| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
 |
|
On Aug 19, 12:32 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 12:51 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:14 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
That is why the "pro-life" advocates are more accurately described as
being anti-choice. They are also known as "pro-lie" because of all
the lies they tell.
Using accurate labels helps reduce the confusion.
Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
And you are adding to the confusion.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which does not explain what the ACTUAL position of the pro-choice
advocates is. According to your statement, virtually EVERYONE is "pro-
abortion" since nobody wants to see a woman killed by a pregnancy that
goes wrong, such as an etopic (tubal) pregnancy, which almost always
kills the woman..
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
And which also does not fully explain what the position anti-choice
advocates is, especially since many "anti-abortion" advocates will
concede to a woman having an abortion in specific circumstances, like
an etopic pregnancy, or in cases of rape and incest.
Your claim does not fit the actual positions.
That's it. Live with it. Work it out.
However, both claims of yours are not accurate, and thus not
appropriate.
The PRO-CHOICE position states that the decision about whether or not
a woman who is pregnant continues her pregnancy or gets an abortion
rests with the woman. She should not be coerced into either decision
nor hindered in any way from acting on that decision, and both options
should be readily available, safe, and legal. That is why the
position is called pro-choice, because the advocates are supportive of
the woman having a choice.
The anti-choice position is essentially the opposite of that. Once
the woman is pregnant, unless there is an overriding medical reason,
the woman MUST complete the pregnancy whether she wants to do so or
not. She has no choice in the matter, and the consequences of the
pregnancy to the woman do not matter in any way. Anti-choice
advocates are against the woman having any choice in the matter, and
frankly do not seem to care what happens to the woman after she give
birth. They only seem to see her as an incubator.
You are the one that needs to live with the truth and to work it out.
I already am doing so.
Mark Sebree
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish.
Wrong on all counts. I do not live in a fantasy land, dangerous or
otherwise. I live in the real world. I understand that may opponents
do not necessarily oppose all freedom, although some of them seem to,
but I do know that my opponents do oppose THIS freedom. And I do not
advocate a utopia in which people can do what they wish, because I
understand that such a "utopia" could not function, and would quickly
turn into a distopia where the strong prey on the weak. And how you
got the opinion that I advocate such a fictional utopia from what I
have written is beyond me, since nothing I wrote indicates that.
You are, I am afraid, like many
of your opponents, a liar and a fool.
Sorry, but I am neither, since I am not the fool that you are, and I
am telling the truth that you cannot accept. I have actually
researched the top, and I understand why the anti-choice position is
foolish and cannot work in the long run.
The issue is abortion, not choice.
No, the issue is choice, and there or not the woman can choice whether
or not she will remain pregnant. Abortion is going to remain because
it does save women's lives in cases where a pregnancy has gone wrong,
like a tubal pregnancy. Even most anti-choice advocates understand
this. What they want to do is eliminate the woman's right to choose
to get an abortion because she is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy.
One can argue that fetuses and embryos should have "choice",
as far as that goes.
However, that is like arguing about whether a mugger should have a
choice about whether his victim can fight back. It makes no sense.
What's more, nobody has the right to use another person's body without
the used person's ongoing consent.
One can argue that the man who conceived the
child should have "choice", as far as that goes.
Which does not make sense since he is not the one that is pregnant,
and women are not beholden to men, nor are they required to consult
with them about life and medical decisions.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which is pretty much everyone, and this is an inaccurate definition
for the actual issue. All medical procedures "have their uses", and
abortion is a medical procedure.
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
Which does not address the issue, since people can be pro-choice and
against abortion. By the way you are classifying the issue, people of
this position have to problem with women being killed by their
pregnancies when such deaths are easily preventable. Just like these
people would have no problem forcing the woman to bear the child when
she is raped and/or commits incest.
Sorry, but most anti-choice advocates understand that abortion must
remain available for these kinds of cases. That makes them, according
to your inaccurate definitions, "pro-abortion".
Sorry, that's it. It's not about choice, it's about abortion.
It is about who gets to decide what a woman gets to do with her body.
Therefore, it is about choice.
Unless you can come up with another medical procedure to replace
abortions, abortion is NOT going to go away.
Pro or Con.
For or against. For the woman having a choice about her pregnancy, or
against her having a choice.
Details remain to be worked out.
For you. Most of us already understand the issues.
But, abortion is the issue, not choice.
Actually, it is about choice, since abortion will remain since it does
save women's lives. It is about whether or not the women can choice
to have a legal abortion or continue their pregnancy, or whether they
will be forced to continue their pregnancy whether they want to or
not.
Your attempts to "simplify the issue" only show the problems with your
"analysis" of the issue. Try reading what I wrote in my last post for
comprehension this time.
Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Well, I'm afraid Mark, you're going to have to look at the world a
bit. In China, where women are forced to have abortions if they've
had more than one child, for reasons of overpopulation. In Europe,
where nations such as Poland are systematically increasing
restrictions on abortion for religious reasons. In India, where girl
children are regularly aborted because they are less valued than
boys. The issue is not choice, free will. The issue is abortion.
Your empahsis on "choice" -- a good thing -- is not more sensible than
the anti-abortion emphasis on "life" -- also a good thing. These are
rhetorical games. The issue is abortion. When it is appropriate, if
ever, and when not, if ever. Around the world.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
Details remain to be worked out. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 1:51 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 12:32 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 12:51 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:14 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
That is why the "pro-life" advocates are more accurately described as
being anti-choice. They are also known as "pro-lie" because of all
the lies they tell.
Using accurate labels helps reduce the confusion.
Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
And you are adding to the confusion.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which does not explain what the ACTUAL position of the pro-choice
advocates is. According to your statement, virtually EVERYONE is "pro-
abortion" since nobody wants to see a woman killed by a pregnancy that
goes wrong, such as an etopic (tubal) pregnancy, which almost always
kills the woman..
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
And which also does not fully explain what the position anti-choice
advocates is, especially since many "anti-abortion" advocates will
concede to a woman having an abortion in specific circumstances, like
an etopic pregnancy, or in cases of rape and incest.
Your claim does not fit the actual positions.
That's it. Live with it. Work it out.
However, both claims of yours are not accurate, and thus not
appropriate.
The PRO-CHOICE position states that the decision about whether or not
a woman who is pregnant continues her pregnancy or gets an abortion
rests with the woman. She should not be coerced into either decision
nor hindered in any way from acting on that decision, and both options
should be readily available, safe, and legal. That is why the
position is called pro-choice, because the advocates are supportive of
the woman having a choice.
The anti-choice position is essentially the opposite of that. Once
the woman is pregnant, unless there is an overriding medical reason,
the woman MUST complete the pregnancy whether she wants to do so or
not. She has no choice in the matter, and the consequences of the
pregnancy to the woman do not matter in any way. Anti-choice
advocates are against the woman having any choice in the matter, and
frankly do not seem to care what happens to the woman after she give
birth. They only seem to see her as an incubator.
You are the one that needs to live with the truth and to work it out.
I already am doing so.
Mark Sebree
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish.
Wrong on all counts. I do not live in a fantasy land, dangerous or
otherwise. I live in the real world. I understand that may opponents
do not necessarily oppose all freedom, although some of them seem to,
but I do know that my opponents do oppose THIS freedom. And I do not
advocate a utopia in which people can do what they wish, because I
understand that such a "utopia" could not function, and would quickly
turn into a distopia where the strong prey on the weak. And how you
got the opinion that I advocate such a fictional utopia from what I
have written is beyond me, since nothing I wrote indicates that.
You are, I am afraid, like many
of your opponents, a liar and a fool.
Sorry, but I am neither, since I am not the fool that you are, and I
am telling the truth that you cannot accept. I have actually
researched the top, and I understand why the anti-choice position is
foolish and cannot work in the long run.
The issue is abortion, not choice.
No, the issue is choice, and there or not the woman can choice whether
or not she will remain pregnant. Abortion is going to remain because
it does save women's lives in cases where a pregnancy has gone wrong,
like a tubal pregnancy. Even most anti-choice advocates understand
this. What they want to do is eliminate the woman's right to choose
to get an abortion because she is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy.
One can argue that fetuses and embryos should have "choice",
as far as that goes.
However, that is like arguing about whether a mugger should have a
choice about whether his victim can fight back. It makes no sense.
What's more, nobody has the right to use another person's body without
the used person's ongoing consent.
One can argue that the man who conceived the
child should have "choice", as far as that goes.
Which does not make sense since he is not the one that is pregnant,
and women are not beholden to men, nor are they required to consult
with them about life and medical decisions.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which is pretty much everyone, and this is an inaccurate definition
for the actual issue. All medical procedures "have their uses", and
abortion is a medical procedure.
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
Which does not address the issue, since people can be pro-choice and
against abortion. By the way you are classifying the issue, people of
this position have to problem with women being killed by their
pregnancies when such deaths are easily preventable. Just like these
people would have no problem forcing the woman to bear the child when
she is raped and/or commits incest.
Sorry, but most anti-choice advocates understand that abortion must
remain available for these kinds of cases. That makes them, according
to your inaccurate definitions, "pro-abortion".
Sorry, that's it. It's not about choice, it's about abortion.
It is about who gets to decide what a woman gets to do with her body.
Therefore, it is about choice.
Unless you can come up with another medical procedure to replace
abortions, abortion is NOT going to go away.
Pro or Con.
For or against. For the woman having a choice about her pregnancy, or
against her having a choice.
Details remain to be worked out.
For you. Most of us already understand the issues.
But, abortion is the issue, not choice.
Actually, it is about choice, since abortion will remain since it does
save women's lives. It is about whether or not the women can choice
to have a legal abortion or continue their pregnancy, or whether they
will be forced to continue their pregnancy whether they want to or
not.
Your attempts to "simplify the issue" only show the problems with your
"analysis" of the issue. Try reading what I wrote in my last post for
comprehension this time.
Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I'm afraid Mark, you're going to have to look at the world a
bit.
|
I am aware of most of the places you would mention. However, the
debate in this newsgroup (alt.abortion) primarily centers around the
debate on the issue in the USA, and to a lesser degree, in Canada.
| Quote: | In China, where women are forced to have abortions if they've
had more than one child, for reasons of overpopulation.
|
Which means that the are not pro-choice, but rather anti-choice as a
government. You will find that almost nobody agrees with the policies
in China because they are forcing women to get abortions, which goes
against bother the pro-choice and the anti-choice positions for
different reasons.
| Quote: | In Europe,
where nations such as Poland are systematically increasing
restrictions on abortion for religious reasons.
|
Here, the RCC, which is vehemently anti-choice, has a strong influence
on the people and the government. However, Eurorail is fairly
inexpensive and many other European countries do offer abortion
services, which means that most Polish women have some hope of
controlling their bodies.
| Quote: | In India, where girl
children are regularly aborted because they are less valued than
boys.
|
China as well. That has more to do with the culture than anything
else. And we in the USA cannot strongly affect their culture.
| Quote: | The issue is not choice, free will.
|
Yes, it is.
| Quote: | The issue is abortion.
|
No, the issue is who controls the woman's body, the woman or the
government. I.e., Who gets to decide whether she continues her
pregnancy?
| Quote: | Your empahsis on "choice" -- a good thing -- is not more sensible than
the anti-abortion emphasis on "life" -- also a good thing.
|
Except when it comes to the life of the woman. I find that the
| Quote: | These are rhetorical games.
|
Which you are playing.
| Quote: | The issue is abortion.
|
No, the issue is choice.
| Quote: | When it is appropriate, if ever, and when not, if ever.
|
Abortion is appropriate whenever the woman wants an abortion, and it
is not appropriate when the woman does not want an abortion.
However, this newsgroup concerns this country.
| Quote: |
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
|
Which is almost everyone, since it is a medical procedure that saves
lives.
| Quote: | 2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
|
Which has a huge overlap with your "pro-abortion" group, which shows
that you are being VERY sloppy in your naming. Which also means that
you do not seem to understand the actual issue.
| Quote: |
Details remain to be worked out.
|
Especially when you do not understand the issues. I have been
explaining your misconceptions to you. Try reading them for
comprehension. You have NOT made a case for your labels since there
is far too much an overlap between them. That means that your labels
are sloppy and do not address the real issues. That means that you
need to learn about what the issues really are.
The details have been worked out. You simply do not accept them.
Mark Sebree |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
| Quote: | I am aware of most of the places you would mention. However, the
debate in this newsgroup (alt.abortion) primarily centers around the
debate on the issue in the USA, and to a lesser degree, in Canada.
In China, where women are forced to have abortions if they've
had more than one child, for reasons of overpopulation.
Which means that the are not pro-choice, but rather anti-choice as a
government. You will find that almost nobody agrees with the policies
in China because they are forcing women to get abortions, which goes
against bother the pro-choice and the anti-choice positions for
different reasons.
In Europe,
where nations such as Poland are systematically increasing
restrictions on abortion for religious reasons.
Here, the RCC, which is vehemently anti-choice, has a strong influence
on the people and the government. However, Eurorail is fairly
inexpensive and many other European countries do offer abortion
services, which means that most Polish women have some hope of
controlling their bodies.
In India, where girl
children are regularly aborted because they are less valued than
boys.
|
In Phillipines abortion is a SIN and they are unable to feed their
children and export them as SEX slaves. Idiots in the church or any
religious organizations, never think about resources of the world.
| Quote: |
China as well. That has more to do with the culture than anything
else. And we in the USA cannot strongly affect their culture.
|
China is controlling the population and economy but Americans are
failing and their economy is going down because of their stupid
CHRISTIAN beliefs! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
|
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. You ignore other options such as
3. Pro-Choice, neither advocating nor opposing abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1906@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish. You are, I am afraid, like many
|
Like most ideologues you prefer to attack people for telling the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 9:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish. You are, I am afraid, like many
Like most ideologues you prefer to attack people for telling the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
|
I'm afraid I'm not the ideologue. I have no strong opinions on
abortion. I strongly suspect that you do. That is the difference.
You are the ideologue. I'm simply trying to clarify the issue, which
obviously terrifies you. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Jai Maharaj < www.mantra.com/jai > wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
|
"Pro-life" is a DISHONEST term that was coined decades ago by
hateful ANTI-Choicers who were desperately and lamely attempting to
make it look as though sensible and compassionate Pro-Choicers were
the opposite of being pro-life.
FACT: Almost everyone, except for the likes of a handful of serial
killers, is pro-life. SENSIBLE people are pro-life toward PEOPLE... and
ANTI-Choicers are primarily (and very ignorantly) "pro-life" for mere
RPEs (reproductive-process entities) that are UNwanted by girls and
women having NO desire to gestate them to term. ANTI-Choicers seek
to leave those girls and women with NO choice but to be FORCED to
gestate to term, whether they want to or not.
Thus, ANTI-Choicers are some of the WORST and most bone-ignor-
ant louses on the face of the earth. Mindless, busybodyish, and
control-freakish. Sewer rat turds in humanity's punch bowl.
Not even the Bible gives one whit of support to being ANTI-Choice:
-- The Bible NEVER defends RPEs as PEOPLE.
-- ALL human life the Bible defends has/had been BORN.
-- The Bible make it very CLEAR that personhood begins
at BIRTH, in is passages that emphasize the importance
of ---
-- BIRTHrights
-- First-BORNS
-- BIRTH order.
People having the gullibility-intellect that RRR Cult leaders TARGET
to CON into supporting their loathsome agendas. People like THESE:
To BE an RRR Cult Lemming...
-- Be DUMBER than dirt.
-- Be as HATEFUL as a junkyard dog.
-- Be BRAINWASHED enough to think that
people who stand up for personal liberties
are trying to FORCE their "morality" on
society. (Remember from Orwell's "1984,"
how Big Brother taught, "War is Peace" (?)
Obviously, FREEDOM cannot be "crammed
down the throats of society." (Which shows
just HOW ignorant and confused one has
to be, to BE a lemming of the RRR Cult.)
-- Be mindlessly GULLIBLE to hate-propaganda.
-- Be too bone-STUPID to recognize that sexual
orientation is merely a TRIVIAL *variation*
of NORMALCY, like eye color and handedness.
-- Be EMPTY-headed enough to think human
reproductive-process entities equate
with people.
-- Be INTOLERANT enough to disparage other
people's faiths (or lack thereof) instead
of sensibly recognizing that everyone is
*entitled* to believe (or not) as they wish.
-- Be UNEDUCATED enough to WHINE about
"unelected" judges every time an appellate
court stomps on one of your loathsome
agendas, but hypocritically clam up about
them when their decisions *favor* you.
(Educated people know that such judges
are appointed because that is the law,
and it keeps them from being politically-
pressured and motivated.)
-- Be CLUELESS enough to call judges "activist"
if they disagree with you, but "construc-
tionist" if they don't. (Since ALL judges
very legally create Judicial Law in their
decisions of record. (RRR Cult lemmings
think that "activist" judges contravene
the Constitution in their rulings, while
"constructionist ones uphold it. But in
reality, BOTH simply INTERPRET the
Constitution in "gray" areas. The ones
scorned as "activist" by the RRR usually
try their best to interpret as favorably
as they can toward human rights and
personal liberties. The ones they call
"constructionist" try to interpret the
Constitution with an eye toward limiting
or eliminating aspects of personal liberty.)
Judges denigrated as "activist" by the
RRR thus are usually egalitarians!
-- Be IDIOTIC enough to think that same-sex
marriage could in ANY way be harmful.
-- Be CLUELESS enough to think the world is
only 6,000 years old.
-- Be LOATHSOME enough to want to see girls
and women FORCED to gestate UNwanted
pregnancies to term against their will (which
would be a very real, 9-month-long form
of RAPE. (For anyone advocating this who
thinks he's Christian, add "UN-Christian"
to "LOATHSOME.)
-- Be FAR dumber than dirt.
(The RRR Cult comprises 5% of the U.S. population (which is only
6% of Americans who *profess* Christianity.) Fortunately for
the rest of the world, it is an infestation that is almost exclusive
to the USA, with almost no chance of spreading. Christianity
should NEVER be confused with that PSEUDO-Christian cult.)
(And almost NONE of them evangelize. They are therefore
NOT "evangelicals," as they lyingly claim.)
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 9:50 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish. You are, I am afraid, like many
Like most ideologues you prefer to attack people for telling the truth.
I'm afraid I'm not the ideologue.
|
Crap.
| Quote: | I have no strong opinions on
abortion. I strongly suspect that you do. That is the difference.
You are the ideologue.
|
Because of what you "suspect"?
Like most ideologues you prefer to attack people for telling the
truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Day Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Dont worry, it dont matter what they think any more. Archeology and
search engines of ancient texts have re-discovered herbs witches used to
provide abortions.
Evolution resulted in lotsa plants that caused sterility and abortions
in order to prevent herbivores from developing a taste for them. There's
a reason "Bachelor Button" is so named, why Blessed Thistle was blessed,
and why Queen Anne loved her lace.
The abortion debate is over. Increasing numbers of wiccans and pagans is
passing this data along in private email. They cant stop abortions. If
there is excessive bleeding or whatever, the ER will record it as a
"miscarriage" since there is no evidence of cruder tools.
The more draconian the fundies make the law, the more young women will
turn to pagan witches. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 20, 11:57 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@daybrown.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Dont worry, it dont matter what they think any more. Archeology and
search engines of ancient texts have re-discovered herbs witches used to
provide abortions.
Evolution resulted in lotsa plants that caused sterility and abortions
in order to prevent herbivores from developing a taste for them. There's
a reason "Bachelor Button" is so named, why Blessed Thistle was blessed,
and why Queen Anne loved her lace.
The abortion debate is over. Increasing numbers of wiccans and pagans is
passing this data along in private email. They cant stop abortions. If
there is excessive bleeding or whatever, the ER will record it as a
"miscarriage" since there is no evidence of cruder tools.
The more draconian the fundies make the law, the more young women will
turn to pagan witches.
|
The argument against abortion is fairly straightforward: babies have
the right to live. The question is when life starts. Feminazis and
their supporters take an extreme position, that women can kill their
babies whenever they like. Like ideologues, of all types.
Why you are an arch-feminist and think women should have rights and
men not, is unclear to me, Day. Overcontrolling wife or mother,
perhaps? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gwen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 2:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live,
|
Is that why Pro-Killers bomb clinics and murder clinic personnel? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 21, 10:09 am, Gwen <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 18, 2:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live,
Is that why Pro-Killers bomb clinics and murder clinic personnel?
|
How many lives lost, how many lives saved? If you fail to see the
other person's point of view, you are likely to provoke violence. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 21, 10:09 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 20, 11:57 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@daybrown.org> wrote:
Dont worry, it dont matter what they think any more. Archeology and
search engines of ancient texts have re-discovered herbs witches used to
provide abortions.
Evolution resulted in lotsa plants that caused sterility and abortions
in order to prevent herbivores from developing a taste for them. There's
a reason "Bachelor Button" is so named, why Blessed Thistle was blessed,
and why Queen Anne loved her lace.
The abortion debate is over. Increasing numbers of wiccans and pagans is
passing this data along in private email. They cant stop abortions. If
there is excessive bleeding or whatever, the ER will record it as a
"miscarriage" since there is no evidence of cruder tools.
The more draconian the fundies make the law, the more young women will
turn to pagan witches.
The argument against abortion is fairly straightforward: babies have
the right to live.
|
Which has nothing to do with abortion. And you are forgetting that
NOTHING has the right to use a person's body without that person's
ongoing and explicit consent.
| Quote: | The question is when life starts.
|
Birth.
| Quote: | Feminazis and
their supporters take an extreme position,
|
A derogatory ad hominem that misogynistic people often use because
they do not want women to have equal rights, or they do not like the
rights that women are fighting for, like the right to control their
own bodies.
| Quote: | that women can kill their
babies whenever they like.
|
Actually, nobody is really claiming that anyone can kill infants.
| Quote: | Like ideologues, of all types.
|
Like you, in other words
| Quote: |
Why you are an arch-feminist and think women should have rights and
men not, is unclear to me, Day.
|
Especially since he is not an "arch-feminist" from what I have read,
and he has not made any suggestion that women should have rights and
men should not.
| Quote: | Overcontrolling wife or mother, perhaps?
|
Unlikely. That sounds more like what would cause people like you to
exist.
Mark Sebree |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gwen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 21, 10:06 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:09 am, Gwen <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live,
Is that why Pro-Killers bomb clinics and murder clinic personnel?
How many lives lost, how many lives saved? If you fail to see the
other person's point of view, you are likely to provoke violence.
Then let's execute you and solve everybody's problem.
|
Idiot will take that literally.
| Quote: | --
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:09:16 -0700 (PDT),
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The argument against abortion is fairly straightforward: babies
have the right to live.
|
BABIES *do.* But ALL babies have been BORN.
And ANTI-Choice louts don't have a leg to stand on. The dishon-
estly claim to be "pro-life," but that is a DISHONEST term that was
coined decades ago by hateful ANTI-Choicers who were desperately
and lamely attempting to make it look as though sensible and com-
passionate Pro-Choicers were the opposite of being pro-life.
FACT: Almost everyone, except for the likes of a handful of serial
killers, is pro-life. SENSIBLE people are pro-life toward PEOPLE... and
ANTI-Choicers are primarily (and very ignorantly) "pro-life" for mere
RPEs (reproductive-process entities) that are UNwanted by girls and
women having NO desire to gestate them to term. ANTI-Choicers seek
to leave those girls and women with NO choice but to be FORCED to
gestate to term, whether they want to or not.
Thus, ANTI-Choicers are some of the WORST and most bone-ignor-
ant louses on the face of the earth. Mindless, busybodyish, and
control-freakish. Sewer rat turds in humanity's punch bowl.
Not even the Bible gives one whit of support to being ANTI-Choice:
-- The Bible NEVER defends RPEs as PEOPLE.
-- ALL human life the Bible defends has/had been BORN.
-- The Bible make it very CLEAR that personhood begins
at BIRTH, in is passages that emphasize the importance
of ---
-- BIRTHrights
-- First-BORNS
-- BIRTH order.
People having the gullibility-intellect that RRR Cult leaders TARGET
to CON into supporting their loathsome agendas. People like THESE:
To BE an RRR Cult Lemming...
-- Be DUMBER than dirt.
-- Be as HATEFUL as a junkyard dog.
-- Be BRAINWASHED enough to think that
people who stand up for personal liberties
are trying to FORCE their "morality" on
society. (Remember from Orwell's "1984,"
how Big Brother taught, "War is Peace" (?)
Obviously, FREEDOM cannot be "crammed
down the throats of society." (Which shows
just HOW ignorant and confused one has
to be, to BE a lemming of the RRR Cult.)
-- Be mindlessly GULLIBLE to hate-propaganda.
-- Be too bone-STUPID to recognize that sexual
orientation is merely a TRIVIAL *variation*
of NORMALCY, like eye color and handedness.
-- Be EMPTY-headed enough to think human
reproductive-process entities equate
with people.
-- Be INTOLERANT enough to disparage other
people's faiths (or lack thereof) instead
of sensibly recognizing that everyone is
*entitled* to believe (or not) as they wish.
-- Be UNEDUCATED enough to WHINE about
"unelected" judges every time an appellate
court stomps on one of your loathsome
agendas, but hypocritically clam up about
them when their decisions *favor* you.
(Educated people know that such judges
are appointed because that is the law,
and it keeps them from being politically-
pressured and motivated.)
-- Be CLUELESS enough to call judges "activist"
if they disagree with you, but "construc-
tionist" if they don't. (Since ALL judges
very legally create Judicial Law in their
decisions of record. (RRR Cult lemmings
think that "activist" judges contravene
the Constitution in their rulings, while
"constructionist ones uphold it. But in
reality, BOTH simply INTERPRET the
Constitution in "gray" areas. The ones
scorned as "activist" by the RRR usually
try their best to interpret as favorably
as they can toward human rights and
personal liberties. The ones they call
"constructionist" try to interpret the
Constitution with an eye toward limiting
or eliminating aspects of personal liberty.)
Judges denigrated as "activist" by the
RRR thus are usually egalitarians!
-- Be IDIOTIC enough to think that same-sex
marriage could in ANY way be harmful.
-- Be CLUELESS enough to think the world is
only 6,000 years old.
-- Be LOATHSOME enough to want to see girls
and women FORCED to gestate UNwanted
pregnancies to term against their will (which
would be a very real, 9-month-long form
of RAPE. (For anyone advocating this who
thinks he's Christian, add "UN-Christian"
to "LOATHSOME.)
-- Be FAR dumber than dirt.
(The RRR Cult comprises 5% of the U.S. population (which is only
6% of Americans who *profess* Christianity.) Fortunately for
the rest of the world, it is an infestation that is almost exclusive
to the USA, with almost no chance of spreading. Christianity
should NEVER be confused with that PSEUDO-Christian cult.)
(And almost NONE of them evangelize. They are therefore
NOT "evangelicals," as they lyingly claim.)
FORTUNATEL for society, and for America, the loathsome
agendas of the RRR Cult are quickly headed for the Drain of
Extinction. And the it's GOOD RIDDANCE to all of that VERY
putrid and ignorant rubbish.
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
