From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:04:49 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 <23445@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>>First, dear little chaney, let me inform you I'll never e-mail you anything
>>again, per your request, and I'll use this moment to inform you that
>>I don't care to see anything from you, either. That out of the way,
>>let's get on with business.

>It was a pest.control move. And gee, how it worked. :)

You must be talking about the copies of your pest post I return mailed
to you. It must have worked, since it has been a while since I've seen
one. Then again, your normal childish impertinence will prompt you to
post that imbecilic piece of moronic trash again, except maybe this
time *everyone else* will return it to your mailbox. Personally, I think
this good practice for a nuisance such as yourself, as it takes up much
less bandwidth than your posts.

As for it working, that's because I respect such a request from anyone,
even an unrespectable curr like you. Then again, if you email me anything,
I assume that you wish to hear a response, and I'll return mail to you,
should I so desire/feel the need.

>>$In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>$%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?

At least you learned something from your year on USENET, namely to call
it USENET.

>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.

>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.

>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)

[on geese.........deleted]

>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?

>Now, it's gotten away from a discussion pertinent to the newsgroup, to
>orinthology. Or, "the man's brains have gone to the birds." Not
>meaning to clown on Siren or anything...

It would be a step up for you....

>>Is it instinct to breathe, or is it just a reaction? I do believe it
>>is instinct.

>Who's? "Theirs" or yours?

Whatever ab is trying to say, he obviously failed.

>>Take a look sometime at your ingredient list. You'll be surprised.

>Then I won't eat anything prepped by you..

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

>>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.

>>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.

>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.

>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?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32690 alt.flame:12213