🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill D wrote:
> 
> Thus spake a Pervert:
> >
> > 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.   The difference is that I am not seeking to impose my
> > religious/moral/spiritual perspective on you.  Is this so hard for you
> > to understand, half a brain or otherwise?  And since I am a male, I find
> > it highly presumptive to dictate to any woman what she should, or should
> > not be compelled to do with their bodies. (And for the record, I am a
> > fiscally conservative, non-dictatorial Republican.  There are such
> > creatures in the world.)
> >
> 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.
> 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).

Neither is a cancerous tumor. And both can kill a woman.


> 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).

Not that many people seem to be able to maintain abstinence. And there's
always that little issue of a pregnancy being unwanted because it's the result
of rape...

> 
> > 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?

No. But you can't say that an embryo is a conscious human _person_. There's
not real "being" to it, it's totally dependent on the mother's physiology and
a drain on her resources, etc.

> 
> > 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.

YOu certinaly hold a viewpoint that seems to be the mainstream of religious
types.

> 
> > And I'm a terrorist because...?
> Your threats.
> 
> > I'm a zealot because...?
> Your intolerance of religion is the other side of the coin of religious
> extremism.
> 
> > > 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.
> I am a pro-lifer.
> ergo: You implied that I am a religious zealot.
> Yes, I have an appreciation for logic.

Actually, it's bad logic but not an unreasonable assumption.

> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > 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).  The COURT may have called it Constitutional, but I
> > did not.  It is in clear point of fact, however, the law of the land and
> > has been for many years whether or not you like it or not or whether I
> > like it or not.
> 
> This same argument was once used to justify slavery and other injustices
> such as the denial of women the right to vote.

And in both cases the Constitution was amended. But I rather doubt that more
than half of the population would vote to have their rights curtailed.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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!
> Bottom line, Pervert, you threatened to inflict pain on any pro-lifer
> who "get's in my way".
> Should that person ever be me and you try to implement that threat,
> the painful experience may very well be your own.
> 
> Bill D.

-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
  Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
 Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/