From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23521@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>>>>$In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>$%In article <23410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense

>>>>$%#In talk.abortion, brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>>>>$%#|In <23302@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

Deletia over "chop suey" fetuses and infants

>>>Now you've done split your head and spilled out your brains all over
>>>USENET.

>>"Now you've done split your head"??? What kind of corruption of what
>>I guess is the English language do you speak?

>Jumping back from that "you have no idea what the issue was about"
>claim, eh? I can tell... your attention is now shifted at the way I
>chose to get the message across to you. And for your information, kid,
>that sentence was a joke, not meant to be taken seriously.

>Like you, for instance.

I'm glad you think I should be taken seriously. (Or am I? What a quandary!)
As for the other, maybe I just didn't think your response deserved any
more than I gave it.

>>>I said, they can't take away your rights (one of which is life) unless
>>>you committed murder. That ain't so before birth, for some reason.

>>You did??? Where? Actually, even if you meant this, you're still wrong.
>>Remeber the cases where they disconnect lifesupport from accident/ill
>>patients? I'd call that taking away rights, except for the fact that
>>there really isn't a person to take away rights from, IMO.

>Doesn't make it exactly right. And I may be wrong come 10 years from
>now, but presently, no one can take a life away from an innocent human
>being who'd otherwise have lived. What's worse is that _some_ folks
>want to make it so that hospitals can disconnect you whether or not
>you ask for it, and even if you're not in PVS.

Yes, that's true and correct. Someone else can ask for you, if you are
in a coma or seriously hurt and the future looks particularly bleak.
It does not require that you are in PVS, and, horror of horrors, you
can even fill out a "living will" which prevents them from even beginning
to help you, effectively taking an innocent life.

>That ought to be banned.

All depends on what exactly you're talking about. Some things are banned,
and should be. Others are banned that shouldn't be. Right now, I can't
think of a single thing in this particular topic that should be banned
and isn't at present.

You may point out any you think are deserving of banning.

>>>And my statement was hardly as stupid as yours. No, you can't be
>>>"chop suey" after birth. Not treated as such, anyway, by one's

>>See above. BTW, in some cultures, a baby is not recognized as part of
>>the clan/family until one year after birth. THis is in present day times,
>>not the middle ages and before, periods of which had common and legal
>>infanticide practices.

>How about in the United States? (Now I know you're not stupid enough
>to say that's true here.)

Note where I say "in some cultures" meaning most likely other cultures
than we are presently in, namely the one here in the US, which is decidedly
different than the culture in any other country that I know of, and
is a mixture of cultures for all that. As for being stupid, please try
not to be, it facilitates the debate.

>Translation: When "Borgie Boy" does post a rational and understandable
>post, I ignore it.

Actually, you seem somewhat more rational in this post than the last
few weeks, so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and revise it
to 99.8% of the time.

[...]

>BUT, if you want to go on talking about the birds, I don't care. I
>only wish the pro-lifers would just let you go on and on about it, and
>join the rest of us in the discussions pertinent to this newsgroup.

First off, I don't care to discuss other posters and problems you may
have with them and what you are presently killfiling. Second off, that
was part of another discussion (birds/instinct) relating instinct and
reactions. That you think this is off the mark is your opinion. You
don't like it, remove it and don't comment on it. Is that so hard for
you to accomplish?

>>Who said I'd fix you anything? Even courtesy does not require that I
>>serve a complete buffoon.

>Then that means you'll starve to death unless someone else feeds you.

I don't see how refusing to serve you indicates that I'd starve. You
would, provided you hung around long enough, but I get around gourmet
cuisine quite well, although it might be a bit spicy for you, were you
fortunate enough to be graced with a sample.

>>>>I know that I'm against child sexual molestation. But it
>>>>appears you approve of this. And gee, I'm pro-choice. Figure that.

>>>Well, it ain't molestation no more in Florida if she asks for it. Of
>>>course, that's if I consider a Circuit Court Judge to have higher
>>>authority in deciding legal manners, than you have.

>>Well, a mostly rational statement, and an opinion from borgie that I
>>actually concur with. I'd say that a Circuit Court Judge has more authority
>>in deciding legal "manners" than I do also. After all, he decides whether
>>to hold someone in contempt of his court, I can't.

>>>Just wait, it'll come to your state soon, and when the gavel hits and
>>>it's legal wherever you are (Mars, the moon, Venus, or other
>>>low-oxygen environments), the question will be forced to you:
>>>"Are you pro-choice even if it means... that?"

>>I don't see how it could ever mean that. It has nothing to do with the
>>tenants of pro-choice. ALthough I don't believe consensual sex between
>>a 15 year old and an 18 year old to be something that should be illegal.
>>After all, the CC *required* sex between 12 year old girls and old men
>>(as in men in their 50s) not that long ago, when marriages were fixed
>>for power purposes. So I guess the CC is pro-child/adult sex *without*
>>the little girl's consent. And they are one of the prime pro-life groups.
>>Please explain yourself. How can you be pro-life, since this is what
>>pro-life stands for.

>But I never claimed to be loyal to the CC where I knew there were

I didn't say you were. I said the CC is pro-life, and they supported
this, so pro-life must stand for this. Then asked how you could be pro-life.

>logical wrongs being committed. And even if I did agree, there's this
>tiny provision called the First Amendment, that prevents me from
>wanting to support a church meshing with the State. (Not that I don't
>like it, I respect the First Amendment like anyone else.)

OK, but you're making the assumption that because Locke said this, and
you're assuming that Locke is pro-choice, that pro-choice means this.
I'm using similar logic to show that pro-life is even worse, as a *major*
group of pro-lifers believed in what I drew up. Have you heard of reductio
ad absurdum? I just showed the absurdity of your conclusion through
a parallel argument, using similar assumptions.

>You don't see how it could ever mean that? Well, put on glasses. The
>judge obviously saw it. Let me illustrate:

[bunch of logic garbage deleted, as it is posted elsewhere...]

>(P->A) -> (P->!S) (!S = false) is illogical. So P must lead to S...
>Unless P does also not lead to A.

This holds true for those determined to be able to mentally make a decision
on whether or not to consent. a twelve year-old can be said to be incapable
of making a decision of this sort. This is where your argument, such
as it is, drops completely through the floor.

>I know this will mean a big discussion over logic, but it takes your
>flamewar-time away. Perhaps, then, this _might_ not be responded to in
>great fashion. _Perhaps._

I'm not engaged in any flame-wars, at the moment anyway. The last one
was with Brawley, who appears to have tucked tail and ran.

[...]

>I ignored it because it was too trivial to bother with.

Then I'll remove it since you seem to know only how to remove the entire
post, or none of it at all. Amazing though, you always flame patrick
Humphrey for saying stuff like this. Hmmmm........

>I don't have any worse ego problems than you or Patrick Humphrey, who
>thinks that just because he's in Texas and older than whatever, he's
>hot stuff on USENET.

That would make sense if I had an ego problem. since I don't, the satement
is effectively invalid. Kind of like saying Salt lake is not any more
salty than the river running through the center of the Sahara. (Clue-there 
is none)

>>>It's a principle involved: legal adults don't go messing around with
>>>underaged kids.

>>Yes, but on one hand, an 18 y-o could be considered a kid (he can't
>>drink, you know, and is considered a minor) and a 15 y-o can be considered
>>an adult, as they can get married. I'd call this a grey area, at the
>>least.

>Uh, but they can go to war @ 18. 15 year old's can't.

Audie Murphy went at 16. And some think he might have been as young
as 15. Care to comment?

>And we'll see how grey this gets when they try legalizing the stuff
>that is now legal in Florida, in other states in this country. Any
>fool who's fool enough to support adult/child sex... with consent, to
>avoid rubbing your nerves raw... as being legal, will need the ACLU to
>protect them from a mob hanging, much less a devastating defeat at
>election time.

I don't think too many folks are going to be complaining about a case
where one party just turned 18 and the other is a little under 18. Sorry.
The outcry would be if they tried to legalize 40/10 or some similar
type of sex. I don't remember exactly, but I thought there was actually
an age difference clause in some statutory rape laws. Some else could
fill the gap here.

[...]

>Actually, after reading yours and Pat Roby/Humphrey's posts, it seems
>that someone, between you two, is shooting Formaldehyde up the arm.

You're hallucinating again. Time to stop doing those drugs, borgie,
before they make you stupid. :)

>                        Robert Casey for President '96!
>                         This Casey never strikes out.

Robert Casey, a pariah to his own party from what many consider to be
a state almost as backwards as West Virginia.

>               The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

This, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31456 talk.religion.misc:13920