1,500,000: A Disgrace/Michael

Question:

In article <33794596.4…@express-news.net>, Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net> writes >Of course not. Why do Pro-Abortion Righters always come up with >this "FORCE" garbage? I seldom see any Pro-Lifers argue for any >forcable methods, but the PARs constantly write about the PL’s >desire to "F0RCE" people’s actions. It appears simply an attempt >to smear the opposition.

The problem with the pro-life campaign, with regards to force, is that the pro-life stance is that a woman who becomes pregnant (for whatever reason) should be forced to remain pregnant until the pregnancy ends by natural causes. That is where the force comes into it. It takes no account of the fact that the pregnancy can be safely and easily terminated long before natural causes would make that so, and can be done so in ways which will minimise the risks of permanent damage to the woman’s health. There are many ‘transient’ condition which affect the human body. We can let them die out by themselves from natural causes, or we can artificially speed up the treatment/cure by taking action. For instance an infection that would rage for some time in the natural way of things, but can be terminated early by the use of anti-biotics, and thus allow the affected body to return to its natural state sooner. Abortion is to pregnancy what anti-biotics are to a chest infection. I don’t see the pro-life campaign making any effort to make the chest infection proceed naturally rather than interceding medically to cure it earlier, so why should it make efforts to make a pregnancy proceed naturally rather than interceding medically to cure it earlier. The force is that pro-life would deny the woman the opportunity to cure her body earlier than later. That is the FORCE! When one is convinced that a z/e/f is on a par with any other parasite, there is no logical reason to deny a woman treatment to cure a pregnancy any more than there is a logical reason to deny a man antibiotics to cure a chest infection. *If* someone feels that there is more to a z/e/f than a parasitic nature, then it is up to that someone whether *they* act in a manner which complies with their beliefs. But it isn’t up to anyone else to FORCE a decision about someone else’s body. I think it is very wrong for parents to refuse medical treatment for their children on the grounds of their religious beliefs, but I have no problem at all with them refusing treatment for themselves because of their own religious beliefs. A child cannot be held to beliefs it does not own or understand the consequemnces of. (Remember, I don’t believe a z/e/f is a child/person, so my feelings on this are perfectly consistent). Pat Winstanley

Response:

Papa Jack wrote: > Michael Alexander wrote: > > Michael Alexander wrote:

[snip!] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> =================================================================== > > > Papa Jack wrote: > > > * They have human DNA during the pregnancy — not just after birth. > =================================================================== > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > This is undeniable. But would you extend human status to human cell > > cultures? These are cultures of mammalian cells using in research that > > were orginally obtained from human tumor tissue. They are capable of > > independent life outside of the body and are genetically human, yet > > function as single-celled organisms. > =================================================================== > Papa Jack replies: > No, I would not extend human status to human cell cultures. However, > human DNA is pretty good evidence that a living being with a brain, > heart, head, two arms, and two legs is a human being. Have you > looked at those cute photos of fetuses lately?

Yes: where are the arms and legs? > I will give you the point that "stuff" can artifically be created in > a laboratory which would contain human DNA. But, you must give me > the point that all living creatures with a head, a brain, a heart, > two arms, and two legs which have human DNA are human beings. Fair?

Cases in point: babies born without arms and/or legs. > > > Papa Jack wrote: > > > * They are "viable" during the last three months of the pregnancy > > > and if born prematurely are full-fledged human beings who need > > > some medical help. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > Dow this mean that fetuses of the first and second trimester do not > > qualify for human rights and may be aborted freely? > Papa Jack replies: > Of course not. As I said above, you are asking me to use this list > for a different purpose than was intended when I composed it. Not > all points are designed to stand alone. The list is one of factors > to be considered.

And, as separate factors, they can be considered separately without being required to consider them altogether. If one proposes to mix together cement, chocolate, flour, and sugar, and call it a cake, they cannot complain "consider everything together, not separately!" when someone points out the unreasonableness of the cement. > The point is that they are human beings BEFORE birth. If that were > not true, then preemies would not be human beings.

Well, preemies are BORN, so they don’t need to fall under your definition to be human beings, because legally they’re already considered human beings. The word "premature" is never used except in conjunction with "birth" when describing early babies. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > 3. Let us extend the definition still further to those genetically human > > animals that have the potential to become a human being as just defined > > by (1) or (2). The fact that all immature humans do not develop into > > (1) or (2) weakens the utility of this definition. > Papa Jack replies: > Bull Shit!! Let us define humans as: > a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any > living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which > the primate belongs > Since we agreed above that unborn children are living and it is > obvious that they are homo sapiens, ergo they are humans.

Your definition doesn’t really include humans until they learn to walk, since the primary mode of locomotion for babies is either nothing or quadrupedal, not bipedal. I can take my cat and make her walk on her hind legs, just like a baby, but does this make my cat a biped? Nope. Definitions don’t always work the way you want them to. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > So we have problems with trying to define to what human rights apply. > Papa Jack replies: > You may have a problem, but I don’t. > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > among these, are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness."

Proving nothing. The Declaration Of Independence is not legally binding, fortunately for those in the private sector who are routinely denying people a living, let alone a "happy", wage. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > Another way of examining this issue was in my earlier post in this > > group. > > Perhaps you could point out to me where you believe human rights begin. > > 1. Is abortion always morally wrong? > Papa Jack replies: > No, I believe the pregnant woman should have the option in cases > involving rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or a grave threat > to her life.

Severe fetal deformity? Like mental retardation? Remember this post I’m replying to? PJ>Papa Jack replies: PJ>You sure go to a lot of trouble with all this excluding and including. PJ> PJ>I don’t agree about retarded people. They are human. They deserve PJ>to be treated with human dignity. And since you can’t tell if a woman will die in childbirth until she does, the latter will never happen in your book. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > 2. Is the concept behind the "morning after" pill morally wrong? > Papa Jack replies: > I don’t know about the "concept." I believe that conception begins > at the time of the implantation of the blastocyst. Contraceptive > techniques that prevent conception are acceptable. However, once > conception occurs, then actions to cause the death of the human > being thus formed is abortion. Unnecessary abortion is morally rep- > rehensible.

So if a woman’s own body chooses to reject the blastocyst, its an abortion? They’re having wonderful luck getting cancer patients to reject their own cancerous tumors based on thought alone. > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > 3. Is the concept behind an IUD (it prevents implantation of the > > fertilized embryo) morally wrong? > Papa Jack replies: > No. I am not opposed to contraceptives.

Remember what you just said a few paragraphs ago? > Papa Jack replies: > I don’t know about the "concept." I believe that conception begins > at the time of the implantation of the blastocyst. Contraceptive > techniques that prevent conception are acceptable. However, once > conception occurs, then actions to cause the death of the human

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > being thus formed is abortion. Unnecessary abortion is morally rep-

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > rehensible.

The IUD and the Progestin component of the Pill (which is composed of either Estrogen and Progestin or Progestin-only) both are actions taken to cause the death of the fertilized egg. You, therefore, are opposed to the IUD and the Pill because, your own words, "once conception occurs, then actions to cause the death of the human being thus formed is abortion. Unnecessary abortion is morally reprehensible." By your own definitions, the Pill and the IUD are both "morally reprehensible." Is a murderer any less guilty for having planned a murder far in advance? > =================================================================== > > Michael Alexander wrote: > > 4. Is the concept of artificial contraception (denying a human life the > > chance to develop by artificially preventing contact of sperm and egg) > > morally wrong? > =================================================================== > Papa Jack replies: > No. I am not opposed to contraceptives.

Statement of Fact: both the Pill and the IUD cause the death of the fertilized egg after conception. Papa Jack Quote: "once conception occurs, then actions to cause the death of the human being thus formed is abortion. Unnecessary abortion is morally reprehensible." Also Papa Jack Quote: "No, I am not opposed to contraception." Which is it? Can’t have it both ways. > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness." –Thomas Jefferson

Mind pointing out where this exists in the legal code? — Never do this at home. Look how easily it killed this sig. / ___/ ___/ _____________________________________________ / / / gi…@tfs.net DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.

Response:

Michael Alexander wrote: > Michael Alexander wrote: > NOTE: The critical point is whether human fetuses possess human RIGHTS > just like you or me, not whether they are human BEINGS. No one > questions that they are members of our species.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: Well, I sort of agree with you. I do believe that human beings have human rights — but, we will get into more details on that later. = You are new to talk.abortion. You will find some who may question = whether z/e/f’s are members of our species. Have you read much of Ray Fischer’s drivel? 8^) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: > Papa Jack wrote as justification for assigning human rights to unborn > human beings:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: = > This is an irrelevant point. Would you deny human status to products o= f > invitro insemination or to human clones (if and when this becomes > possible)?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: Your point is the one which is irrelevant. We shall deal with human clones when the time comes. Invitro insemination is still the result of a man and a woman mating. They just elect to do it in an arti- fical manner. The resulting being is human because the parents were human. Consider: if two dogs mate, we will consider the resulting puppies to be dogs; if two horses mate, we will consider the result- ing colt to be a horse; it two …. Can you think of any applicale exceptions? Isn’t that one of the primary ways we determine what a newly born being is — by looking at the parents? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > Papa Jack wrote: = > > * They have human DNA during the pregnancy — not just after birth.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: No, I would not extend human status to human cell cultures. However, human DNA is pretty good evidence that a living being with a brain, heart, head, two arms, and two legs is a human being. Have you = looked at those cute photos of fetuses lately? I will give you the point that "stuff" can artifically be created in a laboratory which would contain human DNA. But, you must give me = the point that all living creatures with a head, a brain, a heart, two arms, and two legs which have human DNA are human beings. Fair? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > Papa Jack wrote: = > > * They are "viable" during the last three months of the pregnancy > > and if born prematurely are full-fledged human beings who need > > some medical help.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: = > Dow this mean that fetuses of the first and second trimester do not > qualify for human rights and may be aborted freely?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: Of course not. As I said above, you are asking me to use this list for a different purpose than was intended when I composed it. Not all points are designed to stand alone. The list is one of factors to be considered. The point is that they are human beings BEFORE birth. If that were not true, then preemies would not be human beings. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > Papa Jack wrote: = > > * They are "alive" during the entire term of the pregnancy.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: > This point is extraneous. If they were not alive then there would be n= o > abortion controversy. Plants, animals and the human cell cultures > mentioned above are alive. The important issue is that the are "human"= > life (which needs to be defined). You have already included a genetic > definition earlier.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: Michael, it must be convenient to just label points you don’t like as irrelevant or extraneous. = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > Papa Jack wrote: = > > * All of the billions of people who ever lived on this earth began > > their lives the same — as zygotes and then embryos and then > > fetuses and then newborns and then infants and then toddlers > > and then…. This is considered the continuum of life.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: = > This is the "potential" argument and is the strongest one you made. =

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack laughs: I’m SO happy I finally did something right in your eyes. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Michael Alexander wrote: = > …It too has problems because of the use of "people" without = > defintion. Let me expand on this.

= > 1. Let us start with defining people as genetically human animals that= > act in uniquely "human" ways (i.e. they use language, express a wide > range of emotional states including laughter and are capable of complex= > thought).

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Papa Jack replies: Why don’t we use Merriam Webster’s definition? Main Entry: 1peo=B7ple Function: noun 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked = by a common interest 2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS — often used in compounds instead = of persons <salespeople> 3 plural : the members of a family or kinship [...] or we could use the word "humans:" Main Entry: 2human Function: noun : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any = living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the = primate belongs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Michael Alexander wrote: > 2. Let us extend this definition to the young of this species that are

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism