Re: Should she abort?

[Daniel T.]

In article <Q93K6PT238512.8019328704@anonymous>,
(Cracklin') wrote:

> She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
> child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
> appealed to her to consent to an abortion: “You have two fine,
> healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
> their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
> the child you have conceived.” The argument had persuasive appeal.
>
> Should she have the abortion?

What does she want? What does the father of the child want?

Why are you asking this question on alt.atheism? I don't see how this
has anything to do with whether someone believes in God.

[Johnny]

"Cracklin'" > wrote in message
news:Q93K6PT238512.8019328704@anonymous...
> She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
>
> child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
>
> appealed to her to consent to an abortion: "You have two fine,
>
> healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
>
> their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
>
> the child you have conceived." The argument had persuasive appeal.
>
> Should she have the abortion?

Probably not, but then again I do not know if she was raped.

[Bill]

ABSOLUTELY if she thinks so. This is her personal decision which should not
be forced on her by anyone.

"Cracklin'" > wrote in message
news:Q93K6PT238512.8019328704@anonymous...
> She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
>
> child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
>
> appealed to her to consent to an abortion: “You have two fine,
>
> healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
>
> their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
>
> the child you have conceived.” The argument had persuasive appeal.
>
> Should she have the abortion?
>
>
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>
>
>
>

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Johnny wrote:


>>She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
>>
>>child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
>>
>>appealed to her to consent to an abortion: "You have two fine,
>>
>>healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
>>
>>their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
>>
>>the child you have conceived." The argument had persuasive appeal.
>>
>>Should she have the abortion?
>
>
> Probably not, but then again I do not know if she was raped.


The rationale being, I presume, that in the case of rape, the resulting
fetus is automatically downgraded from being a "human being" to non-human?

This scenario likewise applies in the case of incest, serious fetus
deformity and any situation when a pro-lifer decides to terminate her own
unwanted pregnancy.



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

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Johnny]

"Charles & Mambo Duckman" > wrote in message
...
> Johnny wrote:
>
>
>>>She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
>>>
>>>child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
>>>
>>>appealed to her to consent to an abortion: "You have two fine,
>>>
>>>healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
>>>
>>>their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
>>>
>>>the child you have conceived." The argument had persuasive appeal.
>>>
>>>Should she have the abortion?
>>
>>
>> Probably not, but then again I do not know if she was raped.
>
>
> The rationale being, I presume, that in the case of rape, the resulting
> fetus is automatically downgraded from being a "human being" to non-human?

The rationale being that the sex was non-consensual.
Now you are acting like a rapist who likes to control women.

> This scenario likewise applies in the case of incest,

Not if the sex is consensual.

> serious fetus deformity

I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live
even with serious deformity.
Where is the death warrant in such cases?

> and any situation when a pro-lifer decides to terminate her own unwanted
> pregnancy.

I never look at it as if the fetus inside is non-human, unless of course it
is bi-special, in which case it would be the product of two species. Even
then no abortion would be necessary.

[Daniel T.]

In article >,
"Johnny" > wrote:

> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live

What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
What would you do if you were king?

[Ray Fischer]

Johnny > wrote:
>Now you are acting like a rapist who likes to control women.

You are the one demanding that women provide the use of their bodies
for what you want.

--
Ray Fischer

[Johnny]

"Daniel T." > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Johnny" > wrote:
>
>> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live
>
> What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
> What would you do if you were king?

Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage issue.
I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then maybe
there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
dilemma.
Which fetuses should be exempted from being aborted is pretty much the
question that needs to be answered, imo.
Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be allowed,
even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped by the
rapist.
Abortion should not be allowed in the case of adultery because it fosters
infidelity.
Having children that are created via consensual sex, without placing those
children up for adoption, places the burden that was created by the
consenting sex partners appropriately.
There are more cases, yet one sweeping measure seems to be inadequate to
preserve relationships and care for all our people.
Personal responsibility to more than self seems to have taken a back seat to
the "love one another" tenet.

[Daniel T.]

In article >,
"Johnny" > wrote:

> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Johnny" > wrote:
> >
> >> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live
> >
> > What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
> > What would you do if you were king?
>
> Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage issue.
> I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
> attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
> If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then maybe
> there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
> dilemma.
> Which fetuses should be exempted from being aborted is pretty much the
> question that needs to be answered, imo.
> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be allowed,
> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped by the
> rapist.

You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of the
illegal actions of his father? Boy, I thought my opinion on abortion was
radical...

> Abortion should not be allowed in the case of adultery because it fosters
> infidelity.
> Having children that are created via consensual sex, without placing those
> children up for adoption, places the burden that was created by the
> consenting sex partners appropriately.
> There are more cases, yet one sweeping measure seems to be inadequate to
> preserve relationships and care for all our people.
> Personal responsibility to more than self seems to have taken a back seat to
> the "love one another" tenet.

You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
should be done to stop it from happening?

[Johnny]

"Daniel T." > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Johnny" > wrote:
>
>> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Johnny" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would
>> >> live
>> >
>> > What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
>> > What would you do if you were king?
>>
>> Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage
>> issue.
>> I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
>> attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
>> If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then
>> maybe
>> there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
>> dilemma.
>> Which fetuses should be exempted from being aborted is pretty much the
>> question that needs to be answered, imo.
>> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be allowed,
>> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped by
>> the
>> rapist.
>
> You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of the
> illegal actions of his father?

What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?

> Boy, I thought my opinion on abortion was
> radical...

Maybe it is.

>> Abortion should not be allowed in the case of adultery because it fosters
>> infidelity.
>> Having children that are created via consensual sex, without placing
>> those
>> children up for adoption, places the burden that was created by the
>> consenting sex partners appropriately.
>> There are more cases, yet one sweeping measure seems to be inadequate to
>> preserve relationships and care for all our people.
>> Personal responsibility to more than self seems to have taken a back seat
>> to
>> the "love one another" tenet.
>
> You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
> should be done to stop it from happening?

I DID answer the question.
I told you quite specifically what I would do.
I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
Constitutional means.
If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
conform and not be cited for treason.

[Daniel T.]

In article >,
"Johnny" > wrote:

> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Johnny" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Johnny" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would
> >> >> live
> >> >
> >> > What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
> >> > What would you do if you were king?
> >>
> >> Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage
> >> issue.
> >> I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
> >> attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
> >> If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then
> >> maybe
> >> there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
> >> dilemma.
> >> Which fetuses should be exempted from being aborted is pretty much the
> >> question that needs to be answered, imo.
> >> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be allowed,
> >> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped by
> >> the
> >> rapist.
> >
> > You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of the
> > illegal actions of his father?
>
> What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?

So a child is simply the man's property, and can be destroyed if the
government determines that he acquired it illegally? If this is not what
you mean, then I'm not sure how to interpret the word 'have' in your
question above.

> > You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
> > should be done to stop it from happening?
>
> I DID answer the question.
> I told you quite specifically what I would do.
> I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
> Constitutional means.
> If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
> conform and not be cited for treason.

The above doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that the people vote
and decide that abortion is not allowed... What should be done to stop
it from happening?

[Johnny]

"Daniel T." > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Johnny" > wrote:
>
>> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Johnny" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Johnny" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would
>> >> >> live
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think the government should do to stop it from
>> >> > happening?
>> >> > What would you do if you were king?
>> >>
>> >> Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage
>> >> issue.
>> >> I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
>> >> attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
>> >> If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then
>> >> maybe
>> >> there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
>> >> dilemma.
>> >> Which fetuses should be exempted from being aborted is pretty much the
>> >> question that needs to be answered, imo.
>> >> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be
>> >> allowed,
>> >> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped
>> >> by
>> >> the
>> >> rapist.
>> >
>> > You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of the
>> > illegal actions of his father?
>>
>> What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?
>
> So a child is simply the man's property,

How is it the rapist's property if the rapist sowed in ground that was
unwilling to allow such action upon it?
Do you not understand what trespass against another person entails?
A rapist takes another person's property, in this case their body, and uses
it without permission.
There is no legal right to preserve a child that is created by rape, because
it was created via usuriousness and thievery.
The rapist is required to pay restitution, and that is with the child he
created and with money to compensate the woman who he wronged.

> and can be destroyed if the
> government determines that he acquired it illegally?

Sure. The method of abortion to utilize is determined to be the method which
is the least risky to her after counseling her with regard to the risks
associated with each type abortion method.

> If this is not what
> you mean, then I'm not sure how to interpret the word 'have' in your
> question above.

Who are the parents of such a child?
Do you really want to bring rape babies into the world?

>> > You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
>> > should be done to stop it from happening?
>>
>> I DID answer the question.
>> I told you quite specifically what I would do.
>> I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
>> Constitutional means.
>> If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
>> conform and not be cited for treason.
>
> The above doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that the people vote
> and decide that abortion is not allowed... What should be done to stop
> it from happening?

Execute the people who perform them.

[Ray Fischer]

Johnny > wrote:
>"Daniel T." > wrote in message
>> "Johnny" > wrote:
>>
>>> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live
>>
>> What do you think the government should do to stop it from happening?
>> What would you do if you were king?
>
>Allow the people to vote like they are doing in the same-sex marriage issue.
>I have seen the "all persons born..." phrase in the Constitution which
>attributes citizenship to persons of the United States.
>If they would change that phrase to read all persons conceived, then maybe
>there would be a quicker, more well-defined solution to the abortion
>dilemma.

If you would accept reality and stop trying to impose your immoral
contempt of women on unwilling people then there would be no dilemma.

--
Ray Fischer

[Charles & Mambo Duckman]

Johnny wrote:


>>>>She knew that she had serious health problems. When her second
>>>>
>>>>child was born, she had almost died. Now the doctor sincerely
>>>>
>>>>appealed to her to consent to an abortion: "You have two fine,
>>>>
>>>>healthy children. It would be a shame for them to grow up without
>>>>
>>>>their mother. It is just too dangerous for you to consider bearing
>>>>
>>>>the child you have conceived." The argument had persuasive appeal.
>>>>
>>>>Should she have the abortion?
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably not, but then again I do not know if she was raped.
>>
>>
>>The rationale being, I presume, that in the case of rape, the resulting
>>fetus is automatically downgraded from being a "human being" to non-human?
>
>
> The rationale being that the sex was non-consensual.
> Now you are acting like a rapist who likes to control women.

What difference does it make whether the sex was consensual or
non-consensual? I thought the issue that you idiots push is that the embryo
is human and that abortion somehow equals murder. Well, if that is so, what
difference does it make how the pregnancy came about?
Your poisoning the well duly noted.

>>This scenario likewise applies in the case of incest,
>
> Not if the sex is consensual.

??? Let me guess, you live somewhere in the Appalachian?

>>serious fetus deformity
>
> I see no reason to allow an abortion in cases where the fetus would live
> even with serious deformity.
> Where is the death warrant in such cases?

In the serious deformity diagnosis. Duh.

>>and any situation when a pro-lifer decides to terminate her own unwanted
>>pregnancy.
>
> I never look at it as if the fetus inside is non-human, unless of course it
> is bi-special, in which case it would be the product of two species. Even
> then no abortion would be necessary.

So according to you, various blobs of cells become "human" by the virtue of
your "looking at it" in a certain way.
Who died and made you a god? Was it Jesus?



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

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

[Daniel T.]

In article >,
"Johnny" > wrote:

> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
> ...

> >> >> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be
> >> >> allowed,
> >> >> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was raped
> >> >> by
> >> >> the
> >> >> rapist.
> >> >
> >> > You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of the
> >> > illegal actions of his father?
> >>
> >> What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?
> >
> > So a child is simply the man's property,
>
> How is it the rapist's property if the rapist sowed in ground that was
> unwilling to allow such action upon it?
> Do you not understand what trespass against another person entails?
> A rapist takes another person's property, in this case their body, and uses
> it without permission.
> There is no legal right to preserve a child that is created by rape, because
> it was created via usuriousness and thievery.
> The rapist is required to pay restitution, and that is with the child he
> created and with money to compensate the woman who he wronged.

I'm having some trouble understanding you, and I think the disconnect
comes from you not answering my question above. Do you believe it is
moral to murder a human being simply because of the actions of his/her
father?

> > If this is not what
> > you mean, then I'm not sure how to interpret the word 'have' in your
> > question above.
>
> Who are the parents of such a child?
> Do you really want to bring rape babies into the world?

What if the mother wants to raise the kid, do you still think it should
be murdered?

> >> > You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
> >> > should be done to stop it from happening?
> >>
> >> I DID answer the question.
> >> I told you quite specifically what I would do.
> >> I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
> >> Constitutional means.
> >> If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
> >> conform and not be cited for treason.
> >
> > The above doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that the people vote
> > and decide that abortion is not allowed... What should be done to stop
> > it from happening?
>
> Execute the people who perform them.

So a woman can have as many abortions as she wants, she is never held
accountable?

[Johnny]

"Daniel T." > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Johnny" > wrote:
>
>> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> >> >> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be
>> >> >> allowed,
>> >> >> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was
>> >> >> raped
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> rapist.
>> >> >
>> >> > You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of
>> >> > the
>> >> > illegal actions of his father?
>> >>
>> >> What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?
>> >
>> > So a child is simply the man's property,
>>
>> How is it the rapist's property if the rapist sowed in ground that was
>> unwilling to allow such action upon it?
>> Do you not understand what trespass against another person entails?
>> A rapist takes another person's property, in this case their body, and
>> uses
>> it without permission.
>> There is no legal right to preserve a child that is created by rape,
>> because
>> it was created via usuriousness and thievery.
>> The rapist is required to pay restitution, and that is with the child he
>> created and with money to compensate the woman who he wronged.
>
> I'm having some trouble understanding you, and I think the disconnect
> comes from you not answering my question above. Do you believe it is
> moral to murder a human being simply because of the actions of his/her
> father?
>
>> > If this is not what
>> > you mean, then I'm not sure how to interpret the word 'have' in your
>> > question above.
>>
>> Who are the parents of such a child?
>> Do you really want to bring rape babies into the world?
>
> What if the mother wants to raise the kid, do you still think it should
> be murdered?

Why should we employ sexist provisions in this?

>> >> > You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
>> >> > should be done to stop it from happening?
>> >>
>> >> I DID answer the question.
>> >> I told you quite specifically what I would do.
>> >> I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
>> >> Constitutional means.
>> >> If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
>> >> conform and not be cited for treason.
>> >
>> > The above doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that the people
>> > vote
>> > and decide that abortion is not allowed... What should be done to stop
>> > it from happening?
>>
>> Execute the people who perform them.
>
> So a woman can have as many abortions as she wants, she is never held
> accountable?

Sure thing.
Doesn't bother me.
She wouldn't find someone willing to abort her child nearly as easily if the
person who performs the illegal abortion is executed.
You think people are so stupid that they would abort a woman's child if they
knew they would be executed for doing so?

[robpar]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:31:01 -0400, "Johnny" >
wrote:

>
>"Daniel T." > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Johnny" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel T." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>> >> >> Conceptions due to rape are non-consensual, so abortion would be
>>> >> >> allowed,
>>> >> >> even mandated with restitution being paid to the woman who was
>>> >> >> raped
>>> >> >> by
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> rapist.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You wish to *mandate* the murder of a human being simply because of
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > illegal actions of his father?
>>> >>
>>> >> What right does that man have to the child he created via rape?
>>> >
>>> > So a child is simply the man's property,
>>>
>>> How is it the rapist's property if the rapist sowed in ground that was
>>> unwilling to allow such action upon it?
>>> Do you not understand what trespass against another person entails?
>>> A rapist takes another person's property, in this case their body, and
>>> uses
>>> it without permission.
>>> There is no legal right to preserve a child that is created by rape,
>>> because
>>> it was created via usuriousness and thievery.
>>> The rapist is required to pay restitution, and that is with the child he
>>> created and with money to compensate the woman who he wronged.
>>
>> I'm having some trouble understanding you, and I think the disconnect
>> comes from you not answering my question above. Do you believe it is
>> moral to murder a human being simply because of the actions of his/her
>> father?
>>
>>> > If this is not what
>>> > you mean, then I'm not sure how to interpret the word 'have' in your
>>> > question above.
>>>
>>> Who are the parents of such a child?
>>> Do you really want to bring rape babies into the world?
>>
>> What if the mother wants to raise the kid, do you still think it should
>> be murdered?
>
>Why should we employ sexist provisions in this?
>
>>> >> > You did not answer the question. If abortion is "not allowed", what
>>> >> > should be done to stop it from happening?
>>> >>
>>> >> I DID answer the question.
>>> >> I told you quite specifically what I would do.
>>> >> I would allow the people to vote on this issue and settle it via
>>> >> Constitutional means.
>>> >> If you think Constitutional government is radical then maybe you could
>>> >> conform and not be cited for treason.
>>> >
>>> > The above doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that the people
>>> > vote
>>> > and decide that abortion is not allowed... What should be done to stop
>>> > it from happening?
>>>
>>> Execute the people who perform them.
>>
>> So a woman can have as many abortions as she wants, she is never held
>> accountable?
>
>Sure thing.
>Doesn't bother me.
>She wouldn't find someone willing to abort her child nearly as easily if the
>person who performs the illegal abortion is executed.
>You think people are so stupid that they would abort a woman's child if they
>knew they would be executed for doing so?
>

Of course they could, just as you can hire some one to kill some one
for you. Doctors can easily perform abortions, by diagnosing an
infection, and doing a D&C, a slightly more risky procedure than an
abortion.