As opposed to a born child?

Post #26,878 by marlowe 2/1/02 1:19:14 PM Reply	As opposed to a born child? I was a fetus once. Were you? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,923 by Brandioch 2/1/02 6:45:37 PM Reply	Yes. I was. And, at one time, I was a single cell. And before that, I was an egg and a sperm cell. What's your point?
Post #26,927 by tonytib 2/1/02 9:36:48 PM Reply	OK, so why can't we abort you? After all, you've developed continuously from the egg and sperm. So where's the fundamental difference? Tony
Post #26,944 by Ashton 2/2/02 12:18:00 AM Reply	Masturbation Murderers___or:___ Logic is such sterile fun. For Posting: in all USPS facilities MILLENNIUM HAPPY PEOPLE'S ANNOUNCEMENT # 020401-666 The holocaust of unfulfilled sperm lost to the species in each male act of masturbation is a horror which has gone unpunished for too long. Now that our country has in power a Decent administration which clearly Values All Life Absolutely* and a courageous Attorney General - one not afraid to take appropriate action when confronted with obscene statues - this Great Cause shall be conjoined with our magnificent War on Sin^h^h^h Evil, beloved of all countries. * well, except for anyone convicted of certain crimes in Texas (and who certainly doesn't need that DNA test enroute to the execution chamber, either - since there are No Undetected Errors in Texas courts.) And except for civilians somewhere nearby a cluster bomb or two. And except for - [see pp. 1-50 attached] Effective April 1, 2002 As befits a society which reveres life at all stages (well, prenatal American life of people too poor to afford a trip to somewhere Else) henceforth the penalty for male masturbation shall be - death. An eye for / an eye. An adult for / a potential blastocyst, zygote ... all the way up to the moment of birth. In keeping with this spirit and the increasing number of trials of children as adults, when they really piss us off: masturbating children shall not be exempted from this Millennium Caring Act unless - a clinical study demonstrates that no single viable sperm is contained in a test ejaculate. Note that the unChristian pernicious use of so-called birth control - is tantamount to depriving sperm of a chance to become a Murican. Such devices are deemed a de facto equivalent to masturbation, as described above in this Millennium Happy People's Announcement. God Bless You All ... and God Bless America! and its new Righteous Millennium Justice Delivery System. By authority of, Your Government. Your tax dollars at work for Decency. For Posting: in all USPS facilities
Post #26,962 by marlowe 2/2/02 9:51:18 AM Reply	Is he an independently viable life form? If you can survive on a desert island without any help from other human beings, then you have a right to life. Anything short of that, and someone somewhere will be talking about "choice" or "quality of life" or something, whilst eying you speculatively. The chief difference between a fetus and a wino is that the fetus didn't choose to be unable to fend for himself. All hearts bleed selectively, but not all for the same groups. My heart bleeds for the innocent, and the innocent alone. All others I allow two, maybe three chances, to make the right choices in life, and then leave him to his own devices. We all screw up, but we don't all make a way of life out of it. Power to the responsible, justice to the genuinely helpless, and mercy up to a point. And beware any attempt to classify the inconvenient as non-persons. That's always a warning sign of something evil. And we are all inconvenient to somebody, somewhere. And that's where I stand on the question of choice. And also on the question of abortion on demand. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,964 by bepatient 2/2/02 9:55:34 AM Reply	Wow... that should cover everyone up to about 12 and everyone over 60. You may need to refine that some...I think the lady in Texas gets off under your rules. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,978 by Another Scott 2/2/02 11:27:21 AM Reply	Should Andrea Yates get the death penalty? I don't think so. It's clear the woman had (and may still have) severe mental problems. I think the law continues to have difficulties in judging cases involving people with mental illness. Did she commit a terrible crime? Yes. Should she suffer consequences for that crime? Yes. The question, to my mind, is - what should those consequences be? I think she shoud be confined to a mental hospital until she's recovered sufficiently to be a functional member of society. If that recovery takes less than 5 years, then she should spend the remainder of the time in a minimum security prison. (We can argue whether 5 years is fair or sufficient.) Putting her to death isn't going to serve as a deterrent nor will it protect society. Compare this case to the killing of Kevin Shifflett. A paranoid schitzophrenic man, Gregory D. Murphy, is charged with stabbing to death an 8 year old boy as he played in the yard of his grandmother's house. A Virginia judge ruled that Murphy can be [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34648-2001Apr3\|forcibly medicated] to make him competent for court proceedings. That ruling was upheld on appeal to a Federal Court. (Note that this doesn't mean that he's been ruled competent to stand trial.) Neither side disputes that the man has severe mental illness. Murphy also committed a horrible crime. He committed a terrible random act of violence on a child. He also should suffer consequences for his actions. But I think it's clear to almost everyone that he has terrible mental problems which make him less responsible for his actions than you or me. Yates killed her children - children she must have loved dearly. She shouldn't be punished the same way as someone who kills out of simple rage, greed or hatred. Her brain disease is a strongly mitigating circumstance. The brain is a wonderful, beautiful thing. But it is an organic thing and sometimes truly doesn't work properly. Making someone responsible, to the same extent as for you and me, for actions they commit when their brain is diseased isn't productive, logical, nor humane. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #26,984 by bepatient 2/2/02 12:43:36 PM Reply	But according to the prior definition... ...none of those kids would survive on a desert island alone... so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #27,005 by Ashton 2/2/02 4:38:36 PM Reply	Sheesh BeeP. Scott writes a thoughtful and intelligent analysis and you.. riposte with a smarmy marlowesque piece of doggerel? Now that's not even Econ-level. OK - maybe the Enron heresy has put you off your feed; seein all them market principles shredded into illegibility and bleedin.. could cause a bit of gall-bladder trouble (?) :-\ufffd
Post #27,017 by Brandioch 2/2/02 6:15:20 PM Reply	You're confused, again. You're applying a marlowe "definition" -to- an analysis of a different situation by Scott Now, if you had applied marlowe's "definition" -to- an analysis of a different sittuation BY MARLOWE -then- you would have been correct. Otherwise, you must FIRST ascertain whether Scott endorses Marlowe's "definition". -then- You can point out where they cross. And I have to point this out to an adult.....because?
Post #27,086 by bepatient 2/3/02 2:57:37 PM Reply	no, i'm not now you seem to have the 2 post prior problem. I responded to Marlowes "right to life" definition. Scott gave a rather eloquent dissertation on the case in Texas I referenced in my earlier post. I then clarified...becuase using the texas example was questionable due to the womans sanity. I clarified my earlier post to Marlowe. Keep up You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #27,094 by Brandioch 2/3/02 4:25:11 PM Reply	Hmmm, my monitor must be broken, then. You see, in my display, your post seems to be in reply to Scott's. But you say you're replying to Marlowe? You say that you're clarifying your post to Marlowe? By replying to Scott's post? But Scott's post was in reply to your post that was in reply to Marlowe's post. Brandioch Marlowe Tony Marlowe Bill Scott Bill (But according to the prior definition...) Brandioch Bill Brandioch (this post) Ummmm, no. You were applying Marlowe's definition to Scott's post. Especially when your "post" consisted of: "...none of those kids would survive on a desert island alone..." -and- "so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice." Now, your "desert island" phrasing seems to be a paraphrase of Marlowe's: "If you can survive on a desert island without any help from other human beings, then you have a right to life." Which just leaves: "so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice." As your "clarification" of your original post. And you think that I'm the one that is confused?
Post #27,096 by bepatient 2/3/02 4:49:18 PM Reply	yep i think your the confused one. I bet Scott understood. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,997 by tonytib 2/2/02 3:55:28 PM Reply	thanks...you got my point
Post #27,016 by Brandioch 2/2/02 6:08:47 PM Reply	lingwage ez eeeeeezeeeeee. [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=abortion\|http://www.dictiona...erm=abortion] 1. a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. 1. b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. 2.The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. You see, once I have left the womb, I cannot be "aborted". I hope this clears up the issue for you.
Post #27,078 by tonytib 2/3/02 12:58:24 PM Reply	Yeah, it's so easy.....you can't even get it right! abort: 2 a : to terminate prematurely : CANCEL [abort a project] [abort a spaceflight] b : to stop in the early stages [abort a disease] (thanks to m-w.com) You wanna bet you can't be terminated prematurely? Tony
Post #27,092 by Brandioch 2/3/02 4:14:50 PM Reply	Sure, just re-classify me. "2 a : to terminate prematurely : CANCEL [abort a project] [abort a spaceflight] b : to stop in the early stages [abort a disease]" Simple, just re-classify me as a "space flight" or "project" or somesuch. Or, re-classify me as a disease. Oh, I see now. From you original post: "OK, so why can't we abort you?" Well, you CAN. But it is ILLEGAL. "After all, you've developed continuously from the egg and sperm." True. "So where's the fundamental difference?" That I am now outside the womb and viable on my own. You see, in THIS culture, different rights are granted at different stages of development. Example, a 5 year old cannot be legally killed without the court's permission, but that same 5 year old cannot legally operate a motor vehicle on the highway. So, while you CAN "abort" me, that is termed "murder" by the court system. Whereas terminating a pregnancy is called "abortion" and not "murder". Now, do you understand? Do you realize that I am no longer in a womb?
Post #27,114 by tonytib 2/3/02 9:06:09 PM Reply	But you're NOT viable on your own
Post #27,131 by CRConrad 2/4/02 1:53:43 AM Reply	WTF are you gibbering about, Tone???
Post #27,133 by Ashton 2/4/02 1:59:06 AM Reply	LRPD: "Smoke the pipe, and there will be no lies between us"
Post #27,183 by Brandioch 2/4/02 11:09:28 AM Reply	Is this going to be another "definition"? Some out-of-context usage of "viable"? Whatever.
Post #27,082 by boxley 2/3/02 1:34:34 PM Reply	If I abort you you are inherently incapable of surviving outside the womb hence the term near term abortion late term abortion and post birth abortion. my 2cents, thanx, bill who always wonders that pre birth abortion rights/antis have equal and opposite reaction to the post birth abortion issue. My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #27,095 by Brandioch 2/3/02 4:37:43 PM Reply	Anyone want to answer this? Why does this topic ALWAYS get bogged down in semantics? Is there something in the psychological makeup of certain people who don't understand the differerence between In-the-womb and not-In-the-womb? Or is it that certain people would rather focus on the fact that the English language has, over time, adapted multiple meanings to words? To prevent further right shift on this subject, I'll clarify for those individuals possessed of very little brain. Yes, you can 'abort' just about anyone or anything. Yes, you can 'kill' a 'fetus'. Yes, a 'fetus' is a 'child'. Fuck semantics. We're discussing the legality of certain procedures performed while the fetus is still inside the womb. If you cannot manage to get that through your head, you're an idiot. If you want to argue what 'abort' means all day, fine. Then you are an idiot who cannot understand what "context" is and it is pointless trying to enlighten you on this subject.
Post #27,180 by boxley 2/4/02 10:58:28 AM Reply	you are discussing the legality some of the others were discussing morality me dux, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #27,182 by Brandioch 2/4/02 11:07:53 AM Reply	Either way. Morality or legality. There is still a world of difference between a procedure to abort a fetus and "aborting" an adult. Which was my point.
Post #27,188 by boxley 2/4/02 11:26:29 AM Reply	eh, scraping with knives works both ways? abortion, (I am describing what was described to me by a non participant viewer.) take what looks to be an awl (flat striking end on one side point on other.) insert and smack, then scrape with various scrapers. Would work on adults, icepick harry comes to mind and Jeff Dalmer was good about breaking up the parts. thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #27,235 by Brandioch 2/4/02 3:21:14 PM Reply	sigh Yes, if you remove enough of the details, your view is correct. Oh, I notice that a woman is present in the pre-birth version whereas performing the same procedure on a woman would have no effect post-birth.
Post #27,369 by boxley 2/5/02 10:50:30 AM Reply	point==taken My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be

Welcome to IWETHEY!