In article <3F0F32D2.D9523B0E@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > To the pro infanticide camp Mischa, they're like black Republicans, they
> > hope if they don't acknowledge their existence they'll disappear.
>
> Oh, like claiming that it's a womens' issue when women are pro-life than men
> are. I just love when it's pro-abortion groups that admit the truth, like
> the recent study by the Center for the Advancement of Women that found that
> only 30% of women want abortion to be generally available.
>
> Or like your claims that pro-life Democrats don't exist.
I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
subject. They lie.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
In article <dommanno-44D462.04064113072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <look-33542C.03035013072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So whats the
> > > > difference? The cell count? The differentiation of the cells?
> > >
> > > The inability of the fetus to live independent of the mother.
> >
> > Neither can a newborn.
>
> So I suppose that every child born to a mother who died during
> childbirth died immediately afterward?
And every fetus born prematurely has died?
> A newborn can be cared for by other people. A fetus is not capable of
> living outside the womb.
_Nothing_ is capable of living outside the womb without immediate help,
dumbass.
> You're not too bright, you know.
Heh. No retort necessary.
> > > > I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk driver
> > > > with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact
> > > > same act of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
> > >
> > > So would I. I'd like to see laws like the one you cite repealed.
> >
> > I'm sure you would. Well, you just keep spouting your indignation. The
> > more that people like you talk, the more that people of conscience who
> > were otherwise leaning toward a pro-abortion stance will realize that
> > position's hypocrisy and insidious evil.
> >
> > Only a cold-hearted monster would believe that Laci Peterson's killer
> > deserves to face only one murder charge.
>
> Or someobdy without an axe to grind. The killer only killed one living
> person--Laci Peterson. To say otherwise is phony moral outrage.
No, it's not phony at all. People of conscience feel moral outrage at
the murder of a pregnant woman and recognize it as two lives lost.
That's why 26 states have laws that recognize fetal homicide, despite
the protestations of the feminist and abortionist lobbies. You can't
attribute that solely to those nasty old pro-lifers you hate so much.
> Apart from the anti-abortion fanatics, nobody considers a fetus to be
> a living person.
Wrong.
> The idea that life begins at conception is a political concept, used
> by the anti-abortion zealots to support their campaign to outlaw
> abortion. It has no validity in biology or in everyday life.
> evil.
The Laci Peterson murder case is shooting holes in that argument.
Virtually everyone except the pro-abortionists consider it a double
homicide, and the fact that people are in fact doing so has them
double-guessing the pro-abortionist mantra you spouted above. That's why
you guys right now are squealing like a litter of cornered pigs.
Perhaps you could spend less time blaming pro-lifers for your
philosophical dilemmas, and come up with better excuses to justify your
position. The ones you're using now aren't working well with anyone.
D.F. Manno wrote:
> By what stretch of your obviously limited imagination does consenting
> to sex mean a woman forfeits the right to choose whether or not to be
> pregnant?
All child support laws on the books in the country exist based on the
understanding that children are an inherent rick of sexual activity -
you play you pay is the law.
By what stretch of your imagination does a country allow to separate
standards of law, one for men another for women, to exist and be
enforced daily?
Are children an inherent risk of sex or not?
If you say no then you someone needs to explain why court order child
support exists and men are arrested daily for failing to support
children they were never consulted about becoming fathers to. If you
say yes, then you've answered your own question.
If you say yes for men, no for women then you should examine your
conscience and ask how you can support the gross inequities that exist
in the law.