Pope and abortion
 

Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”

Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.

The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not yet
a functioning human.
It is a part of, and totally dependent on, the women's body. All decisions
on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

"Cracklin'" wrote in message
...
Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its parents.”
Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared: “Actions such as
contraception and abortion are wrong.”

Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.
Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.

Bill wrote:
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

Well, Americans are doing this in the muslim world. What is the differance?

"Johnny" wrote in
:


"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

The freedom of bodily autonomy, idiot.

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Yes, yours.

It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Then you would have no objection if the woman just removes it from her
body, right?


All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.


"Representative" government doesn't mean the "totalitarian" government you
and your anti-choice ilk are trying to impose.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t½-t²l”¹-târ“¶-…n) adj.
1. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the
political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all
aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing
political and cultural expression is suppressed.

--to·tal·i·tar·i·an n.

A practitioner or supporter of such a government. --to·tal”i·tar“i·an·ism
n.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we? Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice **** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Do you actually know anything about fetal development?

It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Not one that can function independently, no.

All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.

-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org

"Graham Kennedy" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Which is an unequal measure policy.

Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.

People want a rule that everyone agrees with instead of a choice agenda that
does nothing to ensure that the consciences of some are not violated and
that others are not saddled with burdens beyond others because they chose
not to have an abortion while others did and escaped their created
responsibilities that others chose not to escape via abortion.
Choice is not a common agenda in the USA.

"Darklady" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
.. .
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?

Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?


Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.

The beauty of law is that no one does the deciding.
With Pro-Choice you have the burden of defending your choice.

Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice **** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.

People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only includes
the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Do you actually know anything about fetal development?

Quite a bit.
There is nothing non-functional about a human being in gestation.
It isn't supposed to be walking and talking already or driving a car.

It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Not one that can function independently, no.

Which is shows that it needs the womb to survive, and that any outside force
invading it is a threat unto its existence.

All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
Without representative government there is no democracy.

And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.

Fetuses do not need to be citizens to be represented.
The voters are who have the power to decide this issue.
If the voters decide that fetuses, even thought they afre not considered
citizens, have the right to live, then that is the way that the government
must rule.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:15:13 -0400, Cracklin' wrote:

Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”

Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.

They can always quit the Church and commit mortal sin, but they can never take
God out of rejecting the evil.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:28:11 -0400, "Bill" wrote:

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not yet
a functioning human.
It is a part of, and totally dependent on, the women's body. All decisions
on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

Then it should be no problem as long as she doesn't hurt another human life,
which is not hers.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:40:46 +0100, Graham Kennedy wrote:

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Not to worry about their conscience. God has them booked to go regardless of
their conscience.

And dat be da way it tis.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:20:46 -0700, Darklady wrote:

Do you actually know anything about fetal development?

Yes, yes I do. And it's human life beginning at conception. And it don't
belong to momma.

She is just the life support system after conception.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.


All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!

His statement is a statement of fact.

WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills. That is
slavery to the government, which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.

But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.

Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?

Mark Sebree

Johnny wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Which is an unequal measure policy.

Not sure what you mean by that phrase. In what
way is it unequal?

Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.

People want a rule that everyone agrees with

Then they are out of luck, and always will be. There is
no such thing as a rule that everybody agrees with,
never has been such a thing and never will be so long
as Humans retain the power of thought.

instead of a choice agenda that
does nothing to ensure that the consciences of some are not violated and
that others are not saddled with burdens beyond others because they chose
not to have an abortion while others did and escaped their created
responsibilities that others chose not to escape via abortion.

If people choose to "saddle" themselves with the "burden"
of an abortion, that is their choice and their problem.


Choice is not a common agenda in the USA.

It certainly seems to be going out of fashion.

duke wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:40:46 +0100, Graham Kennedy wrote:

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Not to worry about their conscience. God has them booked to go regardless of
their conscience.

Which diety are you talking about? Hades? Pluto? Ares? There are
hundreds of thousands to choose from, if not millions. Care to
objectively prove that your diety exists?

Mark Sebree


And dat be da way it tis.

duke

duke wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:40:46 +0100, Graham Kennedy wrote:

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Not to worry about their conscience. God has them booked to go regardless of
their conscience.

And dat be da way it tis.

Conscience matters to them. As for what god may think
about things if he does exist, frankly my dear, I don't
give a damn. I can't think of one single reason why
I should think of him as the boss of me.

"Attila" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:46 -0400, "Johnny"
in alt.abortion with message-id
wrote:


"Graham Kennedy" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.

Which is an unequal measure policy.

How? Each person involved makes her own decision. That is total
freedom.

It is unequal measure based on personal habits.


Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.

People want a rule that everyone agrees with instead of a choice agenda

The 'choice agenda' is simply allowing a woman to make her own choice.

Which is totally sexist.

The only alternative is to force her into a single course of action
whether she agrees or not.

Which would not be sexist.

that
does nothing to ensure that the consciences of some are not violated

Those people are free to decide not to get an abortion. What is the
problem with that?

The fact that others are doing it while they will not do it.
To have am equal measure policy requires equal measure practice.

and
that others are not saddled with burdens beyond others because they chose
not to have an abortion

But if they consider all tech factors involved and make their choice
accordingly they have the freedom that this country is founded upon.

Freedom which guarantees representative government above unrepresentative
government.

Freedom does not imply protection from the consequences of a decision
freely made.

Freedom implies freedom from the evils of others.

while others did and escaped their created
responsibilities

They make that as part of their consideration, and are free to decide
accordingly. This seems to bother you.

It bothers many people.

Do you have a problem with people making personal decisions that you
do not support or do not meet with your approval?

Many people have a problem with it.

Why should anyone care what you think?

Because many people feel as I do about it.
They are very uncomfortable with abortion on demand.

that others chose not to escape via abortion.

But that is their decision to make isn't it?

But, it is not a mandate which equal measure policies depends upon.

Choice is not a common agenda in the USA.


Actually it is,

Not according to surveys.

since freedom if an important principle in this
country and there is no freedom without free choices.

So, you are in favor of abolishing all laws?

"Attila" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
in alt.abortion with message-id
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
.. .
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

In your opinion.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.

Which is a negligent act.

Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.

Why me?
It isn't my child.



All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.


If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.

A woman?
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.

"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.

Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?
Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?


All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!

His statement is a statement of fact.

You are defending a lie.

WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.

It does.

That is
slavery to the government,

Not in fact. The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the interest
of serving the people.
And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.

which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.

Bull****.

But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.

Bull****.
You are resisting democratic rule.

Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?

The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people, for
freedom.

Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.

Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?

Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.

Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?

Because they already know that. Unlike you.



All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!

His statement is a statement of fact.

You are defending a lie.

I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.


WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.

It does.

No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.


That is
slavery to the government,

Not in fact.

Yes, in fact. If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to? She
certainly is not a free person, and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime, but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will. That
sounds like slavery to me.

The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the interest
of serving the people.

How does stealing from the woman, torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.

And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.

However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction. What law has the woman broken? Having sex
is not a crime, and therefore does not deserve punishment. Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.


which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.

Bull****.

My statement is a statement of fact.


But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.

Bull****.

That describes most of what you say.

You are resisting democratic rule.

That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.

What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.


Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?

The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people, for
freedom.

That does not answer the question. Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people, it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment. And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".

The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal, and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous. Making abortion illegal does both, make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.

Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?

Mark Sebree

"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.

Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?

Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.

Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?

Because they already know that. Unlike you.



All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!

His statement is a statement of fact.

You are defending a lie.

I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.


WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.

It does.

No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.

It is neither slavery, indenture servitude, nor torture.
No one is accusing them of a crime.
No one is torturing them.


That is
slavery to the government,

Not in fact.

Yes, in fact.

You are too ignorant to make that determination.

If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to?

Herself.

She
certainly is not a free person,

In your opinion.
According to you all pregnant women are not free.

and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime,

You would accuse of her committing a crime?

but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will.

Not by me she isn't.

That
sounds like slavery to me.

Sounds like is not what slavery is.

The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the
interest
of serving the people.

How does stealing from the woman,

Where will you find the evidence to support your accusation?

torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.

Where you will find the evidence in individual cases to support your
accusations?

And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.

However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction.

Yes. Many times. Some requirements, if not fulfilled, make the
non-fulfillfer culpable.

What law has the woman broken?

Why don't you tell me?
I didn't accused her of a crime.

Having sex
is not a crime,

Shows your ignorance again.

and therefore does not deserve punishment.

You are too ignorant of the law to make such statements.

Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.

Your rebellious side is showing.


which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.

Bull****.

My statement is a statement of fact.

Yet, only you believe it.
You are outnumbered.


But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.

Bull****.

That describes most of what you say.

Wrong.

You are resisting democratic rule.

That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.

Your resistance is futile.

What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.

You are defending none of those things in what is supposed to be a
democratic society.


Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?

The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people,
for
freedom.

That does not answer the question.

Why not?

Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people,

You slipped again.

it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment.

Involuntary servitude is nowhere to be found in pregnancies which result
from consensual sex.

And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".

Why do you ignore the other half?

The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal,

Who is selling women into slavery?

and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous.

Your inaccuracy is observed.

Making abortion illegal does both,

Only in your decieved mind.

make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.

In your deceived mind.

Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?

In a democracy, the will of the people is to be represented above special
interests.

Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" wrote in message
oups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.

Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?

Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.

Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?

Because they already know that. Unlike you.



All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!

His statement is a statement of fact.

You are defending a lie.

I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.


WIthout representative government there is no democracy.

However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.

It does.

No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.

It is neither slavery, indenture servitude, nor torture.

It is, however, involuntary servitude.

No one is accusing them of a crime.

Then they should not be made to suffer an unwanted pregnancy.

No one is torturing them.

You know nothing about childbirth, do you. And unwanted pregnancy can
easily inflict physical, emotional, and financial hardships on the
woman that she has no way of avoiding because she is being forced to
continue the unwanted pregnancy. Those add up to torture. And
childbirth has been described as the greatest pain that a person can
endure, which sounds rather like torture to me.



That is
slavery to the government,

Not in fact.

Yes, in fact.

You are too ignorant to make that determination.

I am far more knowledgeable than you are. And I am perfectly capable
of making such a determination for myself.


If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to?

Herself.

Impossible. That would mean that she could determine her own course of
action, which would be to get an abortion. If you or the government
are forcing her to continue her pregnancy, then she is not able to get
an abortion as she desires, and thus is obviously a slave to the person
or group that is forcing her to suffer needlessly. That makes her a
slave to the government, since you are powerless to demand her
involuntary servitude.


She
certainly is not a free person,

In your opinion.

In fact, given the scenario. A free person could get the desired
abortion.

According to you all pregnant women are not free.

That is what you want, isn't it? The enslavement of women? Women are
currently free to decide for themselves whether they want to continue
their pregnancies or get an abortion. You want to take away that
freedom. Women that want to be pregnant and continue their pregnancies
will not notice any difference, but women that do not want to remain
pregnant will see their chains and suffer under their weight.


and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime,

You would accuse of her committing a crime?

No. You are the one that wants to punish her, not me..


but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will.

Not by me she isn't.

Yes, by you. At least, that is your desire. You want to force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy. If she was a free person, she could
choose to get an abortion if she so desires.


That sounds like slavery to me.

Sounds like is not what slavery is.

However, I was describing the condition of slavery that you want to
subject women to quite clearly. And it is slavery, no matter what you
think.

From Dictionary.com:
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder
or household.

[the "household" in this instance is the government]

2. A condition of hard work and subjection
3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
[i.e. the unwanted pregnancy]


It sure sounds like you want to enslave women to me. And I do seem to
know what I am talking about, unlike you, as usual.


The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the
interest
of serving the people.

How does stealing from the woman,

Where will you find the evidence to support your accusation?

Simple. I look at the facts that you find inconvenient.

Fact - If the women was not pregnant, she would have to pay for the
childbirth and hospital stay, which even with insurance can run into
the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Fact - She would also not have to pay for maternity clothes, which are
not covered by insurance.

Fact - She would not have to pay for the pre-natal visits, assuming
that she goes. Again, only partially covered by insurance at best.

Fact - She would not be impaired at work, and possibly be subject to
extra restrictions that could reduce her pay.

Fact - If the job pays only hours worked, she does not get paid for her
time off for doctor's appointments and childbirth and post-natal
recovery. Or perhaps she does not receive full pay during her
incapacitation.


She would rather not lose all this money. It is taken from her
needlessly, since she wanted to get an abortion, but insensitive people
like yourself forced her to continue her unwanted pregnancy. Since the
money was effectively taken from her without her permission, and
perhaps forced her into financial hardship that would not otherwise
have existed, then the money was effectively stolen from her.


torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.

Where you will find the evidence in individual cases to support your
accusations?

Simple really. Case studies dating back to the 60's and early 70's
when abortion was illegal. Women, especially young women, were forced
to leave high school and college in order to continue their
pregnancies. This destroyed their chances at a good education and
forced them to live in poverty. And that sentenced was also forced on
the child she was forced to have, since he will suffer the effects,
both physical and psychological, of growing up knowing he was unwanted
and forced of his mother. The woman is likely to suffer long term
depression from knowing what might have been if she was not forced to
continue an unwanted pregnancy.

The financial hardships I detailed earlier in the post. Add to that
the financial hardships of living a life of poverty, especially when
the woman was well on her way to a good, high paying job before that
unwanted pregnancy forced her to drop out of school.

The physical hardships are easy to document. The effects of a
pregnancy on the woman, and the dangers associated with pregnancy, are
well known and readily available in most book stores and all over the
net.


And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.

However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction.

Yes. Many times. Some requirements, if not fulfilled, make the
non-fulfillfer culpable.


That is not true with forcing the pregnant women to continue an
unwanted pregnancy.


What law has the woman broken?

Why don't you tell me?
I didn't accused her of a crime.


You are punishing her as if she did. Therefore, you are the one that
must know what laws she broke, and when she was convicted of them,
which required her punishment.

Having sex is not a crime,

Shows your ignorance again.

Wrong again, as usual. The fact that you think that having sex is a
crime does not make it a crime.


and therefore does not deserve punishment.

You are too ignorant of the law to make such statements.

I have proven time and again that I am more knowledgeable about the law
that you are. You have yet to define what she deserves to be punished
when she did not break any law.


Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.

Your rebellious side is showing.

Nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing to rebel against tyranny
like you are proposing. That is in the best American tradition, dating
back all the way to our Founding Fathers. However, I am not rebelling
against anything. I am standing up for the rights of others, and
working to prevent them from being taken away.



which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.

Bull****.

My statement is a statement of fact.

Yet, only you believe it.

More than just me believes it. And facts do not require belief, since
they exist independent of belief.

You are outnumbered.

You do not outnumber me. You, like me, are only one person, no matter
how many personalities you have roaming around in your head. And being
outnumbered does not abridge my right to free speech and standing up
for the rights of others.



But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.

Bull****.

That describes most of what you say.

Wrong.

My statement is accurate.


You are resisting democratic rule.

That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.

Your resistance is futile.

Then why am I winning? I have every reason to resist the tyranny that
you endorse. I stand for freedom, liberty, and equality, in the best
traditions of the American people.

And I will continue to resist your tyranny, and other tyrannies like
yours.


What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.

You are defending none of those things in what is supposed to be a
democratic society.

Yes, I am. The fact that you endorse tyranny, bigotry, and enslavement
does not speak well of you.

I am defending the freedom and liberty of women to decide the course of
their own pregnancies, and to get the best available medical care no
matter their choice. I also defend the equality of women, as well as
homosexuals, in our society.




Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?

The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people,
for freedom.

That does not answer the question.

Why not?

Because it does not give any reason why women should be forced to
suffer through unwanted pregnancies and all of the attendant hardships
without recourse. It is obvious that you do not think that the
Constitution does not operate for them, or for people besides religious
bigots.


Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people,

You slipped again.

Not at all. My statement is factual.


it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment.

Involuntary servitude is nowhere to be found in pregnancies which result
from consensual sex.

It is found, however, found in all unwanted pregnancies where the woman
is prevented from getting an abortion.

Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to remaining
pregnant if a pregnancy results. They are completely different and
unrelated decisions, except that the second decision cannot be made
until after the pregnancy starts. And consent can always be withdrawn
from either at any time.


And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".

Why do you ignore the other half?

Because men have no say in the care of women's bodies, because women
are not slaves of men. After all, if men can demand that women get an
abortion or continue her pregnancy against her will, then the woman is
effectively a slave to the man, and not his equal.

Answer these three questions. In each instance, who decides and why?
1. the woman want to get an abortion, and the man wants her to get an
abortion
2. the woman wants to get an abortion, and the man wants her to
continue her pregnancy
3. the woman wants to continue the pregnancy, and the man wants her to
get an abortion


The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal,

Who is selling women into slavery?


You, it would seem. You are the one that is endorsing their slavery.

and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous.

Your inaccuracy is observed.

My statement is accurate and true. All you have done is show your
ignorance. Freedom of religion means that you cannot force your
beliefs on anyone else, because then they do not have freedom of
religion, which in turn means that other people can force YOU to follow
their religious beliefs and tenets. Either everyone has the freedom to
follow their own religious beliefs without hinderance, or everyone
loses their freedom of religion.


Making abortion illegal does both,

Only in your decieved mind.

My statement is a statement of fact.


make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.

In your deceived mind.

My mind is clear and undeceived. Unlike your own.


Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?

So, where is your answer? You still have not given any reasons.


In a democracy, the will of the people is to be represented above special
interests.

And the rights of the people are represented above the rights of the
special interest. The will of the people cannot subsume the rights of
any of it's people. Everyone must have the same rights. You want to
take away people's rights, and force them to live in tyranny.

Mark Sebree

Johnny wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it.

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Lunatic.

--
Ray Fischer

"Attila" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:57:23 -0400, "Johnny"
in alt.abortion with message-id
wrote:


"Attila" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
in alt.abortion with message-id
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.


Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.


It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

In your opinion.


and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.

Which is a negligent act.

No it is not. Where is she forced to take care of it?

The law does protect children in case you forgot about that.


Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.

Why me?
It isn't my child.

You seem to be the one objecting to her having it removed. Personally
I could not care less.




All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.


If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.

A woman?

Yes, since it is women who become pregnant.

Another remark that reilies on sexism.

Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.


But as far as the freedom of choice is concerned only women are
directly involved.

BULL****! Why isn't it only the pregnant woman who is involved then? Why
does she need assistance?
That perspective is not sufficient to govern a society that is comprised of
men, women, and children.

Mark Sebree wrote:

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.


Well she can refuse the use of her body after a bay is born as well.
newborns are still dependent of their mothers after they are born.

ReelMcKoi wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:

Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.


Well she can refuse the use of her body after a bay is born as well.

That's right. She can give it up for adoption. She can feed it using
a formula, as opposed to breast feeding.

newborns are still dependent of their mothers after they are born.

Wrong. They are dependent on other people, but that person does not
even have to be an adult or female. And the dependency is not total
and physical, as it is during pregnancy. Many of the functions that
the woman provides during pregnancy for the embryo/fetus are done by
the infant after birth. The infant breathes for itself, digests its
own food, eliminates its own wastes, develops it own immune system
responses, controls its own metabolism, and so on. During pregnancy,
the woman provides and controls all these functions.

However, the fact that the woman can refuse to have anything to do with
the newborn does not take away the option that she can get an abortion
if she so desires. The two are separate decisions, and separated by
months of time.

Mark Sebree

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:23:55 -0400, "Johnny"
wrote:


"Darklady" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.

What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?

Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?

Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?

As soon as you can prove to me that a fetus HAS any autonomy
that it can exercise, we'll have a serious discussion on the subject.
When men become pregnant, you can explain to me why this is a
men's right to choose agenda issue. I believe that men have a right to
speak on the subject, but the final decision needs to be made by
women.

Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.

The beauty of law is that no one does the deciding.
With Pro-Choice you have the burden of defending your choice.

With Pro-Choice you have the ability to MAKE a choice.

Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice **** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.

People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only includes
the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.

Uhhh... sure. Adjust your tin foil cap a bit there, pal, I
think it's sliding.

Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.

A total lie.

Do you actually know anything about fetal development?

Quite a bit.
There is nothing non-functional about a human being in gestation.
It isn't supposed to be walking and talking already or driving a car.

Nor communicating anything between the nervous system and the
brain, which is kinda important if you're going to be a functioning
human BEING.
Kinda odd that you think what defines humanity is that some
can walk and even fewer can drive a car.

It is a part of,

Sure doesn't seem that way.

and totally dependent on, the women's body.

It has no body of its own?

Not one that can function independently, no.

Which is shows that it needs the womb to survive, and that any outside force
invading it is a threat unto its existence.

And this is a compelling reason to force a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term against her will?

All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.

BULL****!
Without representative government there is no democracy.

And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.

Fetuses do not need to be citizens to be represented.
The voters are who have the power to decide this issue.
If the voters decide that fetuses, even thought they afre not considered
citizens, have the right to live, then that is the way that the government
must rule.

Fetuses do need to be citizens in order to be represented in a
case like this, where the *presumed* best interest of the fetus (which
isn't even a human being, let alone a citizen) is at odds with the
pre-existing and sentient woman whose body it inhabits.

-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:29:45 -0500, duke wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:20:46 -0700, Darklady wrote:

Do you actually know anything about fetal development?

Yes, yes I do. And it's human life beginning at conception. And it don't
belong to momma.

She is just the life support system after conception.

Nobody dehumanizes a person quite as effectively as you,
Dukey.

-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org