Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:31:41 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: >> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of _abortion_, but, >> rather, with the moral issues of _any_ procedure involving risk; hence, in >> the scope of the discussion at hand, the point would seem to be irrelevant. > > The higher risk of performing an abortion at a later date is > irrelevent??? Absolutely, completely, 100% irrelevant. Its only possible relevance is in preferring early term abortion to late term. Whether we can regard later term abortion as immoral or unethical, etc, is simply not a matter where this applies. >> Well, hell, add a few months more, the same can be said of the egg that >> got fertilized tonight. I'm sure you had a point there somewhere but >> it isn't clear what it was. > > Perhaps you should try thinking. It makes things clearer. I do, regularly - and your point is still not in evidence. If the reason for disliking late term abortions is "wait a few months, you'll have a kid", then barring the demonstration of some dividing line where you wouldn't end up having a kid just by waiting, the logic applies to all stages of the process - yet you seem to make a distinction between early and late term abortion based on this. Your point is, well, non-existent apparently; don't blame me if you can't explain your own position. >> Nope, I think giving them access to early term abortions is great, but >> it has no bearing on the question of late term abortions, and so far >> you haven't had much bearing on the matter either. >> >> Could you, perhaps, make your argument? > > Could you perhaps get a clue? I've got several; this has no bearing on whether you're making your case or not, and so far you're not. > If 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an abortion within > the first trimester And if 100% of restaurants served top-quality steaks, I'd be happier dining out. Sorry, could we get back to the real world? > Now tell me the truth: are you really this dense I'm dense because you can't make a point? Sorry, that's your failing, not mine. -- Here, stand behind my Blasphemy Shield! - Hector Plasmic Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:37:40 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel > being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you > have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of > fatherhood? It's a joy if that is what you want. I worked with a fellow a few years back and we discussed that very issue. He, like me, was not a fan of kids and didn't want any. His wife did. Of course, the endless parade of "it's different when it's your own kids" types came out of the woodwork and he listened to them. He had kids. His opinion? Those people are full of shit; the simple fact of the matter is that if you're a person who doesn't like kids in the first place, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference if they're your kids or not, you still don't like kids, but now you're saddled with them. I took his experience to heart, as it confirmed for me what I'd long suspected - no amount of wishful thinking is going to change cold, hard reality. > "Conspire" is a loaded term. You should say that teh doctor "assisted" > the woman in carrying out the abortion. Don't forget, he's a card-carrying member of the "women are property" club, and is required to instill feelings of guilt and remorse by promoting the climate in which those feelings are a predictable result of the procedure. > The primary > reason is because they have been taught from birth that killing and murder > are taboo. > But abortion isn't murder. As I said... card-carrying member of the slavery brigade. -- This line added to support David Rice's counting fetish. :-) - Robert Curry Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:39:52 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:08:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > - Refer: <csb3i4-eh7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >>[snips] >> >>On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion >> >>I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. > > Aren't you male? > Depression would be the last thing on your mind! Okay, fine.. surprised, confused and depressed. -- Crock of SHIT.COM found. Reformatting brain. Fundy level exceeded... Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1905071320390001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5b8uc7F2s00lcU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> >> > Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article >> > that >> > listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. >> > If >> > they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably >> > would >> > have been aborted. >> >> Yeah? So what? If abortion had been legal back in 1960, I would have >> been >> aborted. So? >> >> It was difficult being an unwanted child. It's also >> > difficult for those people that were adopted. >> >> Gee, really? Do tell. I could just imagine what you'd have to say about >> that. BTW, I'm an adoptee. >> >> The alternative was much >> > worse. >> >> How so? I mean, it's not like you'd be aware that you'd been aborted. >> >> I had not thought of it until I saw your post but perhaps that is >> > one of the reasons that I am an advocate for the Pro-Life cause. I want >> > to >> > save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that >> > says: >> > Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a >> > LIFE--Not a CHOICE. >> >> But it IS a choice. Deal. > > That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at > these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. Godwin alert - You lose - I win. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On May 20, 9:15 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:31:41 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > >> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of _abortion_, but, > >> rather, with the moral issues of _any_ procedure involving risk; hence, in > >> the scope of the discussion at hand, the point would seem to be irrelevant. > > > The higher risk of performing an abortion at a later date is > > irrelevent??? > > Absolutely, completely, 100% irrelevant. Its only possible relevance is > in preferring early term abortion to late term. Whether we can regard > later term abortion as immoral or unethical, etc, is simply not a matter > where this applies. So, if you were a doctor, you would not even inform your patients as to the risk involved in a procedure? A doctor would tell a woman who is unsure as to whether or not to have her baby that she should make up her mind _as soon as possible_ so that she wasn't placed in unnecessary risk. Some late term abortions actually require a hysterectomy and then the woman is unable to have any more children. It _would_ be unethical for a doctor to not inform a woman of the risks involved, just as it would be unethical for a doctor to not inform a woman if there were any risks associated with her continuing with her pregnancy. > >> Well, hell, add a few months more, the same can be said of the egg that > >> got fertilized tonight. I'm sure you had a point there somewhere but > >> it isn't clear what it was. > > > Perhaps you should try thinking. It makes things clearer. > > I do, regularly - and your point is still not in evidence. If the reason > for disliking late term abortions is "wait a few months, you'll have a > kid", then barring the demonstration of some dividing line where you > wouldn't end up having a kid just by waiting, the logic applies to all > stages of the process - yet you seem to make a distinction between early > and late term abortion based on this. It turns out that some premature babies are born after only seven months. Most doctors would be reluctant to perform an abortion if a "fetus" is that close to being viable. > Your point is, well, non-existent apparently; don't blame me if you can't > explain your own position. I can easily blame you for being the total moron that you are. Don't try to shift the blame on me if you are too stupid to understand a simple argument! > >> Nope, I think giving them access to early term abortions is great, but > >> it has no bearing on the question of late term abortions, and so far > >> you haven't had much bearing on the matter either. > > >> Could you, perhaps, make your argument? > > > Could you perhaps get a clue? > > I've got several; this has no bearing on whether you're making your case > or not, and so far you're not. Perhaps you can demonstrate that you actually do have a single clue. So far, you have failed to do so. > > If 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an abortion within > > the first trimester > > And if 100% of restaurants served top-quality steaks, I'd be happier > dining out. Sorry, could we get back to the real world? I am here in the real world. You are welcome to come over. As I said "if 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an abortion within the first trimester then late term abortions would only be performed in emergency circumstances and the whole question of their morality would be irrelevent." Why did you feel it was necessary to snip what I wrote? Could it be that you know that I am right and you are just arguing because you're an asshole who likes to argue? Why do you LIE, saying that I don't have an argument, when you're snipping the very argument that shoots down your baseless assertions? > > Now tell me the truth: are you really this dense > > I'm dense because you can't make a point? Sorry, that's your failing, not > mine. I've made my point. Now I'm sure you will snip it out again and claim that I didn't. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On May 20, 9:30 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:37:40 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > > It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel > > being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you > > have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of > > fatherhood? > > It's a joy if that is what you want. > > I worked with a fellow a few years back and we discussed that very issue. > He, like me, was not a fan of kids and didn't want any. The fact that you don't like kids DOES hurt your argument. Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to >build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several >bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs >and nuclear materials? Use them against Israel. Use them against a US-run Iraq. Keep the US from invading Iran and taking it over. A lot of at least semi-legitimate uses. But use one to destroy the US? Even a few hundred megatons wouldn't do the job, and they'd have no way to deliver anything of even that size to the US. And if you think it's easy to smuggle a few dozen bombs large enough to destroy cities into this country, you have a lot to learn. Maybe in 50 years, but our technology will have improved by then too - if a few more 17th century presidents haven't destroyed our scientific and technological communities by then, or forced them to move to other countries. >The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of >from the map of the world." So have a lot of Arab leaders. Arafat really did a good job of bringing that off, didn't he? Hussein was going to wipe them off the map with nukes too. They took care of Iraq with no help from anyone. And without invading Iraq or losing any of their soldiers. Our invasion of Iraq, planned by BushCo since at least 1998, only accomplished one thing - it made it possible for the government to privatize the US Treasury. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <hbe4i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > >> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > > > > Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are > > required to get counseling after they have killed someone. > > I think you missed the gist of the point I was making; it was, I'll admit, > a tad subtle. > > Here, you use the phrase "killing someone". Above, you simply used the > term "killing". See the difference? One is about killing _people_; the > other is a more generalized term, which applies also to, say, killing > bacteria, fungus, viruses and the like, all things we very much need to do > in order to survive. > The point is that, like so much "pro-life" and pro-religion rhetoric, the > terminology is sloppy. In many cases this is intentional, such as that of > a certain boneheaded woman I've been discussing abortion with who persists > in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this > intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows > she cannot support any other way. One reason that your friend does that is because many of the advocates of abortion attempt to depersonalize the fetus. In some abortion clinics, the fetus is referred to as a POC (product of conception). That is depersonalization to the max. Your friend probably uses the term MURDER in order to personalize the fetus. Members of the military in World World I and II were trained to depersonalize the enemy--they even used slang terms for them which I will not mention in this post so as not to offend anyone. That is like calling a fetus a POC. > > You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy terminology, such > as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use "killing" > when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat > extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing > valued life" or some such. Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. There is a bumper sticker that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. There is another that says: ABORTION=MURDER Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby. One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color ultrasound of a 7 month old fetus. It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month old baby. There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. In the year 1974, I heard a lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a fetus was a "mass of tissue". That lady was lying. A fetus is NOT a mass of tissue. The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to tell that lie to the members of a highschool class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the fetus. The advocates of abortion seem to always try to depersonalize the fetus--do you do that? In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound of their fetuses before they can have an abortion. I support that law. How to you feel about that law? It's to force women to personalize their fetus and see it as a baby. > > I'm happy to agree that killing _people_ (or "valued life") can be cause > for depression; somewhat less inclined to agree that killing, period, is > cause for distress: if it's me or the bacteria, trust me, I'm not going > to lose any sleep over wiping them out by the millions. That is great to know-- > > > night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse > > to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize > > anyone--including unborn babies. > > No such thing. A baby, by definition, is born. Well, delivered - by > birth, C-section or, in a couple of odd plays and the like, by simply > gutting the woman and having the results pour forth. > > > > A fetus is an unborn baby. > > No, a fetus is a fetus. After birth, it is a baby. > > You see, a baby is a person, with the rights of a person; a fetus isn't. > Your use of "unborn baby" thus confuses the issue; an unfertilized egg is > also - by your usage - an unborn baby; do we grant it the full rights of > a person? Obviously not. So you must mean this the other way around, > that a baby does not have the rights of a person. > > Nope, neither of those positions make much sense, so something has to > give. In this case, the obvious solution is to use correct terminology: > fetus while inside the womb, baby after delivery. > > > > There are no major differences between a baby > > that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a > > mother's womb that is also 7 months old. > > Yes, there is; the one delivered after 7 months has a chance to live; the > other is dead. It would suffocate. Of course, a fetus at 7 months has > no such risk, as it has oxygen supplied by the host. > > > Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. > > Of course. They, however, are not the ones under consideration here. If > they want kids, they're not going to be lining up to have abortions, now > are they? The subject here is abortions, so women who, pretty much by > definition aren't going to have abortions really have no relevance to the > discussion. > > > I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be > > done in the first trimester. > > Yes, but no reasons why they should not be done later; that is, no > reason to try to ban second and third trimester abortions. > > >> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously > >> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be > >> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary > >> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. > > > Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when > > they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. > > "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who > dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be shunned. They > are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction; > anything else makes them evil. You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end result is a dead baby. You care about the woman and that is wonderful. I care about the woman and the fetus. The reason is because after 9 months--the fetus becomes a baby. The reason she will feel guilt is because it's normal for most people to have guilt feeling related to a death. It's my opinion that women that use the morning after pill or get abortions during the first trimester will have less depression than if the abortion took place during the second or third trimester. > > And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame involved, where > none should be. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >Many rich people have given up on public >schools and send their children to expensive college prep private schools. Which teach them how to get into prestigious colleges and universities. We're still falling behind the rest of the first world in education, more every year. What do you expect from a school system that thinks it's right to teach that evolution is just the idea of some dead guy and some invisible supercreature created the universe so that mankind could run everything? Our "graduates" are laughed at in really advanced nations. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >wrote: >And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if >Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179621460.614622.219130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 4:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <9iq3i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [snips] > > > > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > > > > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > > > > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > > > > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > > > > > What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole > > > purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like > > > crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause > > > - the religious nutjobs. > > > > > > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. > > > > > So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > > > much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > > > > Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are > > required to get counseling after they have killed someone. Many members of > > the military that have killed lots of people suffer severe depression > > problem. When a woman conspires with a doctor to have her fetus > > killed--it's my opinion that many of those women develop guilt feelings > > and the end result is severe depression. You may not think that a fetus is > > an unborn baby but it's true. Ask any pregnant woman whether or not she is > > carrying a baby in her womb and she will tell you that is carrying a baby. > > It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel > being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you > have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of > fatherhood? Jason, do you understand how much a woman has to go > through just to have a baby, let alone raise it? I think a big reason > for depression might not be a feeling of guilt but a feeling of missed > opportunity, but that doesn't mean that the woman didn't make the > right decision. Even if a woman would have been happier having the > baby (and Jason can't prove that this would be the case) it is still > HER decision to make and nobody else's. Good points. Sarah has never had a baby. My sister had a miscarrage and suffered severe depression from "a sense of loss". Yes, an abortion does solve problems but it's my opinion that putting an unwanted child up for adoption is better than choosing abortion as a option. > > > I know that doctors that work in abortion clinics use terms like "POC" > > (product of conception) instead of "fetus" or "unborn baby". They do this > > so as to avoid believing that they are actully killing unborn babies. It's > > easier for them to think: "I'm aborting a POC" than to think: "I'm > > murdering an unborn baby". Anyone that has taken Psychology 101 knows > > about "depersonalization"--that's the way that abortion doctors are able > > to kill unborn babies and still sleep at night or suffer from severe > > depression. That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because they > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. > > And yet the doctors themselves would have a better perspective than > you as to just what is being aborted, wouldn't they? Yes--but as your know--the doctor has to make sure all the body parts of the baby have been removed. Otherwise, an infection will occur. Answer this question: While that doctor is counting the fingers and toes, how can he not realize that it's a baby and not a POC? >> > > > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS > > > > that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. > > > > > To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric > > > which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes > > > riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just > > > fine to promote those very conditions. > > > > A fetus is an unborn baby. There are no major differences between a baby > > that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a mother's > > womb that is also 7 months old. > > Which is why most doctors would not want to perform abortions in the > third trimester. > > http://www.doctorndtv.com/Children/detailtopics.asp?id=27 > > > > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > > > > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > > > > abortion experiences. > > > > > Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were > > > examined and reported on? > > > > > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to > > > > term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part > > > > of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. > > > > > Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going > > > to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that > > > point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in > > > love with the little squirts. > > > > Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. They even > > send out birth announcements that include pictures of their babies. > > Have you considered that some women _don't_ want to have babies? yes--they should use protection. > > > > I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, > > > again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is > > > surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. > > > > > That's the > > > > reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and > > > > if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first > > > > trimester. > > > > > Hey, they want to have it first trimester, great - but you haven't given a > > > single reason not to allow second or third trimester abortion. > > > > They are legal in America. Since second and third term abortions are > > legal, I would not force any woman to not have an abortion. I comply with > > the law. > > I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be done > > in the first trimester. > > Few doctors would perform third trimester abortions. Agreed--and we know the reason. > > http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0819.html > > "Third trimester abortions are extremely rare in this country, and are > performed only for the preservation of the life or health of the > pregnant woman." > > (Of course, all abortions are performed for the purpose of saving the > "life or health of the pregnant women" as "health" could mean "mental > health".) > > > > > Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related > > > > to this issue? > > > > > Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously not. > > > Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be surrounded with > > > needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary depression in women who > > > have one? Again, obviously not. > > > > Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when > > they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. > > "Conspire" is a loaded term. You should say that teh doctor > "assisted" the woman in carrying out the abortion. good point. > > > The primary > > reason is because they have been taught from birth that killing and murder > > are taboo. > > But abortion isn't murder. More likely women are depressed because > they instinctively want to have children and may subconsciously regret > their missed opportunity. > > > Abortion doctors and members of the Pro Choice organizations can call it a > > fetus or a POC (product of conception). However, most women that are > > pregnant know that it's an unborn baby. > > Would you prefer that parents NOT teach their children to view murder and > > killing as taboo? > > If killing is taboo then I won't ever have chicken, pork, beef, eggs > or fish again. Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo--just that killing people is taboo. They don't put people in prison for killing animals. > > Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179618379.481949.104300@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <csb3i4-eh7....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [snips] > > > > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > > > > > I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. > > > > > > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > > > > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > > > > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > > > > unintended first pregnancy to term. > > > > > [snip a lot of irrelevant crap about married/unmarried] > > > > > > Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are > > > > all associated with greater post-abortion depression > > > > > Shame, secrecy and thought-suppression? Well, sure, in a society where > > > the fundamentalist fascist jackasses are constantly inundating us with > > > their "abortion is murder" bullshit. In a society where it's simply a > > > medical procedure, no such items should attach. > > > > > Aha. The depression isn't because of the abortion, but because of the > > > "pro-life" liars and frauds. Just goes to support my contention that they > > > are an actual danger to society. However, we'll continue examining this... > > > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. After an > > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS that > > she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. > > Speculation. The article does not go in detail as to WHY women felt > ashamed or even if shame was the reason for the depression in the > first place. > > > The end result is > > a feeling of GUILT and that (in my opinion) is the major reason that many > > women that have had abortions suffer from severe depression. This research > > study indicates that women that have had abortions suffer more depression > > than women that carried their babies to term. > > The big question is how they choose women for the study and if the > women knew in advance what sort of study was to be done. > > > > Hmm... > > > > > I haven't read the study itself, nor their analysis of it. However, I > > > note a few things missing in what was reported here. For example, I don't > > > see any mention of the emotional impact of giving up a child for adoption, > > > nor of caring for and supporting an unwanted child for the duration of its > > > childhood. I also don't see the reports of the emotional effects on the > > > child of discovering it was unwanted and living in an environment where > > > its very existence is at best begrudgingly tolerated. > > > > That's true--they only focused on abortion as a cause for depression in > > this study. It's my guess that those women would also have depression. > > The article failed to establish cause and effect. They claimed that > "significantly" more women who had abortions were depressed than women > who had carried unwanted babies to term but they failed to establish > what, if any, were the reasons for this depression. They may, for > example, regret the opportunity they missed in not having a baby when > they could have without actually believing that what they did was > morally wrong. That's true. However, it's also possible they were depressed since they realized that their baby is dead and as a result they have GUILT which led to depression. > > > > What you presented here focused solely on a singular act and its > > > consequences, yet seems to have totally ignored the consequences of not > > > performing the act. This, obviously, is going to lead to wildly biased > > > findings. > > > > > Of course the report also overlooks another issue. It examines the > > > effects of abortion, but it doesn't seem to even mention the effects of > > > being forced to carry an unwanted fetus - of being told "Shut up, woman, > > > you have no rights, just do what you're told". > > > > > Seriously, if you're going to bring up the emotional impacts of abortion > > > as somehow relevant, you also have to show the effects of not aborting - > > > and that means for all involved, for the long haul. > > > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > > abortion experiences. Those people pointed out that I should also visit a > > Planned Parenthood office and talk to women that were pleased that they > > don't have to deal with the problems of raising an unwanted baby. > > > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to term. > > They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part of the > > second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. That's the reason > > that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and if that > > was not done--the abortion should occur during the first trimester. The > > person that wrote this article (unless I missed it) did not discuss this > > issue. Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related to this issue? > > Women who literally use the morning after pill the morning after > having sex would not even have known they were pregnant. That is true and the primary reason there would be little or no guilt and the end result would be no depression or very little depression. It's my hope that in the years to come, there will be many less abortion clinics in America due to the morning after pill. > > Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:24 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: - Refer: <g2hv43pqscndm0g5408e32dj77cuqdktla@4ax.com> >On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: > >>And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if > >>Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? > >That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it >starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. In the case of homo sapiens, it is a bad thing for the rest of the life on the planet. (Apart from rats, and cockroaches of course) -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179619640.090945.204610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 4:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <5b8uc7F2s00l...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > > > > I want to > > > > save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: > > > > Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a > > > > LIFE--Not a CHOICE. > > > > > But it IS a choice. Deal. > > > > That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at > > these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. One of the > > reasons we started that war was to keep Hitler from killing even more > > Jews. Over six million babies have been killed. The people involved in the > > Pro-Life movement are much like the people that wanted to stop the killing > > of Jews. > > Actually, no. It is the people who are pro-life who are like Hitler: > in your ideal world, women would have had the same rights as Jews in > Nazi Germany and the only reason they are being kept alive is for > breeding purposes. > > > We want to stop abortion before six million more babies are > > murdered. Back in the days of Hitler, there were lots of people in America > > that wanted us to stay out of that war--those people didn't care about the > > Jews that were being killed. Those people remind me of the members of > > Pro-Choice organizations; employees of Planned Parenthood and abortion > > doctors. > > You have a funny way of showing how you "care" about people: forcing > them to undergo nine months of pregnancy when they might not have > wanted to get pregnant in the first place. > > Get a clue: 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester. If > women had easy access to abortions then MORE abortions would take > place in the first trimester and FEWER late term abortions would take > place. You claimed that "over six million babies have been killed" > but the truth is that the vast majority of them were not alive in any > sense of the term. > > As long as you are thinking of the mother as an object and not as a > human being, you can think of the mother as a walking life support > system, except the "baby" doesn't even have a brain yet. How can it > be "murder" to cut off life support when the "baby" clearly isn't > alive at this point? > > Martin Martin, The end goal of the pro-life movement is to convince people that abortion is murder. We are not there as of yet. We still have a long way to go and may never reach our objective. I have come to the conclusion that the best short term solution is to convince as many women as possible that the morning after pill should be used if they had sex without making use of protection. That should cause many less clinical abortions. I heard one preacher say that he believes that in the year 3000, historians will view abortion the same way that historians now view the holocaust. I hope that preacher is right. I would never prevent a woman from having an abortion. You may think that I care less about women than I care about babies. The truth is that I care as much about women as I care about babies. They are equal--both people that have the right to life and pursuit of happiness. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <dcgv435707ncgfmshflfpktvrk2sn8bc2p@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to > >build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several > >bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs > >and nuclear materials? > > Use them against Israel. Use them against a US-run Iraq. Keep the US > from invading Iran and taking it over. A lot of at least > semi-legitimate uses. > > But use one to destroy the US? Even a few hundred megatons wouldn't > do the job, and they'd have no way to deliver anything of even that > size to the US. And if you think it's easy to smuggle a few dozen > bombs large enough to destroy cities into this country, you have a lot > to learn. Maybe in 50 years, but our technology will have improved by > then too - if a few more 17th century presidents haven't destroyed our > scientific and technological communities by then, or forced them to > move to other countries. One nuclear bomb would destroy one huge American city. That could cause serious harm to our economy. It took the economy several years to recover from 911. If a city like New York or Washington was destroyed, it would probably take at least 20 or more years for our economy to recover. President Bush wants to make it easy for tractor trailors from Mexico to deliver products to many different cities. A nuclear bomb could be placed in one of those trailors and taken to the middle of any large city. Some of the border guards have been fired for taking pay offs (eg large amounts of money) from drug dealers that have cars or vans loaded with drugs. They could hire one of those border guards to let one of the tractor trailors cross the border at his station. It could also be off loaded from a large cargo ship. The cargo boxes are huge in size and could hold a nuclear bomb. I read a fictional book and that was the plot. They parked the tractor trailor outside an outdoor football stadium that was filled with fans. I believe it was a play off game or the superbowl. > > >The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of > >from the map of the world." > > So have a lot of Arab leaders. Arafat really did a good job of > bringing that off, didn't he? Hussein was going to wipe them off the > map with nukes too. They took care of Iraq with no help from anyone. > And without invading Iraq or losing any of their soldiers. Our > invasion of Iraq, planned by BushCo since at least 1998, only > accomplished one thing - it made it possible for the government to > privatize the US Treasury. They failed but they did not have a nuclear bomb. Within the next 12 years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. They could also use dirty bombs. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3d4m@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >Many rich people have given up on public > >schools and send their children to expensive college prep private schools. > > Which teach them how to get into prestigious colleges and > universities. We're still falling behind the rest of the first world > in education, more every year. What do you expect from a school > system that thinks it's right to teach that evolution is just the idea > of some dead guy and some invisible supercreature created the universe > so that mankind could run everything? > > Our "graduates" are laughed at in really advanced nations. Yet those nations send their smartest children to American Universities. Many of them major in engineering. I agree that we are falling behind. One of the reasons is because our high school teachers have to teach courses like sex education; art appreciation; and sociology. They should be teaching lots more courses in higher math. They do that in private college prep. high schools. Some of the larger high schools have excellent college prep. classes. However, huge numbers of American students do not take the college prep. classes since they are harder to pass and involve lots of study time. Those lazy students could not get away with that if they attended college prep. private schools. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3d4m@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> Many rich people have given up on public >>> schools and send their children to expensive college prep private schools. >> Which teach them how to get into prestigious colleges and >> universities. We're still falling behind the rest of the first world >> in education, more every year. What do you expect from a school >> system that thinks it's right to teach that evolution is just the idea >> of some dead guy and some invisible supercreature created the universe >> so that mankind could run everything? >> >> Our "graduates" are laughed at in really advanced nations. > > Yet those nations send their smartest children to American Universities. > Many of them major in engineering. I agree that we are falling behind. One > of the reasons is because our high school teachers have to teach courses > like sex education; art appreciation; and sociology. Are you trying to raise a generation of automations? Without exposure to culture, people are no more than consuming robots. Art appreciation makes for better engineers and designers, an informed public that will be able to appreciate better what its culture produces. And do you prefer sexual ignorance over knowledge? We need better teaching, better trained and better paid teachers. We need curriculum developers that are not beholden to textbook publishers and terrorized by religious fanatics. Don't go blaming the courses that broaden and deepen students' understanding of the world in which they live. They should be > teaching lots more courses in higher math. Teaching math requires math teachers. Most people who understand math well enough to teach it have more freedom and earn more money in other sectors of the economy. Until we pay and honor teachers appropriately there will be too few math teachers. They do that in private college > prep. high schools. Some of the larger high schools have excellent college > prep. classes. However, huge numbers of American students do not take the > college prep. classes since they are harder to pass and involve lots of > study time. Those lazy students could not get away with that if they > attended college prep. private schools. These students often have the ability but not the support or impetus from their parents to do well in school. This is one example of education beginning at home. > > Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > One nuclear bomb would destroy one huge American city. > That could cause serious harm to our economy. > it would probably take at least 20 or more years for our economy to recover. > A nuclear bomb could be placed in one of those trailors and taken to the middle of any large city. > They could hire one of those border guards to let one of the tractor trailors cross the border at his station. > It could also be off loaded from a large cargo ship. > I read a fictional book and that was the plot. > Within the next 12 years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. > They could also use dirty bombs. Here's something else that could happen: An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to work in mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands and start talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's supplies of anchovies. A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton look-alikes. All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179619640.090945.204610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 20, 4:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <5b8uc7F2s00l...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> >>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in >>>>> I want to >>>>> save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: >>>>> Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a >>>>> LIFE--Not a CHOICE. >>>> But it IS a choice. Deal. >>> That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at >>> these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. One of the >>> reasons we started that war was to keep Hitler from killing even more >>> Jews. Over six million babies have been killed. The people involved in the >>> Pro-Life movement are much like the people that wanted to stop the killing >>> of Jews. >> Actually, no. It is the people who are pro-life who are like Hitler: >> in your ideal world, women would have had the same rights as Jews in >> Nazi Germany and the only reason they are being kept alive is for >> breeding purposes. >> >>> We want to stop abortion before six million more babies are >>> murdered. Back in the days of Hitler, there were lots of people in America >>> that wanted us to stay out of that war--those people didn't care about the >>> Jews that were being killed. Those people remind me of the members of >>> Pro-Choice organizations; employees of Planned Parenthood and abortion >>> doctors. >> You have a funny way of showing how you "care" about people: forcing >> them to undergo nine months of pregnancy when they might not have >> wanted to get pregnant in the first place. >> >> Get a clue: 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester. If >> women had easy access to abortions then MORE abortions would take >> place in the first trimester and FEWER late term abortions would take >> place. You claimed that "over six million babies have been killed" >> but the truth is that the vast majority of them were not alive in any >> sense of the term. >> >> As long as you are thinking of the mother as an object and not as a >> human being, you can think of the mother as a walking life support >> system, except the "baby" doesn't even have a brain yet. How can it >> be "murder" to cut off life support when the "baby" clearly isn't >> alive at this point? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > The end goal of the pro-life movement is to convince people that abortion > is murder. We are not there as of yet. May you never get there. As a group the reproduction fascists try to impose their will on those who do not agree with them. They have no right. Their bullying tactics have made health care and reproductive services less available to those least able to afford them. It shows their lack of concern for the poor, it shows their hypocrisy and it shows how they do not care about their very own daughters. We still have a long way to go and > may never reach our objective. I have come to the conclusion that the best > short term solution is to convince as many women as possible that the > morning after pill should be used if they had sex without making use of > protection. That should cause many less clinical abortions. I heard one > preacher say that he believes that in the year 3000, historians will view > abortion the same way that historians now view the holocaust. Another one of your lying preachers? Plenty of wishful thinking there. It is equally likely that ministers 1000 years hence will talk about this time as a dark age of reproductive rights when anti-abortion fanatics incited murders and cost innocent women their lives. I hope that > preacher is right. I would never prevent a woman from having an abortion. Oh come on. You would prevent every woman from having an abortion. > You may think that I care less about women than I care about babies. The > truth is that I care as much about women as I care about babies. They are > equal--both people that have the right to life and pursuit of happiness. No you don't. You care more about the idea of babies than actual ones. You do not care that a baby is born into a family that doesn't want it, or cannot provide for it, or is so dysfunctional that it cannot provide the emotional support required. You care only that they be born and you don't give a good goddam about what happens to them afterwards. Isn't that what you mean by the platitudes you keep repeating? Face the facts, you would allow abortion after conception. This puts you at odds with your church. I think that your views are reasonable, as far as you have taken them, but you seem to lack the courage to face what you are really saying. Think about it. It is legitimate to be opposed to abortion, but give women the choice. Maybe you could require women in your church to ask their congregation to allow an abortion. But beyond that you have no right to intrude. > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5b8uc7F2s00lcU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> >>> Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article that >>> listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. If >>> they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably would >>> have been aborted. >> Yeah? So what? If abortion had been legal back in 1960, I would have been >> aborted. So? >> >> It was difficult being an unwanted child. It's also >>> difficult for those people that were adopted. >> Gee, really? Do tell. I could just imagine what you'd have to say about >> that. BTW, I'm an adoptee. >> >> The alternative was much >>> worse. >> How so? I mean, it's not like you'd be aware that you'd been aborted. >> >> I had not thought of it until I saw your post but perhaps that is >>> one of the reasons that I am an advocate for the Pro-Life cause. I want to >>> save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: >>> Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a >>> LIFE--Not a CHOICE. >> But it IS a choice. Deal. > > That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at > these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. One of the > reasons we started that war was to keep Hitler from killing even more > Jews. Over six million babies have been killed. Don't debase the currency of the Holocaust with your particular political gambit. 11 Million persons were murdered in the Holocaust, all of them after having been born. To relate the millions of murders of Jews, Armenians, Roma, political dissents, homosexuals and others is a crave pulling at emotional heartstrings that is as inappropriate as it is thoughtless and cruel. Back off. The people involved in the > Pro-Life movement are much like the people that wanted to stop the killing > of Jews. No, they are as much fascists as the nazis. They endorse, or at least condone murder, they resort to bullying tactics, they subvert the political process and they shamelessly use propaganda to attain their ends. There are reasons to oppose abortion, but they seem to prefer the low road. Don't falsely elevate them to with the courageous souls who risked life and limb resisting their government. It's craven, cruel and denigrates the courage of their actions and frequent martyrdom. Back off, you are offensive. We want to stop abortion before six million more babies are > murdered. You want to deny women the right to decide for themselves. Back in the days of Hitler, there were lots of people in America > that wanted us to stay out of that war--those people didn't care about the > Jews that were being killed. Those people remind me of the members of > Pro-Choice organizations; employees of Planned Parenthood and abortion > doctors. The reproduction fascists are just that. Their facade of "saving babies" is exactly that - a propagandistic lie. They want to restrict everybody's reproductive rights for their own religious ends. They are just like the Taliban, imposing their religion on everybody else. And look what you are doing - you are denying the very humanity of people who work in the reproductive counseling field just because they work for Planned Parenthood. That is classic demonization, typical of what the anti-abortion movement does. It's inhumane. You are in with a bad crowd, Jason. > Jason > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <hbe4i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty >>>> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. >>> Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are >>> required to get counseling after they have killed someone. >> I think you missed the gist of the point I was making; it was, I'll admit, >> a tad subtle. >> >> Here, you use the phrase "killing someone". Above, you simply used the >> term "killing". See the difference? One is about killing _people_; the >> other is a more generalized term, which applies also to, say, killing >> bacteria, fungus, viruses and the like, all things we very much need to do >> in order to survive. > > >> The point is that, like so much "pro-life" and pro-religion rhetoric, the >> terminology is sloppy. In many cases this is intentional, such as that of >> a certain boneheaded woman I've been discussing abortion with who persists >> in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this >> intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows >> she cannot support any other way. > > One reason that your friend does that is because many of the advocates of > abortion attempt to depersonalize the fetus. Which is proper. A fetus is not a person, legally or physically. In some abortion clinics, the > fetus is referred to as a POC (product of conception). That is > depersonalization to the max. You may be bothered by this because the anti-abortionists consider a blastocyst to be a baby. Opposite side of the coin. Your friend probably uses the term MURDER in > order to personalize the fetus. Members of the military in World World I > and II were trained to depersonalize the enemy--they even used slang terms > for them which I will not mention in this post so as not to offend anyone. That has been done in all wars by all combatants. Read your history. > That is like calling a fetus a POC. >> You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy terminology, such >> as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use "killing" >> when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat >> extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing >> valued life" or some such. > > Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. There is a bumper sticker > that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. There is another that says: > ABORTION=MURDER > Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby. When in fact it is not, legally or physically. > > One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I > saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color ultrasound of > a 7 month old fetus. It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month old > baby. There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. In the year 1974, I heard a > lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a fetus was a > "mass of tissue". That lady was lying. A fetus is NOT a mass of tissue. > The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from Planned Parenthood > will no longer be able to tell that lie to the members of a highschool > class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the fetus. The advocates of > abortion seem to always try to depersonalize the fetus--do you do that? > > In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound of their > fetuses before they can have an abortion. I support that law. How to you > feel about that law? It's to force women to personalize their fetus and > see it as a baby. > >> I'm happy to agree that killing _people_ (or "valued life") can be cause >> for depression; somewhat less inclined to agree that killing, period, is >> cause for distress: if it's me or the bacteria, trust me, I'm not going >> to lose any sleep over wiping them out by the millions. > > That is great to know-- > >>> night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse >>> to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize >>> anyone--including unborn babies. >> No such thing. A baby, by definition, is born. Well, delivered - by >> birth, C-section or, in a couple of odd plays and the like, by simply >> gutting the woman and having the results pour forth. >> >> >>> A fetus is an unborn baby. >> No, a fetus is a fetus. After birth, it is a baby. >> >> You see, a baby is a person, with the rights of a person; a fetus isn't. >> Your use of "unborn baby" thus confuses the issue; an unfertilized egg is >> also - by your usage - an unborn baby; do we grant it the full rights of >> a person? Obviously not. So you must mean this the other way around, >> that a baby does not have the rights of a person. >> >> Nope, neither of those positions make much sense, so something has to >> give. In this case, the obvious solution is to use correct terminology: >> fetus while inside the womb, baby after delivery. >> >> >>> There are no major differences between a baby >>> that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a >>> mother's womb that is also 7 months old. >> Yes, there is; the one delivered after 7 months has a chance to live; the >> other is dead. It would suffocate. Of course, a fetus at 7 months has >> no such risk, as it has oxygen supplied by the host. >> >>> Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. >> Of course. They, however, are not the ones under consideration here. If >> they want kids, they're not going to be lining up to have abortions, now >> are they? The subject here is abortions, so women who, pretty much by >> definition aren't going to have abortions really have no relevance to the >> discussion. >> >>> I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be >>> done in the first trimester. >> Yes, but no reasons why they should not be done later; that is, no >> reason to try to ban second and third trimester abortions. >> >>>> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously >>>> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be >>>> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary >>>> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. >> >>> Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when >>> they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. >> "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who >> dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be shunned. They >> are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction; >> anything else makes them evil. > > You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end > result is a dead baby. It's not a baby until it is born after being long enough in utero to be viable outside it. Until that time it is a fetus. You care about the woman and that is wonderful. I > care about the woman and the fetus. You don't care about either. You don't care about the woman because you do not respect her ability to make appropriately informed choices. You don't respect the fetus because you potentially allow it to be born into a family that cannot or will not care for it. The reason is because after 9 > months--the fetus becomes a baby. The reason she will feel guilt is > because it's normal for most people to have guilt feeling related to a > death. It's my opinion that women that use the morning after pill or get > abortions during the first trimester will have less depression than if the > abortion took place during the second or third trimester. That is possible; however, only a small percentage of abortions are performed after the first trimester. If you would allow abortion during the first trimester, you are permitting abortion. You had better get your views to be more consistent. I'll help you a bit: at what point in the pregnancy do you think that abortion should be illegal? Under what circumstances should abortions be allowed after that point? I would be interested in your answer. > > >> And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame involved, where >> none should be. > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179621460.614622.219130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 20, 4:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <9iq3i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> >>> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> [snips] >>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>> That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, >>>>> thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as > "abortion >>>>> is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you >>>>> seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. >>>> What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole >>>> purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like >>>> crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause >>>> - the religious nutjobs. >>>>> Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. >>>> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty >>>> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. >>> Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are >>> required to get counseling after they have killed someone. Many members of >>> the military that have killed lots of people suffer severe depression >>> problem. When a woman conspires with a doctor to have her fetus >>> killed--it's my opinion that many of those women develop guilt feelings >>> and the end result is severe depression. You may not think that a fetus is >>> an unborn baby but it's true. Ask any pregnant woman whether or not she is >>> carrying a baby in her womb and she will tell you that is carrying a baby. >> It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel >> being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you >> have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of >> fatherhood? Jason, do you understand how much a woman has to go >> through just to have a baby, let alone raise it? I think a big reason >> for depression might not be a feeling of guilt but a feeling of missed >> opportunity, but that doesn't mean that the woman didn't make the >> right decision. Even if a woman would have been happier having the >> baby (and Jason can't prove that this would be the case) it is still >> HER decision to make and nobody else's. > > Good points. Sarah has never had a baby. My sister had a miscarrage and > suffered severe depression from "a sense of loss". Yes, an abortion does > solve problems but it's my opinion that putting an unwanted child up for > adoption is better than choosing abortion as a option. > >>> I know that doctors that work in abortion clinics use terms like "POC" >>> (product of conception) instead of "fetus" or "unborn baby". They do this >>> so as to avoid believing that they are actully killing unborn babies. It's >>> easier for them to think: "I'm aborting a POC" than to think: "I'm >>> murdering an unborn baby". Anyone that has taken Psychology 101 knows >>> about "depersonalization"--that's the way that abortion doctors are able >>> to kill unborn babies and still sleep at night or suffer from severe >>> depression. That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because they >>> never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. >> And yet the doctors themselves would have a better perspective than >> you as to just what is being aborted, wouldn't they? > > Yes--but as your know--the doctor has to make sure all the body parts of > the baby have been removed. Otherwise, an infection will occur. Answer > this question: While that doctor is counting the fingers and toes, how can > he not realize that it's a baby and not a POC? > > >>>>>> abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS >>>>> that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. >>>> To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric >>>> which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes >>>> riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just >>>> fine to promote those very conditions. >>> A fetus is an unborn baby. There are no major differences between a baby >>> that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a mother's >>> womb that is also 7 months old. >> Which is why most doctors would not want to perform abortions in the >> third trimester. >> >> http://www.doctorndtv.com/Children/detailtopics.asp?id=27 >> >>>>> Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard >>>>> testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their >>>>> abortion experiences. >>>> Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were >>>> examined and reported on? >>>>> I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to >>>>> term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part >>>>> of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. >>>> Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going >>>> to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that >>>> point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in >>>> love with the little squirts. >>> Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. They even >>> send out birth announcements that include pictures of their babies. >> Have you considered that some women _don't_ want to have babies? > yes--they should use protection. >>>> I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, >>>> again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is >>>> surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. >>>>>> That's the >>>>> reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and >>>>> if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first >>>>> trimester. >>>> Hey, they want to have it first trimester, great - but you haven't given a >>>> single reason not to allow second or third trimester abortion. >>> They are legal in America. Since second and third term abortions are >>> legal, I would not force any woman to not have an abortion. I comply with >>> the law. >>> I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be done >>> in the first trimester. >> Few doctors would perform third trimester abortions. > Agreed--and we know the reason. >> http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0819.html >> >> "Third trimester abortions are extremely rare in this country, and are >> performed only for the preservation of the life or health of the >> pregnant woman." >> >> (Of course, all abortions are performed for the purpose of saving the >> "life or health of the pregnant women" as "health" could mean "mental >> health".) >> >>>>> Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related >>>>> to this issue? >>>> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously not. >>>> Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be surrounded with >>>> needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary depression in women who >>>> have one? Again, obviously not. >>> Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when >>> they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. >> "Conspire" is a loaded term. You should say that teh doctor >> "assisted" the woman in carrying out the abortion. > > good point. >>> The primary >>> reason is because they have been taught from birth that killing and murder >>> are taboo. >> But abortion isn't murder. More likely women are depressed because >> they instinctively want to have children and may subconsciously regret >> their missed opportunity. >> >>> Abortion doctors and members of the Pro Choice organizations can call it a >>> fetus or a POC (product of conception). However, most women that are >>> pregnant know that it's an unborn baby. It's a fetus. Some medical tasks are more unpleasant than others, but still have to be done. Doctors do this all the time. What do you think a doctor feels when cutting off a cancerous breast, or breaking a ribcage to reach the heart? It ain't simple man. >>> Would you prefer that parents NOT teach their children to view murder and >>> killing as taboo? >> If killing is taboo then I won't ever have chicken, pork, beef, eggs >> or fish again. > Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo--just that killing > people is taboo. They don't put people in prison for killing animals. > Yes they do, if there is cruelty involved. And there are certain taboos against killing animals, even if there are not legal sanctions. >> Martin > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.