From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:41:44 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <23521@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

[deletia]

>>>$In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>$%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:
>
>>>$%#|But here is the nub, many people can't see how *a* new life begins at
>>>$%#|conception, as they don't believe that there is a human life (ie person)
>>>$%#|until quite some time after birth. (I'm one in this group, obviously)
>
>>>$%#Obviously you're just chop suey until your mommie kisses you.
>
>>>$%You can still be chop suey after this point.
>
>>>$Not if you're not guilty of a crime, can you legally be viewed as
>>>$"chop suey."
>
>>>Borgie, what so you mean here? You sentence lacks a certain lucidity,
>>>logic, obvious reltation to the discussion at hand. The discussion was,
>>>for your elucidation, about how before birth, "until your mommie kisses
>>>you", you were the equivalent of so much "chop suey". There was no mention
>>>of crime herein, or anything else relating to criminal activity. Your
>>>paranioa is showing again.
>
>>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 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.  

That ought to be banned.  

>>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.)  

>>parents. Unless you're saying you're going to be pro-choice on
>>infanticide, too, that is.
>
>What I think on this issue I probably won't discuss with you, as you
>lack the refinement to debate this topic rationally 99.9% of the time.
>(I say 99.9%, since I may have missed a rational word in one of borgie
>boy's posts)

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

>>No, I'd seen this thread go on once or twice ago, and it looked so
>>redundant and boring, I declined to get into it.
>
>Then why not delete it and not respond?

Because it got totally out beyond the abortion debate, like those
religious articles that keep showing up on my KILLfile's under
"junked." To say nothing of folks like Mark the Irate Kaufman, who
posts nothing but religion in his articles, having nothing to do with
the issue of the newsgroup's namesake. 

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.

>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 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
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.)  

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

P = privacy
A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors. 

The judge ruled: 

(P->A) -> (P->S) 

There _is_ the theory that (!P->A) -> (!P->S), too, but it wasn't
ruled that way.. 

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

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._ 

>>>is a little girl? I forgot, your're a misogynist little pig with the
>>>ego the size of a gnat's that needs constant propping up for fear of
>>>collapsing on itself.
>
>I'm glad you apparently agree with this statement. It's the first attack
>on you I've not seen you refute or flame, and leave in a post.

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

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. 

>>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. 

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. 

>>Formaldehyde included as a preservative.
>
>That explains why you rant the way you do. Formaldehyde kills brain
>cells and affects brain functions, could I suggest that you switch to
>sodium benzoate, or, if you are prone to high blood pressure, potassium
>benzoate?

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


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion