🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill D wrote:
> 
> Thus spake a Pervert:

Zarathustra was too hard to spell.

> > If you believe that abortion is wrong, then I heartily support your not
> > having an abortion.  I also support your not compelling anyone else to
> > have an abortion.   

> First, no one in this country has the absolute right to do whatever they
> want with their bodies.  There are numerous ways one can use their body
> to commit unlawful acts.

Getting a legal medical proceedure is not an unlawful act.  This
proceedure has been specifically ruled by the court as being legal.

> Second, in an abortion there are *two* bodies involved, not just the one
> of the woman.  (A fetus is not a part of the female anatomy).

In the initial stages of pregnancy, the fetus is more just a mass of
cells, not a viable body.  Calling it a body in such a context is just
another questionable philosophical ploy.  But that may be why certain
guidelines and limits have been set in place regarding when abortions
should and should not be performed.

> Third, prohibiting is not the same as compelling.  If a woman does not
> choose to give birth she can simply avoid pregnancy.  (Just find out
> what causes it and don't do it).

You inject specious quasi-arguments only to cloud the issue of your
trying to restrict a woman's legal choice.  Maybe that's why your
arguments have no integrity.  Personally, I prefer wide dissemination of
birth control to abortion, but that is a separate issue which some of
your anti-free choice colleagues also object to.
 
> > If you are able to, and WILLING to read, you will notice once again that
> > I do not seek to limit your legal right to a legal medical procedure.
> > So much for my being an extremist.  You have stated that you believe
> > that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.  I disagree.
> 
> Have you an argument that it isn't?  A  fetus is alive, human and
> certainly innocent.  Aborting it is killing it.  Can you deny these
> facts?

Of course, I can.  They are not facts at all; merely philosophical
beliefs.  A fetus is alive but not a human being per se.  It may become
one in time, but it is not one from the moment of conception.  That is
my belief with just as much validity as yours.  I am entitled to it much
as you are entitled to yours.

> > Not for the world would I ask you to change your religious belief for
> > yourself.
> 
> Read, Pervert, READ!  I have already stated that I have no religious
> affiliation.

Not having an organized religious affiliation not not prevent one from
having a moral, religious, or spiritual side.  I, myself, have no
religious affiliation, yet I have a certain theological construct.

> > And I'm a terrorist because...?
> Your threats.

I will defend myself if threatened or attacked.

> > I'm a zealot because...?

> Your intolerance of religion is the other side of the coin of religious
> extremism.

I tolerate any religion!  I simply do not allow for a religion to impose
its notions on me.
 
> > > And you are wrong when you paint me with the same brush as you use on them.
> >
> > But I didn't.  READ, Bill, READ!  I know you can do it if you really try
> > hard.  Since I was not aware of, and could not possibly have cared less
> > about, your existence before you answered my post, it is virtually
> > impossible for me to have painted you with any brush at all!  (Doncha
> > just love logic?)
> 
> Everything in your post implied that all pro-lifers are religious
> zealots.

The anti-choice is largely backed by religion affiliated organizations
and people.  That you claim to not be afilliated with a religion is up
to you.  Freedom of choice.  Sad that you don't allow it for others.

> I am a pro-lifer.

That is your choice which I respect... for you!

I believe in freedom of choice, especially a legal choice in this free
country.  You are anti-free choice and anti-free throught.  I consider
that offensive and dangerously un-American.

> ergo: You implied that I am a religious zealot.
> Yes, I have an appreciation for logic.

Obviously not.  You presume many things.  Sadly, your presumptions are
not encumbered by  logic.  You make many assumptions not based on what I
have written at all, rather on what you'd like to think I meant.  To
determine what I mean, simply read.  There are few hidden agendas with
what I write.  Maybe that is what confuses you.
 
> > > You are also wrong when you claim a Constitutional right to abortion.
> >
> > IF you will read what I wrote, you will not find anyplace where I said
> > abortion was a Constitutional right.
> 
> Then why did you cite the Constitution?  Just another implication.

Uh... you were the one to cite the Constitutionm.  I cited the Supreme
Court.  Try to read what is actually written.

> > You WILL find where I said that abortion was ruled by the Supreme 
> > Court to be legal (as you surely know per Roe v. Wade).  
> 
> This same argument was once used to justify slavery and other injustices
> such as the denial of women the right to vote.

Different issues entirely.  Just as I object to compelling another
person into involutary servitude, so too do I object to your compelling
people to your particular concept of morality.  I agree with the Supreme
Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.  I agree with a woman's right to vote
which, by the way, was widespread long before the Supreme Court ruling
on the matter.  I believe that your attempt to impose your presumed
moralistic will on others runs contrary to the basic precepts of this
country and is dangerous to American society.  I find you objectionable
and your views destructive to the country.

> > Point of order.  I may not approve of the fact that organized religions
> > get an obscene (i.e., lacking any redeeming social value) tax break
> > worth billions of dollars annually, but that, too, like the abortion
> > ruling, is the law until such time as that law may be changed.  I prefer
> > the freedom of choice in my country.  You choose your way, I'll choose
> > mine.  Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?
> 
> Point of order.  Why do we keep coming back to religion?  You seem to be
> obsessed by it.

Not obsessed at all.  (What a shame you have such limited
comprehension.  Oh well.)  It was an example of the rule of law in an
ordered society, and a relevant one.  I don't agree with the ruling, but
I live with it until such time as it may be changed... which I don't
expect to happen.

> > It's like smoking.  I don't smoke, although I used to for several
> > years.  (I now have no bad habits.  None at all.)
> 
> AHA! There's your problem!  You think you're perfect!

This is called levity.  Given your seeming lack of comprehension, I
suppose I should have pointed it out to you.  My error.

> Bottom line, Pervert, you threatened to inflict pain on any pro-lifer
> who "get's in my way".

I will defend my personal safety and right to safe passage.  If an
anti-free thought zealot or anybody else gets hurt trying to infringe on
my personal safety and rights, that is certainly a sad thing, and
foolish of them to have brought such harm to themselves.

> Should that person ever be me and you try to implement that threat,
> the painful experience may very well be your own.

Oh, puleeze!  Try to impress somebody else with that nonsense.