Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Apr 2005 20:47:44 -0400
In article <806bc$42683226$45491db9$14683@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> In article <a7dfc$4267165c$45491db9$5580@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>Mandating that someone kill a chicken is different that
>>>mandating that they *not* kill their unborn children.
>>
>>
>> If 'life is life' then this is not so; if something is a child only after
>> it is born this is not so, either.
>
>Yes, I said "life is life" earlier - but, from the context, I hoped
>those assembled here could see I was talking about *human* life.
A fetus is not human, remember?
>Even
>most secularists recognize that we humans are the rulers of this earth.
Even if this is true - note the qualifier - then applying it to
that-which-is-not-human is irrelevant.
>
>>>Over 3/4 of the women who come in there, after seeing that baby
>>>growing in them, do not get abortions.
>>
>> To call what is growing inside a woman a 'baby' is like calling a
>> junior-high-school student 'a voter'... that status is not legally
>> attained until later.
>
>Did you not bother to visit the link SkippyPB posted? According to the
>Federal government, since July 2002, in the view of the law it is a child.
For the purposes of a single Federal insurance program it is considered
such... anything else?
>
>Why do over 3/4 decide not to kill it/have it removed?
I barely know why *I* do things, let alone anyone else... you might want
to ask them.
>
>>>We took her to
>>>appointments - my wife helped her get on Medicaid (she more than
>>>qualified), and even helped her find a job (she was a car mechanic -
>>>needless to say, her time at that job was limited!).
>>
>> Medicaid... isn't that a social-assistance program which uses tax dollars
>> taken from others?
>
>Yes - so the good citizens of Tennessee all pitched in to help. Even
>those who were pro-choice! Imagine the irony!
I do... quite ironic that you preach self-support while using coercion to
take money from those who disagree; I believe Heinlein called this
'latter-day Socialism'... no, sorry, he was referring to a more direct and
honest armed robbery.
>
>>>The last I heard from them, they were about to be married - their child
>>>was healthy, and they were doing great. This is but one example of the
>>>lives that were saved/changed because people were given the information
>>>that they needed to make an informed decision - and, there were people
>>>who thought the issue was important enough that they didn't just say
>>>"you shouldn't!". They let *you* make the decision, and then they
>>>supported you through it.
>>
>> Ummmmmm... this is like the television-commercials where one sees everyone
>> choosing 'Brand Y' over 'Brand X'... those that don't fit the (pardon the
>> pun) preconceived mold get left on the cutting-room floor.
>
>They readily admit that there are people who come in, and either don't
>want to listen, or listen, see the ultrasound, and still decide to
>abort. They don't put them in shackles or try hypnotherapy - they let
>them go. Some return after their abortions to join the post-abortion
>support group.
>
>There's no creative editing here...
Not now, perhaps... thanks much for the more complete picture.
>
>>>This is where I *really* have a problem with the current-day Planned
>>>Parenthood-type groups. They don't want women to have the facts - just
>>>whip up the emotions about their rights, and get them to kill that
>>>child.
>>
>> This is the equivalent of saying that your goal was to brainwash a woman
>> into accepting an unwanted pregnancy so that your church would have
>> another tithing member; the logic on either side is... questionable, to
>> say the least.
>
>Show me where Planned Parenthood or any similar organizations lays out
>the facts about the offspring from humans from conception to birth -
>complete with pictures, developmental timelines, when "it" feels pain,
>reacts to light, commences a heartbeat, etc.
Ask Planned Parenthood to do their own demonstrating, please; my point is
one of logic, nothing more.
>Absent that, the only
>argument they *have* is an emotional one based on some "right" they
>think they have.
Absent your ideas they might have their own; just because *you* are
incapable of coming to a different conclusion does not necessitate that
there is no other conclusion at which to arrive.
>
>Did you read the Vanderbilt research link I posted last night?
To label that a 'Vanderbilt research link' is about as valid as labelling
a fetus as a child (except for the purposes of a single Federal insurance
program, that is); the link was
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/post_abortion_depression.htm ... and that is
a page posted by a Vanderbilt University *student organisation*. As per
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/ :
--begin quoted text:
Vanderbilt Students for Life is a student organization that works to
promote a culture of life among the Vanderbilt community and make the
choice of life a viable one for women at Vanderbilt and in the greater
Nashville area.
--end quoted text
>Many
>women who are having abortions haven't really given it a second thought.
Many women who are not having abortions don't give what is promoted by
college student organisations much thought, either.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- From: LX-i
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- References:
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- From: LX-i
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- From: docdwarf
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- From: LX-i
- Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Religion
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- Next by thread: Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
