WHEN ABORTION MAKES SENSE....

S

sandman

Guest
Reality check.

For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.

Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.


--When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
slum, and ending up in prison.

--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you would
choose to father your child..

--When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for the
next 20 years.

--You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with your
DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and you
with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.

--When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such circumstances
are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left in cars parked
outside a bar in the sun.

Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a favor
by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who raises such
a child.

Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.

Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and the
child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
together, they would have kept the child.

No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.

The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru making
lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.

By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay for
everything for her decision.
 
"sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
> Reality check.
>
> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
>
> --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> slum, and ending up in prison.
>
> --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
> would choose to father your child..
>
> --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
> the next 20 years.
>
> --You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with
> your DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and
> you with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>
> --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
> circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
> in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>
> Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
> favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
> raises such a child.
>
> Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>
> Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and
> the child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
> together, they would have kept the child.
>
> No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
> please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
> the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
> political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
> worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>
> The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru
> making lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>
> By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
> arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay
> for everything for her decision.
>

How many people born in poverty rose above it and contributed to society?
Should we also kill-off all who fall below the poverty line? Let's kill
everybody that is "inconvenient" while we"re at it, like the old and sick.
How about people we just don't like? All redheads should go too...I hate
redheads! Left-handers are defective, they must go! Bald people! Short
people! Tall people! All justifiable by your standards.
 
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
<sandman@hotmail.com> spake thusly:


>Reality check.
>
>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.

It is murder!


>--When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
>slum, and ending up in prison.
>
>--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you would
>choose to father your child..

Then don't spread your legs!

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Teresa


--

Pastor Dave


The Last Days were in the first century:

"But the end of all things is AT HAND: be
YE therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."
- 1 Peter 4:7
 
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:36:21 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> spake thusly:


>"sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
>> Reality check.
>>
>> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>>
>> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>>
>>
>> --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
>> slum, and ending up in prison.
>>
>> --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
>> would choose to father your child..
>>
>> --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
>> the next 20 years.
>>
>> --You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with
>> your DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and
>> you with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>>
>> --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
>> shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
>> circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
>> in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>>
>> Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
>> favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
>> raises such a child.
>>
>> Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>>
>> Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and
>> the child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
>> together, they would have kept the child.
>>
>> No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
>> please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
>> the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
>> political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
>> worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>>
>> The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru
>> making lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>>
>> By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
>> arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay
>> for everything for her decision.
>>
>
>How many people born in poverty rose above it and contributed to society?
>Should we also kill-off all who fall below the poverty line? Let's kill
>everybody that is "inconvenient" while we"re at it, like the old and sick.
>How about people we just don't like? All redheads should go too...I hate
>redheads! Left-handers are defective, they must go! Bald people! Short
>people! Tall people! All justifiable by your standards.

They would love to kill off those people!

Abortion comes from evolutionists. Survival of the fittest
and that is their real goal! Let's not forget Margaret
Sanger's view that black people should be eliminated
through abortion!

--

Pastor Dave


"Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party
it injures, so that society has to take the place
of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement
or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which
society has a direct interest." - W. H. Auden
 
On Feb 19, 12:26 pm, "sandman" <sand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Reality check.
>
> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
> --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> slum, and ending up in prison.
>
> --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you would
> choose to father your child..
>
> --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for the
> next 20 years.
>
> --You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with your
> DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and you
> with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>
> --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such circumstances
> are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left in cars parked
> outside a bar in the sun.
>
> Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a favor
> by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who raises such
> a child.
>
> Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>
> Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and the
> child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
> together, they would have kept the child.
>
> No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
> please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
> the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
> political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
> worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>
> The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru making
> lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>
> By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
> arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay for
> everything for her decision.


How about acting responsibly and not having sex if you don't want a
kid?
 
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Reality check.
>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.

And it is a sure trip to hell for being unrepentant.

duke, American-American

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
 
"sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
> Reality check.
>
> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
>
> --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> slum, and ending up in prison.
>
> --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
> would choose to father your child..
>
> --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
> the next 20 years.
>
> --You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with
> your DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and
> you with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>
> --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
> circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
> in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>
> Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
> favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
> raises such a child.
>
> Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>
> Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and
> the child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
> together, they would have kept the child.
>
> No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
> please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
> the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
> political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
> worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>
> The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru
> making lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>
With the high divorce rate and out of wedlock birthrate, it's obvious women
think of themselves as nothing more than breeders.
 
On 19-Feb-2008, "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Reality check.
>
> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.

Offing your kid is cheaper than rubbers?
 
Tom Gardner wrote:

> "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
>
>>Reality check.
>>
>>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>>
>>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>>
>>
>>--When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
>>slum, and ending up in prison.
>>
>>--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
>>would choose to father your child..
>>
>>--When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
>>the next 20 years.
>>
>>--You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with
>>your DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and
>>you with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>>
>>--When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
>>shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
>>circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
>>in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>>
>>Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
>>favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
>>raises such a child.
>>
>>Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>>
>>Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and
>>the child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
>>together, they would have kept the child.
>>
>>No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
>>please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
>>the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
>>political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
>>worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>>
>>The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru
>>making lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>>
>>By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
>>arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay
>>for everything for her decision.
>>
>
>
> How many people born in poverty rose above it and contributed to society?

What's the answer?

> Should we also kill-off all who fall below the poverty line?

What does killing a person in poverty have to do with abortion?

Let's kill
> everybody that is "inconvenient" while we"re at it, like the old and sick.
> How about people we just don't like? All redheads should go too...I hate
> redheads! Left-handers are defective, they must go! Bald people! Short
> people! Tall people! All justifiable by your standards.

There's a Republican for you. Save the fetus, kill the born.
 
"sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
> Reality check.
> For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
> Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
> --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> slum, and ending up in prison.

By that reasoning I should be able to shoot slum dweller any time I want.

> --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
> would choose to father your child..

Good enough to **** but good enough otherwise?

> --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
> the next 20 years.

Good enough to **** but good enough otherwise?

> --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
> circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
> in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.

By that reasoning I should be able to shoot drug addicts any time I want.

> Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
> favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
> raises such a child.

By that reasoning I should be able to shoot stupid people any time I want.
 
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
><sandman@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Reality check.
>>
>>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>>
>>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
>It is murder!

Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet). Why exactly do
you feel you have the right to tell others that they cannot control
their bodies? None, nor do you have any moral authority in the matter.
>>--When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of
living in a
>>slum, and ending up in prison.
>>
>>--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you would
>>choose to father your child..
>
>Then don't spread your legs!

And that has worked how well over the past million years or so? Keep
your 'morality' to yourself - most know it's bankrupt. OTOH how do you
feel about capital punishment? Right to die?

WB Yeats
 
On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:

> >>Reality check.
> >>
> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
> >>
> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
> >It is murder!
>
> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).

Here's my basis:

In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.

(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
 
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
>> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
>> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> >>Reality check.
>> >>
>> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>> >>
>> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>>
>> >It is murder!
>>
>> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
>> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).
>
>Here's my basis:
>
>In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
>not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
>is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
>(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
>significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
>individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
>does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
>history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
>reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
>they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
>individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
>reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
>"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
>birth.

Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their
own, have no free will, etc; In other words these 'persons' are little
more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality. These
'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet. There
is no divine spark in humans - we're merely the top of the
evolutionary ladder - at present.

>(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
>sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
>egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
>by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
>sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
>applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
>individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
>possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
>incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
>thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
>possibilities.)

Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is. Tell ya what - you keep your nose
out of other folks business and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW
- how do you feel about capital punishment? The right to die?

WB Yeats
 
On Feb 19, 2:52 pm, Salad <o...@vinegar.com> wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
> > "sandman" <sand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
>
> >>Reality check.
>
> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>
> >>Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
> >>--When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> >>slum, and ending up in prison.
>
> >>--When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
> >>would choose to father your child..
>
> >>--When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
> >>the next 20 years.
>
> >>--You don't want someone else no matter how rich, raising a child with
> >>your DNA, and the resulting agony of the child never feeling complete, and
> >>you with a yearning and feeling of failing such a child that never ends.
>
> >>--When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> >>shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
> >>circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
> >>in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>
> >>Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
> >>favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
> >>raises such a child.
>
> >>Experts say at much as 50% of our behavior is genetic.
>
> >>Adoptive parents are taking a terrible risk. Many adoptions fail, and
> >>the child returned to the state. If the original parents had their act
> >>together, they would have kept the child.
>
> >>No one should interfer with women deciding not to carry to term, only to
> >>please someone else who has made it their business to interfere. Much of
> >>the "pro-life" movement is the result of the profitable baby trade, and
> >>political agendas to maintain a steady source to maintain armies and a
> >>worker-class, and absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
>
> >>The Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of power-building thru
> >>making lots of little Catholics, making women nothing more than breeders.
>
> >>By making men pay support for children they never wanted assures this
> >>arrangement of breeder/soldiers. Women chosing to go to term should pay
> >>for everything for her decision.
>
> > How many people born in poverty rose above it and contributed to society?
>
> What's the answer?
>
> > Should we also kill-off all who fall below the poverty line?
>
> What does killing a person in poverty have to do with abortion?
>
> Let's kill
>
> > everybody that is "inconvenient" while we"re at it, like the old and sick.
> > How about people we just don't like? All redheads should go too...I hate
> > redheads! Left-handers are defective, they must go! Bald people! Short
> > people! Tall people! All justifiable by your standards.
>
> There's a Republican for you. Save the fetus, kill the born.

Liberal statistician Steve Lefitt has pointed out most of the aborted
in this country would have grown up to be criminals and or Democrats.
It's one of the benefits of abortion.
 
On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:

> >> >>Reality check.
> >> >>
> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
> >> >>
> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
> >> >It is murder!
>
> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).
>
> >Here's my basis:
> >
> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
> >birth.
>
> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their
> own, have no free will,

Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons.

> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little
> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality.

Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
both confer personhood.

> These
> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet.

And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential
for not-X does not disprove potential for X.

> There
> is no divine spark in humans

Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine.

> - we're merely the top of the
> evolutionary ladder - at present.
>
> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
> >possibilities.)
>
> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is.

Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
both confer personhood.

> Tell ya what - you keep your nose
> out of other folks business

Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of
other folks' business?

> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW
> - how do you feel about capital punishment?

For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is
never true of unborn persons.

> The right to die?

I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government
efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm.
 
On Feb 19, 3:38 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "sandman" <sand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1lc00m.4js.19.1@news.alt.net...
>
> > Reality check.
> > For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
> > Abortion is the poor persons' method of birth control.
> > --When the future prospects are overwhelming odds of a life of living in a
> > slum, and ending up in prison.
>
> By that reasoning I should be able to shoot slum dweller any time I want.
>
> > --When the sperm provider is not good father material, and not who you
> > would choose to father your child..
>
> Good enough to **** but good enough otherwise?
>
> > --When the sperm donor is not the kind you want to have in your life for
> > the next 20 years.
>
> Good enough to **** but good enough otherwise?
>
> > --When the female is drug addicted, or a drug user. Heroin addiction has
> > shown that poor or no prenatal care, and the children of such
> > circumstances are developmentally impared, and frequently are found left
> > in cars parked outside a bar in the sun.
>
> By that reasoning I should be able to shoot drug addicts any time I want.
>
> > Every child needs a level playing field, and no one is doing anyone a
> > favor by bringing in children that don't have a chance, no matter who
> > raises such a child.
>
> By that reasoning I should be able to shoot stupid people any time I want.

Not you. The government. Vote Democrat. ..
 
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
>> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
>> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> >> >>Reality check.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>>
>> >> >It is murder!
>>
>> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
>> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).
>>
>> >Here's my basis:
>> >
>> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
>> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
>> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
>> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
>> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
>> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
>> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
>> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
>> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
>> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
>> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
>> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
>> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
>> >birth.
>>
>> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their
>> own, have no free will,
>
>Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons.

Newborns being the key phrase here.

>> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little
>> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality.
>
>Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
>both confer personhood.
Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential.

>> These
>> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet.
>
>And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential
>for not-X does not disprove potential for X.

Born being the key word here.

>> There
>> is no divine spark in humans
>
>Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine.

Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides
............ unborn flotsam.

>> - we're merely the top of the
>> evolutionary ladder - at present.
>>
>> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
>> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
>> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
>> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
>> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
>> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
>> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
>> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
>> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
>> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
>> >possibilities.)
>>
>> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is.
>
>Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
>both confer personhood.

Beep - wrong again - see above.

>> Tell ya what - you keep your nose
>> out of other folks business

>Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of
>other folks' business?

Talk about straw man - not on point. Slaves were born beings.
Comprende?

>> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW
>> - how do you feel about capital punishment?
>
>For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is
>never true of unborn persons.

Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people.

>> The right to die?

>I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government
>efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm.

Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right
to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain?
You're entire argument is inconsistent and morally bankrupt.
Personally I have a lot of respect for those who feel the right to
life is undeniable and absolute. I don't agree but their argument is
on a very firm philosophical under pinnings.

WB Yeats
 
On Feb 20, 1:05 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
> >> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
> >> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:

> >> >> >>Reality check.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>
> >> >> >It is murder!
>
> >> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
> >> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).
>
> >> >Here's my basis:
> >> >
> >> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
> >> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
> >> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
> >> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
> >> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
> >> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
> >> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
> >> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
> >> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
> >> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
> >> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
> >> >birth.
>
> >> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their
> >> own, have no free will,
>
> >Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons.
>
> Newborns being the key phrase here.

The key here is that the criteria you proposed for nonpersonhood are
true not only of unborn humans but also newborn ones.

> >> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little
> >> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality.
>
> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
> >both confer personhood.
>
> Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential.

Feel free to rebut my argument to the contrary.

> >> These
> >> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet.
>
> >And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential
> >for not-X does not disprove potential for X.
>
> Born being the key word here.

The key is that since born persons' potential to die doesn't negate
their potential for other things, neither does unborn persons'
potential to die negate their potential for other things.

> >> There
> >> is no divine spark in humans
>
> >Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine.
>
> Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides
> ........... unborn flotsam.

I already told you why in the dozens of lines I posted after "Here's
my basis."

> >> - we're merely the top of the
> >> evolutionary ladder - at present.
>
> >> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
> >> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
> >> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
> >> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
> >> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
> >> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
> >> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
> >> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
> >> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
> >> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
> >> >possibilities.)
>
> >> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is.
>
> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
> >both confer personhood.
>
> Beep - wrong again - see above.

Right back at ya.

> >> Tell ya what - you keep your nose
> >> out of other folks business
>
> >Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of
> >other folks' business?
>
> Talk about straw man - not on point.

Look up "straw man" ... it has nothing to do with being on or off
point.

> Slaves were born beings.
> Comprende?

No ****, Sherlock. How was their enslavement the abolitionists'
business?

> >> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW
> >> - how do you feel about capital punishment?
>
> >For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is
> >never true of unborn persons.
>
> Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people.

People who have killed (or grievously harmed) other people ... very
different from killing innocent unborn people.

> >> The right to die?
>
> >I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government
> >efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm.
>
> Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right
> to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain?

Consult a dictionary ... that is suicide, like it or not.

I'm not sure whether it's a "right" because it can be argued that
ending one's own life is an inherently irrational act.
 
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:45:23 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 1:05 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:48 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Feb 20, 11:56 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 20, 9:58 am, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:58:49 -0500, Pastor Dave
>> >> >> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:26:01 -0800, "sandman"
>> >> >> ><sand...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> >> >> >>Reality check.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>For centuries women have been making tough choices, but the right choices.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Abortionis the poor persons' method of birth control.
>>
>> >> >> >It is murder!
>>
>> >> >> Your opinion based upon what? The immortal soul? That's belief and not
>> >> >> fact. That human life is sacred? It's not human (yet).
>>
>> >> >Here's my basis:
>> >> >
>> >> >In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
>> >> >not be killed---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
>> >> >is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
>> >> >(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
>> >> >significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
>> >> >individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
>> >> >does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
>> >> >history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
>> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
>> >> >they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
>> >> >individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
>> >> >reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of
>> >> >"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
>> >> >birth.
>>
>> >> Beep - wrong. These 'persons' to which you refer cannot exist on their
>> >> own, have no free will,
>>
>> >Both are also true of newborns, who are nonetheless persons.
>>
>> Newborns being the key phrase here.
>
>The key here is that the criteria you proposed for nonpersonhood are
>true not only of unborn humans but also newborn ones.

Born is a person per se Dumbo.

>> >> etc; In other words these 'persons' are little
>> >> more than biological parasites. Potential is not actuality.
>>
>> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
>> >both confer personhood.
>>
>> Potential doesn't confer anything except..........potential.
>
>Feel free to rebut my argument to the contrary.

Already did.

>> >> These
>> >> 'persons' also have the potential to be flushed down the toilet.
>>
>> >And born persons have the potential to be killed. So what? Potential
>> >for not-X does not disprove potential for X.
>>
>> Born being the key word here.
>
>The key is that since born persons' potential to die doesn't negate
>their potential for other things, neither does unborn persons'
>potential to die negate their potential for other things.

No such thing as an unborn person by definition. Person denotes birth
- unborn denotes no such thing. Your premise if false hence all else
that follows.

>> >> There
>> >> is no divine spark in humans
>>
>> >Another straw man ... I said nothing about anything divine.
>>
>> Then why do you feel that unborn zygotes are anything besides
>> ........... unborn flotsam.
>
>I already told you why in the dozens of lines I posted after "Here's
>my basis."
>
>> >> - we're merely the top of the
>> >> evolutionary ladder - at present.
>>
>> >> >(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
>> >> >sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
>> >> >egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
>> >> >by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
>> >> >sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
>> >> >applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
>> >> >individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
>> >> >possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
>> >> >incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
>> >> >thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
>> >> >possibilities.)
>>
>> >> Shoulda, woulda, coulda - not is.
>>
>> >Straw man ... I didn't argue that potential is actuality, but that
>> >both confer personhood.
>>
>> Beep - wrong again - see above.
>
>Right back at ya.

Potential doesn't confer anything except potential by definition.
There's no actuality involved, your premise false, ergo all else that
follows false
..
>> >> Tell ya what - you keep your nose
>> >> out of other folks business
>>
>> >Should the slavery abolitionists have just kept their noses out of
>> >other folks' business?
>>
>> Talk about straw man - not on point.
>
>Look up "straw man" ... it has nothing to do with being on or off
>point.

You're throwing up an argument that's both false and not to the point.
What else would you call it?

>> Slaves were born beings.
>> Comprende?
>
>No ****, Sherlock. How was their enslavement the abolitionists'
>business?

You're going around in circles again. Equating slaves with the unborn
- your argument - is patently false as the living and the not-living
are never one in the same, premise false, argument falls flat again.
Try and keep up and on point.

>> >> and I'm sure they'll respond in kind. BTW
>> >> - how do you feel about capital punishment?
>>
>> >For it, assuming the target has committed a heinous crime, which is
>> >never true of unborn persons.
>>
>> Your philosophy is now bankrupt - you're now killing real people.
>
>People who have killed (or grievously harmed) other people ... very
>different from killing innocent unborn people.

Life is life. There's no gradations. Otherwise you're inconsistent
again.

>> >> The right to die?
>>
>> >I'm not sure whether it's a "right" but I'm skeptical that government
>> >efforts to prevent suicide do more good than harm.
>>
>> Not talking about suicide here - if you feel that folks have a right
>> to life then why should they have any right to end their life of pain?
>
>Consult a dictionary ... that is suicide, like it or not.

The definition is outdated. Death with dignity does not fit with the
definition of suicide whether assisted or not.

WB Yeats
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
W
Read: Peppa's Valentine's Day (Peppa Pig) (Peppa Pig) - full pages by Courtney Carbone (2017)
Replies
0
Views
56
WendyBourl
W
S
California changes laws so children can no longer be prostitutes
Replies
0
Views
23
Sports News
S
Back
Top