XPost: alt.abortion, alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion   
   From: donot@res.ist   
      
   In article ,   
   quibbler247@yahoo.com says...   
   > In article , fuckyou@yourchurch.org says...   
   > >   
   > > In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark Richardson said...   
   > >   
   > > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0700, Nivlem  wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > >Mark Richardson wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > >>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0700, Nivlem  wrote:   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>>The only conceivable reason to take an anti-abortion stance would be a   
   > > > >>>particular set of religious beliefs.   
   > > > >>>Absent this, a non-self-aware,   
   > > > >>>non-viable fetus has no reason to be of any concern. This site is a   
   > > > >>>spoof, right?   
   > > > >>>   
   > > > >>>   
   > > > >>>   
   > > > >>I don't think so.   
   > > > >>You can be an atheist and hold something as precious or "holy".   
   > > > >>You don't believe that "holiness" resides in a being called god.   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>So its conceivable that you hold all (animal?) life holy - even non   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>sentient life.   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >Not and be a logically consistant atheist, you can't.   
   > > > Well I must disagree.   
   > > > There are some things that logic simply has nothing to say about.   
   > > >   
   > > > >No god, no   
   > > > >supernatural anything, for the same reasons that gods are ruled out.   
   > > > I agree with that - but what if its holy in a non supernatural way?   
   > > > Or if you dont like holy use another word - english is full of 'em.   
   > > > "Sacred" is another.   
   > > >   
   > > > > No   
   > > > >concept of "holiness" to be applied. Believing otherwise is to be   
   > > > >confused. The fetus has no rights that must be respected. It's   
   > > > >essentially a sort of parasite on the mother.   
   > > >   
   > > > In the same sense that you or I am a "parasite" on the earths   
   > > > ecosystem?   
   > > > Calling something a "parasite" doesn;t change what it is - it adds   
   > > > nothing to the discussion either way.   
   > > >   
   > > > >Her rights and wishes in   
   > > > >the matter are paramount. There can be no logical grounds to interfere   
   > > > >in her decision whether to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy.   
   > > > >Sorry, but I can only see an anti-abortion stance as an intellectually   
   > > > >dishonest abuse of women.   
   > > > >   
   > > > I can see it that way - just not 100% of the time - but i am not an   
   > > > all or nothing, Black and White, kind of guy. I see shades of gray.   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>I am pro choice - but I am uncomfortable with the level and extent of   
   > > > >>abortions.   
   > > > >>I am all for sex education and teaching kids to be responsible.   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>I am not for forcing kids to become parents when they are not   
   > > > >>responsible (that's just stoopid!)   
   > > > >>(two wrongs don't make a right.)   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >>I feel uneasy about killing a spider unnecessarily - I capture them   
   > > > >>and take them outside.   
   > > > >>We *should* feel uneasy/unhappy about unnecessary killing - of   
   > > > >>spiders, cats dogs, chickens and human fetuses.   
   > > > >>   
   > > > >   
   > > > >Which one of these things is not like the other? All save the human   
   > > > >fetus can walk around and feed themselves. Also, what do you view as   
   > > > >necessary killing? I have no problem whatsoever with killing chickens to   
   > > > >eat. I also don't know of anyone who undertook to have an abortion   
   > > > >because there was nothing on TV. It looks to me as if women are   
   > > > >biologically programmed to keep the pregnancy. There have to be very   
   > > > >good reasons to override that.   
   > > > >   
   > > > I understand all that. I am pro choice too.   
   > > > I was trying (and failing!) to give you a hint about *idea* of life   
   > > > being sacred.   
   > > > That things can have an intrinsic value beyond utility/threat.   
   > > >   
   > > > It seems to me that humans are capable of responses to things in the   
   > > > world beyond kill it, eat it, or shag it.   
   > > > 8-)   
   > > >   
   > > > Mark.   
   > >   
   > > Have you ever watched an abortion, Mark? I got to a few years back after   
   > > knocking up yet another female. They had a clear hose that came out of   
   > > her cunt, went to a pump, and then through another clear tube and then   
   > > into what looked like a Hellman's mayonnaise jar. As it filled with red   
   > > fluid, all I could think was that I wished I hadn't left my pint of   
   > > vodka out in the car. I'm sure the godless Hindu wog doing the abortion   
   > > wouldn't have minded one bit if I'd made myself a very special Bloody   
   > > Mary.   
   >   
   > Dude, you have a very sick sense of humor.  It's cool that you're able   
   > to laugh at it all, but I have to fear that you must be more than a   
   > little bit mentally or emotionally unstable to be able to consistently   
   > come up with the gross imagery you use.   
      
   Who said he was joking?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)