Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 12:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179646415.633254.220...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C943=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro=

> > te:

> > > In article <hbe4i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>

> > <snip>

>

> > > > 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 "killin=

> > g"

> > > > 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=3DMURDER

> > > 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.

>

> > At two months it is. You are the one who is lying if you say

> > otherwise.

>

> I disagree. It may look like a mass of tissue on an ultrasound but it is

> not a mass of tissue. I posted a report that indicated that doctors have

> to count body parts to make sure no body parts are still in the woman's

> body. If they miss any parts--it could cause an infection. That led me to

> conclude (and tell me if I am wrong) that there are body parts at all

> stages. The only exception would be the first month.

>

> > > 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?

>

> > It is slander to call someone an "advocate of abortion". Even Kelsey,

> > who admits to not liking kidsm isn't going to walk up to pregnant

> > women and say "You should get an abortion". It's the woman's choice

> > either way.

>

> > > 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.

>

> > It's a waste of time in the first trimester, which is when 90% of the

> > abortions take place anyway. Why are you pretending otherwise?

>

> > <snip>

>

> > > > >> 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 wh=

> > en

> > > > > 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. Th=

> > ey

> > > > 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're lying again.

>

> Are you saying that after an abortion--there is not a dead baby? If it's

> not a dead baby--what is it? (please don't say--it's a POC)

It's a POC. We're all POCs.

Martin

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 12:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

> > >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

> > >people to kill each other.

>

> > Well said.

>

> Was Hitler an atheist?

No.

> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. What about Alexander the Great?

> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

> conquer.

Stalin and Alexander obviously thought _they_ were God and had the

right to lord over others. Is that what you think?

Martin

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 12:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179647581.786717.90...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4U=A4=C812=AE=C908=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro=

> > te:

> > > In article <1179618379.481949.104...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > <snip>

>

> > > > 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.

>

> > Thank you for admitting that the authors only speculated as to what

> > was causing people's depression.

>

> > > > 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.

>

> > It's irrelvent because you are defining "abortion clinics" as those

> > places that only offer abortions. If a woman could go to _any_ clinic

> > and get an abortion if she needed one then there wouldn't be a need

> > for clinics specializing in abortion.

> That is true--there is such a clinic in a nearby town. It's a women's

> clinic but they also do abortions in that clinic. I suspect those sorts of

> clinics will survive even if the morning after pill causes most abortion

> clinics to close down due to the lack of customers.

they wouldn't close down because the doctor is still a qualified

practioner but with less demand for abortions (as a result of either

increased contraception use or the morning after pill) then they could

offer other services. Obviously this would be a good thing.

Martin

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 05:10:09 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:

> On 5月20日, 下午6時00分, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess we can consider ourselves lucky that you aren't a doctor then

> responsible for patients' lives.

I'm sorry, but you've failed to make any actual argument here. Do you

think you could?

> Not that if doing something is a "good thing" then not doing it would be

> a bad thing.

Let's see...

I could take the wife out to dinner tonight... give her a new necklace,

take her to the theater... out dancing afterward. All very good things.

Or, I could surprise her at home by cooking her favorite meal... let her

go soak in the tub until it's ready... give her a ring instead of the

necklace... sip wine with her while reading her favorite poetry to her...

give her a massage... all things she likes.

Now, in my books, both are good. In your books, because the first is

good, not doing the first is bad, so doing the second makes me a

horrible, evil person.

With that sort of logic, it's no wonder you can't make a point.

> way we judge what is and is not morally aceeptable is based on what

> people consider morally acceptable.

Nope. We define that for ourselves. Simple example: Rosa Parks.

Remember her? Told to give up her seat to a white man, she said no.

Prevailing opinion was that it was moral and acceptable to treat blacks as

inferior and make them give things up for whites; she thought otherwise.

Funny thing, though... she and others like her changed the opinions of

most of a nation. By your logic, of course, she was an immoral, unethical

person because she didn't go along with the group and simply accept that,

being black, she was worthless and had no rights.

Yes, yes, good logic there.

> The vast majority of people would

> not consider it morally acceptable to strangle kittens, even though

> doing so does not directly harm any other human being.

Golly, I wonder why. Of course, all we need to do is make cat-killing a

national pastime, and we'll have you here telling us how it is a

wonderful, moral, correct thing to do - cuz everybuddy sez so.

Some of us can actually think for ourselves, you know.

> Thus, the

> question of whether a pregnant woman is carrying a "fetus" or a "baby"

> is irrelevent.

To you, perhaps. Not to her, not to her doctor, not to anyone who isn't

trying to push an agenda where their pet views get to dictate what she is

and isn't allowed to do even with her own body.

> It would be nice if an actual point would actually get through that

> thick skull of yours.

It would, if you had one. So far, you don't seem to; the best you've got

is bad logic and "Well, gee, if everybuddy sez so, must be right." Yes,

yes, very compelling.

> I'm trying to simplify the situation

And doing a really poor job of it.

> unable to understand. Currently 90% of abortions take place in the

> first trimester.

Bully for them.

> That means that 10% of abortions take place in the

> second or third trimester.

Nice grasp of the obvious. Going to tell us next that the sky is up, the

ground is down and water is wet?

> Now if 91% of abortions were to take place

> in the first trimester then only 9% of abortions would take place in the

> sceond and third trimester.

Good goat - you've just graduated second grade. Shall we bake you a cake?

> And so on. What this demonstrates is a

> trend.

A truly stupendous grasp of the obvious.

> In the limit where all abortions take place in the first

> trimester, NO abortions take place in the second or third trimester.

As I said, truly stupendous.

> (This is just basic math which you apparently failed to learn in grade

> school.)

Err, no, this part has all been very clear to everyone, thank you very

much. What isn't clear is your point .

> With no abortions taking place in the second or third

> trimester (except those that may be considered emergency procedures) the

> question of whether or not late term abortion is moral becomes

> completely irrelevent.

Fine, except for one thing: abortions do take place in second and third

trimesters, thus we deal with the real world instead of your Just-So make

up world. I'm sure you had a point somewhere, but it seems to have

vanished into your weird little fantasy.

> This is the argument that a sane person would

> present to a pro-lifer if he wanted the pro-lifer to concede that giving

> women access to abortion was actually a GOOD THING.

No, this is the argument someone would present if they were so deluded

they thought their weird little fantasy world had any relation to the real

world. Of course, were they to actually do this, the real world's most

likely response would be to have them medicated.

>> Because Just-So stories are pointless.

>

> What is apparently pointless is trying to get through to somebody who

> obviously lacks any education whatsoever.

Nice try, but that still doesn't make your Just-So stories relevant to the

real world. Got anything that actually does?

> You're a liar.

No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out - again - that whatever point you're

trying to make hasn't been made; so far all you've done is shown you have

no grasp of logic and that you have no ability to decide for yourself what

is right. Neither of these actually make any point you're trying to

support.

Once more, I ask, could you kindly make your point?

--

Sorry, my fault. I'll keep your limitations

in mind when posting. - Charles Nagy

If I kept yours in mind, I'd have to post in crayon.

- Marty Leipzig

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, Jason wrote:

> You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus.

Marvelous; and this tells us which countries and/or states will apply two

murder charges in the relevant cases? Whoops, nope, it doesn't. Care to

do so now?

> However,

> most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal

> profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY

> ON BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says,

> "FETUS ON BOARD".

So? Most people I know who aren't techs and the like call the big boxy

part of a computer "the CPU". I know several who persist in calling it

"the hard drive". Their incorrect terminology doesn't establish anything

beyond the fact they lack sufficient knowledge to apply the proper terms.

You, on the other hand, are deeply involved in the discussion, and as such

should know the correct terminology.

> Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any

> person that murders a fetus?

Sounds good, but, just for giggles, see if you can find it showing that

one can be charged for two murders, where the second applies to a fetus in

the first six weeks of development.

Yes, there's a reason for that. We're trying to establish whether the

killing of a fetus can be regarded as murder, so we need to avoid later

stages where there is any hope of a case being made that it could be

regarded as "a baby"; basically, we're trying to get to the meat of the

matter, not involve yet another round of pointless emotionalism.

--

Laugh my tush off as i watch you burn in the Christian hell forever.

- Raoul Newton

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 1:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179647198.327662.45...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C958=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro=

> > te:

> > > In article <1179621460.614622.219...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because th=

> > ey

> > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies.

Actually, I don't know that most doctors wouldn't perform abortions.

I know that most doctors who DO perform abortions would hesitate about

performing a late term abortion. And rightly so as it would be a

greater risk to the mother than an early term abortion.

> > > > 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?

>

> > Kittens, puppies, even mice, they're all going to have fingers and

> > toes. Doesn't mean that they're the same as newborn babies.

>

> > > 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.

>

> > Exactly. Think about why.

> I buried a dead possum and did not lose any sleep over the possum. It

> would have been different if I buried a dead baby. I hope that you can see

> the difference.

I was hoping you could see the difference between a baby and an

undeveloped fetus.

> Most children eat meat. Perhaps you were referring to the

> children of vegetarians. I could see how they would learn to see the

> killing of animals as taboo.

I was thinking just now, if Kelsey were to bother posting again, of

mentioning the ASPCA with regards to the fact that people do care not

only for the lives of animals but for the suffering of animals. I

think the point needs to be made here too. The Bible doesn't say

anything about people protecting animals: on the contrary, your god is

supposed to have given mankind dominion over te animal kingdom and

yet, despite this, people have come to see that hurting animals is

wrong. This is an example of morality developing independent of

religious belief, just as people have come to see slavary as wrong, or

that discrimination against people of different races, religion or

sexual preference as wrong, or that the oppression of women is wrong.

Morality doesn't come from the Bible: in most cases, our morality has

emerged _despite_ the Bible.

I am not a cold, unfeeling person. Neither is Kelsey (even though he

has less feelings for those of us who are small). Most people are

able to empathize with the unborn child. It just isn't necessary to

place the unborn child ahead of the mother who would be expected to

not only carry the baby to term but also continue to care for it after

it is born. As much as people care about dogs and cats, say, is

anybody going to put the well being of a cat ahead of that of a

living, (independently) breathing human being? Because that is what

you are doing with regards to the fetus, and the only difference is

that the fetus has the _potential_ one day of becoming an actual human

being.

Martin

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 12:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> The president of Iran is a nut.

as is the President of the US.

Martin

May 21, 2007

On Sun, 20 May 2007 05:23:03 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:

> On 5月20日, 下午6時45分, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:47:32 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:

>> > 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.

>>

>> Only if one assumes the only people capable of actually thinking about the

>> discussion are those who are panting, drooling, uncontrolled breeders.

>

> If people are never panting, drooling nor uncontrolled then they would

> never be any pregnancies in the first place.

Still, the point remains. Is my case weakened by my not liking kids?

Only if the person taking the opposition uses it as an ad hominem fallacy:

"the argument is wrong not because the argument is wrong, but because the

person making it isn't a nice person."

Hey, if that's the best they can muster, they've got bigger problems than

me to deal with.

--

God goes with government like shit goes with ice cream.

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:25:43 -0700, Jason wrote:

> It was conceived 7 months ago and it's dead and lying on the table--is it

> a fetus or a baby?

Neither; it's a corpse.

>> But you don't approve of any abortions, regardless of when performed, right?

>

> That's more complicated and harder to answer but I will try: While

> abortion is still legal, it should be restricted to the first trimester

Cuz you say so? You'll have to come up with something more compelling

than that.

> unless the mother's life or health is in danger. The end goal of the

> pro-life movement is to eventually convince the vast majority of people

> that unborn babies have the right to life.

Yes, we know. What the pro-lifers fail to grasp is that in so doing, they

remove rights from the mothers; they reduce women from being people to

being brood mares.

We - the choicers - don't see that as a good thing. You can look at it,

if you like, in terms of comparison: whose rights matter more; those of an

actual, real, established person, or those of something which, if

everything goes absolutely perfectly, may at some point become a person?

Keep in mind that a lot of fetuses are spontaneously aborted, that

accidents happen, that diseases picked up by the host could cause

termination and on and on and on; pregnancy is not a guarantee of delivery.

So, a woman is pregnant. She is a person. She has a life. She has

rights. Her fetus, on the other hand, may turn into a person, if the

host can avoid accident, injury, disease, undue stress, etc, etc, etc.

Why then do its rights, despite the uphill battle it faces to ever

become a person in the best of cases, outweigh the rights of someone who

actually is a person, with the rights of a person?

It goes even further. You see, those cases can be applied to both women

who don't want to bear children and those who do. Let's take it one step

further: why does this thing which may, if all goes perfectly, get to not

merely void the woman's rights, but do so in a manner which is completely

contrary to her desires and involves it being able to suck energy,

nutrition, the very essence of life out of a host that does not want it in

the first place, while also placing significant limitations on the host's

ability to work, exercise and otherwise continue life as normal?

Let's put that in more directly personal terms. You are a person. So am

I. We each have certain rights. Under what circumstances do you think

I should be allowed to jack a feeding tube into you, suck out your

nutrients, severely impair your ability to go about your daily life, and

do all this without your consent, against your personal wishes and

rights to control your own body?

I rather expect you're going to say never, but if I - as a full person,

with actual rights as a person, have no right to force you into this, on

what basis do you argue that something which isn't a person, has no

such rights, should be allowed to do this to another?

Fine, you don't want abortions. Sounds good to me, I have no quarrel with

that part of the equation. The issue isn't about abortion, though; it's

about the rights of the mother, the rights your side wants to rip away

from her as if she wasn't a person at all, simply a chamber for growing

fetuses.

If you really want to avoid abortion, my take is this: stop trying to turn

women into breeding slaves. Instead, work on raising money for research.

Develop better incubators. Develop means to transplant a fetus to another

host.

That would be particularly interesting, IMO. Consider the situation where

a fetus can be removed from one uterus and implanted into another. Now

the pro-lifers will really have to show where their convictions lie. What

would the implications be?

The pro-life women, of course, would now be in the position of either

lining up for implantation or being shown to be hypocrites - they're

willing to inconvenience others for their beliefs, but when it comes to

actually inconveniencing themselves, will they?

And what of the pro-life men? They're already trying to turn women into

breeding machines; will they turn that around and tell their wives and

sisters and daughters that they must now become hosts for unwanted

fetuses? Will they be as willing to strip away a woman's rights if that

woman is one of their own?

Of course, last I checked, we're not there yet. Still, it's an

interesting thing to ponder - exactly how far is a pro-lifer willing to go

to show their beliefs are real, not just beliefs of convenience. Would

you tell your daughter she has no choice, she must become a host because

some woman is having an abortion?

> We are not there yet. It may

> never happen. In the mean time, I would never force a woman to NOT have

> an abortion. I comply with the law.

No, you wouldn't force her... but you're perfectly happy to sustain and

promote an environment where simply making that choice, she faces all

sorts of unnecessary emotional turmoil, not because she is having the

procedure, but because you don't think she should. You're happy to

inflict your views on her , with complete disregard for her as a

person, as long as she can be compelled to bear the fetus she does not

want to bear.

--

ATHEIST. I'm going to love waving to you when you go to hell, and

i'm in heaven. - Christopher Calabrese

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 12:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and killed

> the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with two

> murders?

>

> The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person.

The killer would, in much the same way that a pro-lifer does, have

prevented the woman from exercising her right to choose whether to

have the baby or not.

> Let's say for the sake of discussion that after an abortion--there is a 7

> month old baby lying on the table. Would you call it a dead baby or a dead

> fetus?

Only 1.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks so after abortions

after 7 months (or 30 weeks) would be so rare that they could

rightfully be described as a "pro-life" myth.

> I believe that abortions should be legal during the first trimester. The

> only exception would be if there was some sort of crisis that puts the

> mother's life in danger.

I think you meant to say "only". There are valid reasons why a woman

may need an abortion after three months (or 14 weeks).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

"In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from

1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have

abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.

These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they

had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The

results were as follows:[3]

"71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% Woman didn't know timing is important

5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% Other"

Note that 48% of women had abortions in the second trimester at least

partly because they lacked access to abortion. If women had better

access to abortion then the question of late term abortions for non-

medical reasons would be almost a non-issue.

Laws in the United States do currently, in most states, already place

restrictions on late term abortions.

"The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe

v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability

abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

"As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were

not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined

by court order.[17] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of

Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term

abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

"Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to

be unconstituational.[18] [19]The Supreme Court has held that bans

must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical

health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions

only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the

woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of

health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.

[17] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed,

then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be

struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always

necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render

narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[20]

"Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks'

gestation (usually 24 weeks).[17] The U.S. Supreme Court held in

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a

presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which

case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the

presumption by performing tests.[21] Therefore, those 13 states must

provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly

written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in

Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is

unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-

viability abortions".[18]

"Ten states require a second physician to approve.[17] The U.S.

Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other

physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by

co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and

unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[22] Pro-choice

organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret

some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and

other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state

laws require approval of a second or third physician.[17]

"Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present

during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born

alive.[17] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not

infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions

performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the

fetus.[23]"

It sounds to me then that you wish the laws to stay exactly as they

are now. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

> > >> And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame involved, where

> > >> none should be.

>

> The shame or guilt is mainly because most women are taught from birth that

> the murder of a person is taboo.

This would only be an issue if killing a mother killing her fetus

constituted murder. It doesn't. By the same token, somebody can

refuse treatment for a family member who is dying and unable to speak

for himself. I personally wouldn't want to be refused treatment but I

can't speak for everybody.

Martin

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <4hm153thas8lqc7mjafmc7ha3eu2i3v8nu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-2005071712410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4emlu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason)

>>>>

>>>> ...

>>>>

>>>>> Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and killed

>>>>> the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with two

>>>>> murders?

>>>> Which states or countries?

>>>>

>>>>> The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person.

>>>> Which states or countries?

>>>>

>>>>> If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be

>>>>> considered a person in every case.

>>>> Why?

>>>>

>>>>> That's why many people in the pro-life

>>>>> community refer to the fetus as an unborn baby instead of a fetus or a

>>>>> POC.

>>>> Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 'the

>>>> baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perfectly

>>>> reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful.

>>>>

>>>> Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get people

>>>> to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correct in

>>>> a legal sense.

>>> You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. However,

>>> most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal

>>> profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY ON

>>> BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FETUS ON

>>> BOARD".

>>>

>>> Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any

>>> person that murders a fetus? For example, a boy friend has a pregnant

>>> girlfriend that refuses to have an abortion. After the girlfriend reaches

>>> the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kill the

>>> fetus. The woman lives but the unborn baby dies. Do you think the cops

>>> should charge that boyfriend with murder and assault or just assault and

>>> battery?

>> You made an assertion about the law. I've asked you to back it up with

>> references and the dates that any such laws were passed. Traditionally

>> this has never been murder in Common Law countries.

>

> I googled this term: fetus murdering. The following info. came from the

> first site. Feel free to google that same term:

>

> Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

> By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

> Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

> Tags: (all tags)

>

> California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

>

> The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

> Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

> homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

> 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

> know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

Check again.

Compare and contrast:

"The woman lives but the unborn baby dies."

"[T]he killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the

perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant."

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f2q0k1$non$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, J...@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.

>

> > Two points.

>

> > We were talking "general education" and that is NOT university.

>

> Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our

> universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of

> engineering, math, computers and science.

>

> > I would go to great lengths to avoid sending my kid to the US. That has

> > in fact nothing to do with the universities. They actually are quite

> > good. Another story. Has something to do with politics.

>

> > > 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;

>

> > IBTD. Very important subject. Weeeell. Actually it's the parents job.

> > But to make sure the kids know this stuff, school should teach it.

>

> The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching

> courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like

> chemistry and algebra

or biology (including the theory of evolution).

Martin

May 21, 2007

On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:03:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-2005072003090001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <4hm153thas8lqc7mjafmc7ha3eu2i3v8nu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-2005071712410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4emlu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason)

>> >>

>> >> ...

>> >>

>> >> >Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and killed

>> >> >the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with two

>> >> >murders?

>> >>

>> >> Which states or countries?

>> >>

>> >> >The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person.

>> >>

>> >> Which states or countries?

>> >>

>> >> >If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be

>> >> >considered a person in every case.

>> >>

>> >> Why?

>> >>

>> >> >That's why many people in the pro-life

>> >> >community refer to the fetus as an unborn baby instead of a fetus or a

>> >> >POC.

>> >>

>> >> Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 'the

>> >> baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perfectly

>> >> reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful.

>> >>

>> >> Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get people

>> >> to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correct in

>> >> a legal sense.

>> >

>> >You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. However,

>> >most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal

>> >profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY ON

>> >BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FETUS ON

>> >BOARD".

>> >

>> >Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any

>> >person that murders a fetus? For example, a boy friend has a pregnant

>> >girlfriend that refuses to have an abortion. After the girlfriend reaches

>> >the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kill the

>> >fetus. The woman lives but the unborn baby dies. Do you think the cops

>> >should charge that boyfriend with murder and assault or just assault and

>> >battery?

>>

>> You made an assertion about the law. I've asked you to back it up with

>> references and the dates that any such laws were passed. Traditionally

>> this has never been murder in Common Law countries.

>

>I googled this term: fetus murdering. The following info. came from the

>first site. Feel free to google that same term:

>

>Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

>By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

>Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

>Tags: (all tags)

>

>California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

>

> The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

>Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

>homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

>6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

>know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

>

Yes, a law that is new and takes into account the fact that fetuses are

not humans under the law.

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 3:45 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> If I understand you correctly, you condone the morning after pill and

> abortions in the first trimester because you believe their impact on the

> mother will be less that abortions performed later. You seem to oppose

> late-term abortions unequivocally.

>

> Is that a correct statement of your position?

Hell, that's a fairly good description of MY position. The difference

in my case is that 1) I don't consider it "late term" until at least

the third trimester when the baby _might_ have a chance of being

viable outside of the mother and 2) I still believe the woman has the

right to choose (knowing that few women would want an abortion that

late in pregnancy and the vast majority of doctors would advise

against the procedure anyway).

Martin

May 21, 2007

In article <3W44i.1201$u56.1181@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <1179693431.955600.57530@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> >> On 18 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>> In article <1179510218.722129.104...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> >>>

> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>>> On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>> In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> >> snip

> >>>>> I would not force a woman to not have an abortion.

> >>>> Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal.

> >>> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

> >>> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

> >>> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded.

> >> He did not have to lie. You do.

> >>

> >>> We are succeeding in some

> >>> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

> >>> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

> >>> the right to life.

> >> Meaning you want to force women to not have abortions.

> >>

> >>> People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

> >>> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

> >>> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

> >>> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

> >>> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

> >>> babies.

> >> See above.

> >>

> >>> In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

> >>> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

> >>> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

> >>> babies--prior to abortions.

> >>> jason

> >>

> >> And you want to make abortion illegal - i.e. force women to not have

> >> an abortion.

> >>

> >>>

> >>>>> However, I see nothing

> >>>>> wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion cl=

> >> inics

> >>>>> and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you

> >>>>> think that pro-life protestors should be arrested?

> >

> > Did you forget to answer the above question with a yes or no answer?

> >

> >>>> Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they

> >>>> picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal.

> >> Did you forget to answer the above?

> >

> > They now have rules about where pro-life protestors can carry their signs.

> > In most cases, it's on the public side walk out and NOT on the property of

> > the abortion clinic or doctor's office. If Rev. Phelp's people followed

> > the law, they should not be arrested. If they failed to follow the law,

> > they should have been arrested. Do you believe that environmentalists that

> > stand in the road and not allow huge trucks carrying logs to pass should

> > be arrested?

> >

> >>>>> In one of the southern

> >>>>> states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, =

> >> we

> >>>>> are winning the battle.-

> >>>> Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for

> >>>> themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not

> >>>> lie about it again.

> >>> Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America.

> >>> I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from

> >>> having an abortion.

> >> You want to make it illegal. You want to use force.

> >>

> >>> If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have

> >>> the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would

> >>> advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I

> >>> would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If

> >>> there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions

> >>> illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >> You still want to make it illegal. You keep evading that; are you

> >> ashamed of it?

> >

> > The end goal of the pro-life movement is to influence the hearts and minds

> > of American people to understand that unborn babies have the right to

> > life. That's the reason it's called the pro-life movement.

>

> They are miserable failures. They come across as shrill, unfeeling, and

> intolerant. They do not show any respect for the needs of women, and

> have been active in closing clinics that provide services to the

> community just because of the the occasional abortion.

>

> They get their jollies and make themselves feel virtuous by forcing

> themselves into the lives of others where they have no place.

>

> Your position would be far more moral if you stuck to your views of

> abortion without endorsing the anti-abortion, reproduction fascists who

> call themselves "prolife" the same way the Leninist minority called

> itself "Bolsheviks," meaning the majority party.

>

> >

> > However, since abortion is now legal, we try to do what we can to

> > encourage women to place their unwanted babies up for adoption. There is a

> > bumper sticker that says ADOPTION--NOT ABORTION. If women come into

> > pro-life counseling centers, many of the counselors arrange for the women

> > to have 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies.

>

> They use scare tactics and intimidation rather than actual counseling.

> That's the problem with these people. They sadistically intimidate

> rather than advising and support. They are morally vacuous.

>

> The reason is to

> > cause them to realize that they have a baby and not a mass of tissue or a

> > POC (product of conception).

>

> Whatever you want to call the fetus, it might be the result of rape. It

> may be that the woman cannot care for it, and may be otherwise facing

> some very difficult personal choices. How do you think it makes her

> feel if all these folks do is call her a murderer? And you wonder about

> post-abortion depression. Have there been studies of how much depression

> occurs in women who visit these so-called "pro-life counseling centers?"

>

> >

> > If a woman still wanted to have an abortion, I would encourage them to

> > take the morning after pill or have the abortion during the first

> > trimester.

>

> This puts you at odds with the reproduction fascists. Have you thought

> about what will happen to you if they find out?

>

> > There are other people in the pro-life community that would NEVER advise

> > women that are seeking abortions to take the morning after pill or to have

> > a first trimester abortion. We are not all of the same page related to

> > these issues.

> >

>

> As far as they are concerned, you might as well join Planned Parenthood

> and start donating time and money. Watch your back.

I don't let any organization tell me how to think. I am not a member of

any pro-life organization.

May 21, 2007

In article <1179710639.262640.183510@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 12:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >

> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>

> > > >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

> > > >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

> > > >people to kill each other.

> >

> > > Well said.

> >

> > Was Hitler an atheist?

>

> No.

>

> > Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

> > thousands of people in the Soviet Union. What about Alexander the Great?

> > Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

> > conquer.

>

> Stalin and Alexander obviously thought _they_ were God and had the

> right to lord over others. Is that what you think?

>

> Martin

No--My point was that theists have killed lots of people but that atheists

have also killed lots of people. Crazy dictators--regardless of whether

they are theists or atheists are capable of killing thousands of people.

The president of Iran recently stated: "Israel must be wiped off the map

of the world." He is presently trying to build nuclear bombs.

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:53:03 -0700, Jason wrote:

> California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

>

> The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

> Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

> homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

> 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

> know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

Err... this is the text of the law? I don't think so. Try again, this

time providing the law in its details.

Meanwhile, it also fails to answer the statement made "Do you want me to

find proof that murder charges could be filed on any person that murders a

fetus?", as it involves killing the mother as well, so isn't a relevant

law.

So, what you've got doesn't actually establish either half of the claims

made; one isn't addressed at all, the other's lacking in sufficient

details to say anything conclusive.

--

Republicans: Keeping our promises to the rich.

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:46:11 -0700, Jason wrote:

> It's a POC but is it also a dead baby?

Depends - is it in a baggie?

--

The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.

May 21, 2007

In article <1179710455.920862.91020@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 12:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179646415.633254.220...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C943=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com

(Jason) wro=

> > > te:

> > > > In article <hbe4i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >

> > > <snip>

> >

> > > > > 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

"killin=

> > > g"

> > > > > 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=3DMURDER

> > > > 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.

> >

> > > At two months it is. You are the one who is lying if you say

> > > otherwise.

> >

> > I disagree. It may look like a mass of tissue on an ultrasound but it is

> > not a mass of tissue. I posted a report that indicated that doctors have

> > to count body parts to make sure no body parts are still in the woman's

> > body. If they miss any parts--it could cause an infection. That led me to

> > conclude (and tell me if I am wrong) that there are body parts at all

> > stages. The only exception would be the first month.

> >

> > > > 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?

> >

> > > It is slander to call someone an "advocate of abortion". Even Kelsey,

> > > who admits to not liking kidsm isn't going to walk up to pregnant

> > > women and say "You should get an abortion". It's the woman's choice

> > > either way.

> >

> > > > 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.

> >

> > > It's a waste of time in the first trimester, which is when 90% of the

> > > abortions take place anyway. Why are you pretending otherwise?

> >

> > > <snip>

> >

> > > > > >> 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 wh=

> > > en

> > > > > > 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. Th=

> > > ey

> > > > > 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're lying again.

> >

> > Are you saying that after an abortion--there is not a dead baby? If it's

> > not a dead baby--what is it? (please don't say--it's a POC)

>

> It's a POC. We're all POCs.

It's a POC but is it also a dead baby?

>

> Martin

May 21, 2007

In article <a897i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus.

>

> Marvelous; and this tells us which countries and/or states will apply two

> murder charges in the relevant cases? Whoops, nope, it doesn't. Care to

> do so now?

>

> > However,

> > most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal

> > profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY

> > ON BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says,

> > "FETUS ON BOARD".

>

> So? Most people I know who aren't techs and the like call the big boxy

> part of a computer "the CPU". I know several who persist in calling it

> "the hard drive". Their incorrect terminology doesn't establish anything

> beyond the fact they lack sufficient knowledge to apply the proper terms.

>

> You, on the other hand, are deeply involved in the discussion, and as such

> should know the correct terminology.

>

> > Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any

> > person that murders a fetus?

>

> Sounds good, but, just for giggles, see if you can find it showing that

> one can be charged for two murders, where the second applies to a fetus in

> the first six weeks of development.

>

> Yes, there's a reason for that. We're trying to establish whether the

> killing of a fetus can be regarded as murder, so we need to avoid later

> stages where there is any hope of a case being made that it could be

> regarded as "a baby"; basically, we're trying to get to the meat of the

> matter, not involve yet another round of pointless emotionalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I googled the term "fetus murdering" and lots of sites were listed. I

copied and pasted this information from the first site that was listed.

Feel free to google "fetus murdering" to find even more evidence.

Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

< SF Pot Guru Wins Civil Suit | Freedom Fighters Needed in LA >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political

and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS

E-Mail | Comment Policy

May 21, 2007

In article <a897i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus.

>

> Marvelous; and this tells us which countries and/or states will apply two

> murder charges in the relevant cases? Whoops, nope, it doesn't. Care to

> do so now?

>

> > However,

> > most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal

> > profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY

> > ON BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says,

> > "FETUS ON BOARD".

>

> So? Most people I know who aren't techs and the like call the big boxy

> part of a computer "the CPU". I know several who persist in calling it

> "the hard drive". Their incorrect terminology doesn't establish anything

> beyond the fact they lack sufficient knowledge to apply the proper terms.

>

> You, on the other hand, are deeply involved in the discussion, and as such

> should know the correct terminology.

>

> > Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any

> > person that murders a fetus?

>

> Sounds good, but, just for giggles, see if you can find it showing that

> one can be charged for two murders, where the second applies to a fetus in

> the first six weeks of development.

>

> Yes, there's a reason for that. We're trying to establish whether the

> killing of a fetus can be regarded as murder, so we need to avoid later

> stages where there is any hope of a case being made that it could be

> regarded as "a baby"; basically, we're trying to get to the meat of the

> matter, not involve yet another round of pointless emotionalism.

I googled the term "fetus murdering" and this came up--feel free to google

that same term since lots of sites will come up:

Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

Tags: (all tags)