Activism Change

Devasted MINXS' Inane Arguments

Question:

In article <33BFC576.4…@express-news.net>, papaj…@express-news.net wrote:

[....] > Papa Jack remarks: > You’re lying as usual, MINXS.  Please don’t trot out that old > discredited Harris poll.

Why is the Harris poll ‘discredited?’ By whom, pray tell? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted January 1997 found: >   PRO-LIFE RESPONSES (total of 59% of total responses): >         * 12% believe abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances >         * 12% would prohibit abortion except to save the life of the >               mother >         * 35% would prohibit abortion except to save the life of the >               mother or in cases or rape and incest >           —– >           59% pro-life >   PRO-ABORTION RIGHTS (PARs) REPLIES (total of 41% of total): >         * 27% would allow abortions but not after the third month >         * 7% would allow abortions but not after viability >         * 7% believe abortion should be legal for any reason at >              any time during pregnancy >           —– >           41% pro-abortion rights > So, you see, ONLY 7% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT UNLIMITED ABORTION.

More than 1 out of 10 Americans would rather a woman die than abort? I do find that very hard to believe. If it’s true, it’s repugnant. Since you place so much credibility on the recall study of Joel Brind re: abortion and breast cancer, why do you insist on using a single poll to claim ‘victory’ in pro/anti feelings in the US? — Bruce Forest bfor…@mindspring.com bfor…@snet.com br…@sade.com flexif…@aol.com "If it’s long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that’s a moray."

Response:

Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net> wrote: >M. Grey etc. wrote: >>>> MINXS wrote: >>>> Of course that is the problem.  Papa Jack arrived at his position >>>> backwards.  He said to himself, "I don’t like women making private >>>> decisions.  How can I justify intruding in them?  Um…how about >>>> if I call a fetus a human being?" >    ================================================================= >Papa Jack laughs: >Now MINXS,the ultimate psuedo-intellectual, will tell us all how >Papa Jack thinks.

Actually it was John Savard’s theory.  And a pretty good one too. > I simply don’t believe >women need to be granted an unlimted right to kill their offspring in >all circumstances.

Like I said below: it’s not the decision, it’s the CIRCUMSTANCES. > That doesn’t make me against women — just agaist >unlimited abortion.

And for limited abortion.  You’re against "uncontrolled infanticide," to use your words, too; that makes you for "controlled infanticide." You said it.  I didn’t.  Sorry about that. >What the heck is a PIA?

Pro-Illegal-Abortionist.  That would be you. >When you read the various discussions on talk.abortion over the past >few months, it is clear that PARs are simply desperate to deny that >unborn children are anything but "globs of protoplasm."  Their whole >house of cards falls apart if they admit a fetus is actually a human >being with any rights whatsoever.  

It sure would.  Just like YOUR whole house of cards falls apart when you admit it is a human being with rights. >MINXS wants to have it both ways.

No, dummy, YOU do. >  First, she wants to defend abor- >tions by claiming unborn children are worthless globs of protoplasm.

First, you want to justify intruding into private decisions by claiming unborn children are "human beings with all the rights granted by the Bill of Rights from conception." >Second, she wants to criticize Pro-Lifers for their insensitive >treatment of fetuses in cases involving rape and incest.

Second, you want to allow, as one of your circumstances, husbands and fathers of rape victims to act out their "righteous rage" at having their women damaged by hiring someone to KILL these same human beings! Just writing it makes me laugh at the logical absurdity of your position. Suppose a man finds out that his wife’s new baby is the product of a rape she never told him about.  He would "find it difficult to be supportive" (your theory) under such circumstances.  Following your logic that birth means nothing in deciding whether or not we can kill what is always a human being, you would have to allow him to kill the baby!   > In the >first case, she wants to defend every woman’s (and every little >girl’s) unlimited right "CHOOSE" to kill their offspring in ALL >circumstances.  Then, in the second case, she would mock moderate >PLs for reluctantly supporting such a "CHOICE" for women in cases >of rape or incest.  It is clear that MINXS cares little about >logic, but is interested only in presenting radical PAR propaganda. >She would skewer PLs on the horns of a false delimma.

It’s your dilemma.  You say that abortion kills children.  Then you justify killing children.  The problem is that it’s hard to figure out a reason to make early abortions a crime without calling embryos and fetuses children, but then it’s hard to figure out a way for your wife to still get a safe, medically supervised abortion if you think she might want one.  And you don’t want YOUR wife going down a back alley, do you?  PIAs are all for that, but not in their own families.   >  You >must always use the "z/e/f" designation because that is so effective >in dehumanizing the unborn child.  

And you vigorously make use of the pathetic fallacy in calling it a "baby/child" and then squeal like a pig when forced to face the fact that you justify killing babies/children. >The first and foremost HUMAN RIGHT is the right not to be killed >without due process.  All other human rights are meaningless if >humans are deprived of a right to life.  Yet, MINXS has the unmit- >igated temerity to say that the unlimited slaughter of unborn child- >ren is not a violation of human rights.

Just like you say that the LIMITED slaughter of innocent (did you forget that?) unborn children is not a violation of human rights, even though it kills them without due process and leaves them just as much deprived of life? >> MINXS wrote: >> No.  It’s the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the decision is made.  For >> most people, the words "a decision between a woman and her physician" >> is enough to reassure them that women aren’t acting entirely on their >> own, which is why the majority of Americans agree that it’s right for >> abortion (in the first trimester at least) to be a choice under those >> circumstances….   >…Sometime the abortionist says hello and sometime says >nothing.  So much for your "decision between a woman and her physician" >– there is no such thing in many typical cases.

So you have no problem if it is a decision between a woman and her gynecologist of 10 years?  You wouldn’t feel a need to stick your nose in and make sure that the reasons were acceptable to you? >    ================================================================= >> MINXS wrote: >> …which is why the majority of Americans agree that it’s right for >> abortion (in the first trimester at least) to be a choice under those >> circumstances.   >[...] >    ================================================================= >Papa Jack remarks: >You’re lying as usual, MINXS.

I’m telling the truth as usual, Papa Jack. > Please don’t trot out that old >discredited Harris poll.

You can’t "discredit" the polls that reflect this opinion by saying that people don’t really understand what goes on in a clinic since that is not the point.  People don’t want women to get abortions "on demand," but they don’t want abortions to be too difficult to obtain either. >MINXS, go back to the drawing board and try to come up with some- >thing new.  You just keep troting out the same old "chestnuts" >which you try to dress up with a few new words.  You are boring me.

I know, that’s what you keep saying, and then you go right on responding.  You have a hard time with consistency, don’t you?

Response:

I forgot my lessons in editorial convention from Papa Jack and failed to [sic] his last post to me… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net> wrote: >Now MINXS,the ultimate psuedo-intellectual, will tell us all how >Papa Jack thinks.  She once claimed to be a psychiatrist, but it is >obvious from this feeble crap that she couldn’t figure out how her >puppy thinks, much less a real life  [sic: sb real-life] human being.   >Actually, I established human resouces [sic] programs for women that were >nominated [sic: this says that the women were nominated] >by the Office of Contract Compliance for the Department >of Labor’s EVE award in 1994.  In short, I’ve been a strong supporter >of women’s rights for the last 40 years.  I simply don’t believe >women need to be granted an unlimted [sic] right to kill their offspring in >all circumstances.  That doesn’t make me against women — just agaist [sic] >unlimited abortion. >MINXS has absolutely no evidence that I don’t like women making >"private decisions."  This is one of those Pro-Abortion Righter >(PAR) bumper sticker type slogans designed to incite woman’s [sic] >emotions against the target.  Can’t you come up with something >more original than that, MINXS?

(snip) >MINXS wants to have it both ways.  First, she wants to defend abor- >tions by claiming unborn children are worthless globs of protoplasm.   >Second, she wants to criticize Pro-Lifers for their insensitive >treatment of fetuses in cases involving rape and incest.  In the >first case, she wants to defend every woman’s (and every little >girl’s) unlimited right [sic: no "to"] "CHOOSE" to kill their [sic: sb "her"] >offspring in ALL >circumstances.  Then, in the second case, she would mock moderate >PLs for reluctantly supporting such a "CHOICE" for women in cases >of rape or incest.  It is clear that MINXS cares little about >logic, but is interested only in presenting radical PAR propaganda. >She would skewer PLs on the horns of a false delimma. [sic]

(snip) >Well, this is true only if you can fool yourself into believing that >that image on the sonagram [sic] with two arms, two legs, two ears, cute >little fingers and toes [sic: no comma] >really isn’t a human being — it’s just a >meaningless blob of tissue.  Of course you must convince pregnant >women that that "thing" moving inside her [sic: sb "them"] >isn’t "alive."  

(snip) >This old "bumper sticker" slogan was scraped off of [sic] most PAR used cars >years ago, but MINXS continues to use it as a crutch. >Don’t you think it’s time you actually backed up what you said, MINXS? >Prove to us that ALL Pro-Lifers want to maintain "maintain lots of >authority over everyone, actually, but women are singled out for >particular attention."  Or, do you just repeat wornout old slogans [sic: no "?"] >You forgot to tell us the one about how all PLs are Bible-thumpers [...]

(snip) >BTW, how do you explain the [sic: sb "that there are" or similar] >many women who support the Pro-Life >positions?

(snip) >"A decision between a woman and her physician" — if you’re gonna [sic] >quote Justice Blackmun, you really ought to give him credit. >The typical chop shop physician has NO CONTACT WITH THE PATIENT >prior to the abortion.  That is handled by so called [sic] "counselors" >whose job is to convince women/girls to have abortions.  

(snip) >I grow weary of these phoney [sic] arguments of MINXS [sic].  She tries to >pretend to be the all-knowing professional head-shrinker, but >then resort [sic] to the same kind of "you-know-how-they-are" bigotry >that so many PARs fall back on.   >MINXS, go back to the drawing board and try to come up with some- >thing new.  You just keep troting [sic] out the same old "chestnuts" >which you try to dress up with a few new words.  You are boring me.

I may have missed some things…At least 21 sic-worthy errors in grammar or spelling in 220-some lines.  Oh, plus the one in the title. One in every ten lines.  I guess that’s not too bad for a senile old fool.

Response:

M. Grey etc. wrote: > sew…@netcom.ca (John Savard) wrote: > >mi…@sonic.net (M. Grey etc.) wrote: >>> MINXS wrote: >>> Of course that is the problem.  Papa Jack arrived at his position >>> backwards.  He said to himself, "I don’t like women making private >>> decisions.  How can I justify intruding in them?  Um…how about >>> if I call a fetus a human being?"

    ================================================================= Papa Jack laughs: Now MINXS,the ultimate psuedo-intellectual, will tell us all how Papa Jack thinks.  She once claimed to be a psychiatrist, but it is obvious from this feeble crap that she couldn’t figure out how her puppy thinks, much less a real life human being.   Actually, I established human resouces programs for women that were nominated by the Office of Contract Compliance for the Department of Labor’s EVE award in 1994.  In short, I’ve been a strong supporter of women’s rights for the last 40 years.  I simply don’t believe women need to be granted an unlimted right to kill their offspring in all circumstances.  That doesn’t make me against women — just agaist unlimited abortion. MINXS has absolutely no evidence that I don’t like women making "private decisions."  This is one of those Pro-Abortion Righter (PAR) bumper sticker type slogans designed to incite woman’s emotions against the target.  Can’t you come up with something more original than that, MINXS?     ================================================================= >>> MINXS wrote: >>> Basically, that is how all PIAs get where they are.  

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: Here is the psychiatrist telling us all these millions of people think alike.  She sounds like some sort of bigot, rather than a scientist or a professional. What the heck is a PIA?     ================================================================= >>> MINXS wrote: >>> Very few first decide what it means to be "a human being" and >>> then figure out what to do about it in terms of various issues.

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: When you read the various discussions on talk.abortion over the past few months, it is clear that PARs are simply desperate to deny that unborn children are anything but "globs of protoplasm."  Their whole house of cards falls apart if they admit a fetus is actually a human being with any rights whatsoever.   MINXS wants to have it both ways.  First, she wants to defend abor- tions by claiming unborn children are worthless globs of protoplasm.   Second, she wants to criticize Pro-Lifers for their insensitive treatment of fetuses in cases involving rape and incest.  In the first case, she wants to defend every woman’s (and every little girl’s) unlimited right "CHOOSE" to kill their offspring in ALL circumstances.  Then, in the second case, she would mock moderate PLs for reluctantly supporting such a "CHOICE" for women in cases of rape or incest.  It is clear that MINXS cares little about logic, but is interested only in presenting radical PAR propaganda. She would skewer PLs on the horns of a false delimma.     ================================================================= >>> MINXS wrote: >>> This is because it’s painfully clear that there is no problem >>> reconciling abortion rights with human rights.  

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: Well, this is true only if you can fool yourself into believing that that image on the sonagram with two arms, two legs, two ears, cute little fingers and toes really isn’t a human being — it’s just a meaningless blob of tissue.  Of course you must convince pregnant women that that "thing" moving inside her isn’t "alive."  You must also find a way to explain that those brain waves of the fetus really don’t mean that the "z/e/f" can think or feel pain.  You must always use the "z/e/f" designation because that is so effective in dehumanizing the unborn child.   The first and foremost HUMAN RIGHT is the right not to be killed without due process.  All other human rights are meaningless if humans are deprived of a right to life.  Yet, MINXS has the unmit- igated temerity to say that the unlimited slaughter of unborn child- ren is not a violation of human rights.     ================================================================= >>> MINXS wrote: >>> Since the agenda of PIAs is not human rights at all, they have to >>> work backwards.

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: "Does not compute!!!!!" There are as many PL agendas as there are Pro-Lifers.  MINXS, the bigot, is desperate to lump all into the same narrowminded little pigeonhole — that way she doesn’t have to think.  She can rant and rave against "THEM."  "You know how THEY are."  Sad!     ================================================================= >> John Savard wrote: >> When I first saw this, I thought that this was quite a devastating >> argument, and would really throw a wrench into the Pro-Life position. >> But then, on second glance, it looked like the same old pro-choice >> argument: pro-lifers really just want to hobble women.

    ================================================================= > MINXS wrote: > They want to maintain lots of authority over everyone, actually, but > women are singled out for particular attention.

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: This old "bumper sticker" slogan was scraped off of most PAR used cars years ago, but MINXS continues to use it as a crutch. Don’t you think it’s time you actually backed up what you said, MINXS? Prove to us that ALL Pro-Lifers want to maintain "maintain lots of authority over everyone, actually, but women are singled out for particular attention."  Or, do you just repeat wornout old slogans You forgot to tell us the one about how all PLs are Bible-thumpers who want to force their religion down everyone’s throat.  There are several other standard "bumper sticker" slogans you could include. That way you don’t have to think. BTW, how do you explain the many women who support the Pro-Life positions? [snip]     ================================================================= > MINXS wrote: > No.  It’s the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the decision is made.  For > most people, the words "a decision between a woman and her physician" > is enough to reassure them that women aren’t acting entirely on their > own, which is why the majority of Americans agree that it’s right for > abortion (in the first trimester at least) to be a choice under those > circumstances….  

    ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: "A decision between a woman and her physician" — if you’re gonna quote Justice Blackmun, you really ought to give him credit. The typical chop shop physician has NO CONTACT WITH THE PATIENT prior to the abortion.  That is handled by so called "counselors" whose job is to convince women/girls to have abortions.   Here’s how Carol Everett (who owned and operated several abortion clinics in Texas) describes the typical consultation between the abortionist and the pregnant woman:     She’s on the table scared to death, so tense she can’t stand     it.  The doctor comes in, sometimes says hello, sometimes says     nothing….     [Source:  Carol Everett, Behind the Scenes of an Abortion      Clinic:  Ex-Director Speaks] http://www.wavefront.com/~Contra_M/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_clinic.html That’s it!  Sometime the abortionist says hello and sometime says nothing.  So much for your "decision between a woman and her physician" — there is no such thing in many typical cases.     ================================================================= > MINXS wrote: > …which is why the majority of Americans agree that it’s right for > abortion (in the first trimester at least) to be a choice under those > circumstances.  

[...]     ================================================================= Papa Jack remarks: You’re lying as usual, MINXS.  Please don’t trot out that old discredited Harris poll. A Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted January 1997 found:   PRO-LIFE RESPONSES (total of 59% of total responses):         * 12% believe abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances         * 12% would prohibit abortion except to save the life of the               mother         * 35% would prohibit abortion except to save the life of the               mother or in cases or rape and incest           —–           59% pro-life   PRO-ABORTION RIGHTS (PARs) REPLIES (total of 41% of total):         * 27% would allow abortions but not after the third month         * 7% would allow abortions but not after viability         * 7% believe abortion should be legal for any reason at              any time during pregnancy           —–           41% pro-abortion rights So, you see, ONLY 7% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT UNLIMITED ABORTION. I grow weary of these phoney arguments of MINXS.  She tries to pretend to be the all-knowing professional head-shrinker, but then resort to the same kind of "you-know-how-they-are" bigotry that so many PARs fall back on.   MINXS, go back to the drawing board and try to come up with some- thing new.  You just keep troting out the same old "chestnuts" which you try to dress up with a few new words.  You are boring me. Have a nice weekend. — {               Papa Jack { {               http://www.express-news.net/papajack         "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

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Burma: Tourist Gets 7 Years for Singing
• PNEWS: Palestinian Condemns Arafat's Human Rights Record
• anyone else?
• USA's "Human Rights" Imperialism
• terrible pedo website
• Great Idea... Not...lol...
• The Guantanamo Bay Tragedy
• Chinese are not coming after all
• Abirdson: Restricting the Public's Right to Know
• ZOG'S TREASONOUS PLANS FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT!