber Bohnett"
> wrote:

[...]

>Not in the least bit. I case you didn't notice the point I argue is that
>pregnant mothers should be taking responsibility for the actions they CHOSE
>to take. Rape is NOT a choice but rather a disgusting act forced on a woman
>by her attacker. Therefore she should not be forced to carry the burden of
>what has happened to her as a result of her rape unless she chooses to which
>would take one hell of a strong woman to do

It takes a hell of a person to make the kind of choices some people
have to make with regards to pregnancy, regardless of the
circumstances surrounding the conception.

> and I am in no way saying that
>these women SHOULD abort their children,but should be some of the very few
>who should be allowed to have that choice.

Tell me, "Amber" -- why do devalue childbirth as to use it as means to
punish sexually active woman?

[....]

>> Again I see we weren't paying attention. Linking abortions again to
>religion...I do not hold what you refer to as a parochial definition of
>anything, but rather see things as a person who has a conscience.

As a person with a conscience, you should know better than to thrust
"motherhood" upon anybody who doesn't want to become a mother or fofce
somebody to give up their babies.

> I see
>nothing on here other than a bashing of religion as support of your
>pro-choice beliefs...

Oh, my bashing of your arrogance hasn't anything to do with my
Pro-Choice beliefs, but to tell you to ****-off where it concerns my
right to decide the course of my pregnancy. And religious hypocrites
can be pointed out -- that's my right to say.


> leading me to think you are just using that as an excuse
>to justify what is probably your own guilt over your own issues with
>abortions.

From where did you infer this (alleged) guilt?

> Let me guess, you just do not want to be seen as a bad person,
>right? Not doing a very good job...

What makes them bad?

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Amber Bohnett wrote:

>>How so? First you claim that abortion is "destroying the life of another
>>human being", then you proceed to claim with a straight face that it is
>>perfectly acceptable to destroy the "life of another human being" if his
>>father happens to be a rapist. Doesn't that strike you as a little
>>hypocritical?
>
> Not in the least bit.

It was a rhetorical question. Of course no pro-lifer ever considers
him/herself a hypocrite.

> I case you didn't notice the point I argue is that
> pregnant mothers should be taking responsibility for the actions they CHOSE
> to take. Rape is NOT a choice but rather a disgusting act forced on a woman
> by her attacker. Therefore she should not be forced to carry the burden of
> what has happened to her as a result of her rape unless she chooses to which
> would take one hell of a strong woman to do and I am in no way saying that
> these women SHOULD abort their children,but should be some of the very few
> who should be allowed to have that choice.

I don't understand. You are saying that every abortion is a murder of a
human being, unless that human being happens to have a rapist for a father?
Then that makes it perfectly alright to "murder" the embryo, pardon me,
human. Well, can we extend that practice further? What if the raped woman
gives birth to the rapist's child? Can we murder the child when he's like
three years old? Why not?


> Again I see we weren't paying attention. Linking abortions again to
> religion...

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I ever mentioned anything
about religion in the previous post?

> I do not hold what you refer to as a parochial definition of
> anything, but rather see things as a person who has a conscience.

And every pro-choicer sees him/herself as a person who has a conscience,
too. What's your point and who died and made you a conscience police?

> I see nothing on here other than a bashing of religion as support of your
> pro-choice beliefs

Provide a quote from my previous post where I "bash religion" in any way.

> leading me to think you are just using that as an excuse
> to justify what is probably your own guilt over your own issues with
> abortions.

Ah, another Internet psychologist. Keep your day job.

> Let me guess, you just do not want to be seen as a bad person,
> right? Not doing a very good job...

And **** you, too.


--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Bill]

"Somewriter" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Jun 2005 23:42:50 -0000,
> (Kathy) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
>>developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
>>abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness...
>
> I bet you had your children to satisfy some duty you have to your
> deity.

Don't be so simplistic. Your probably a simplistic male that has no
appreciation of
female problems.

There are a number of valid reasons for an abortion. Abortions are the
result of UNWANTED
ACCIDENTAL pregnancies.

The carrying of a child to birth might aggravate an existing physical
problem and threaten
the women's health or life.

A 14 or 15 year old having a child seriously compromises the benefits of the
life of both
the mother and the child.

A women who does not want the responsibility of raising a child is likely to
seriously neglect
and fail to properly raise a child.

This is a women's critical personal decision that should not be made by
outsiders.

[The Chief Instigator]

"Bill" > writes:

>"Somewriter" > wrote in message
...
>> On 9 Jun 2005 23:42:50 -0000,
>> (Kathy) wrote:

>>>Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is
>>>developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor
>>>abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness...

>> I bet you had your children to satisfy some duty you have to your
>> deity.

>Don't be so simplistic. Your probably a simplistic male that has no
>appreciation of female problems.

Seeing as she's female and twice a mother, I hope you have bandages for those
feet of yours you just strafed. ;-)

>There are a number of valid reasons for an abortion. Abortions are the result
>of UNWANTED ACCIDENTAL pregnancies.

>The carrying of a child to birth might aggravate an existing physical problem
>and threaten the women's health or life.

>A 14 or 15 year old having a child seriously compromises the benefits of the
>life of both the mother and the child.

>A women who does not want the responsibility of raising a child is likely to
>seriously neglect and fail to properly raise a child.

>This is a women's critical personal decision that should not be made by
>outsiders.

No problems with any of that, but then, I've been pro-choice since a little
before RvW. We don't need itchy trigger fingers.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35