Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? But why is an exception for incest so popular? If the female is a minor, and the male more than a year or two older, it's statutory rape and covered by the rape exception. If it's not forcible rape and the female is over 18, she's thought to know what's she's doing, so why does she deserve an exception? Do people want the exception a) just for the sake of voluntary sex between minors and siblings who are no more than 1 or 2 years older (in states where that is not rape)? b) because of possible birth defects. I think b is more likely that a, but no one ever mentions either reason. They just say incest. So what do you think the reason is? |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky
wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/ usenet groups exist and are active for your topic : alt.abortion alt.abortion.inequity Good luck with your discourses ... John T. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:45:16 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/ usenet groups exist and are active for your topic : alt.abortion alt.abortion.inequity Good luck with your discourses ... John T. I'm not sure but I think I asked this question at the first of these groups years ago and got nowhere. IIRC, they ignored the question and harangued me something like Trader just did. So I thought passions might run lower here. Harangued? You said: 'I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist." That position is totally illogical, and it should be especially illogical for those that oppose abortion, that write the laws with the exception. It says essentially that the inconvenience, that it would be uncomfortable to have to give birth to the baby of a rapist, justifies killing it. The unborn baby didn't do anything to cause the situation either. All I did is point that out, silly snowflake lib. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/9/19 12:23 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:45:16 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/ usenet groups exist and are active for your topic : alt.abortion alt.abortion.inequity Good luck with your discourses ... John T. I'm not sure but I think I asked this question at the first of these groups years ago and got nowhere. IIRC, they ignored the question and harangued me something like Trader just did. So I thought passions might run lower here. Aside from being a rabid Trump hater, Trader_4 is mild. Butch up, Snowflake. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life, then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child of a rapist? OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane and preferable to killing it. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any such genetic trait. But why is an exception for incest so popular? Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with incest. Previously you asked, why would anyone want to have a child who was fathered by a rapist, but you think there is no similar issue with having a child fathered by your father? |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life, then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child of a rapist? OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane and preferable to killing it. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any such genetic trait. But why is an exception for incest so popular? Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it. I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to see that it's a reason. Replies to your remarks at the top are just as obvious. incest. Previously you asked, why would anyone want to have a child who was fathered by a rapist, but you think there is no similar issue with having a child fathered by your father? You didn't read my post very carefully or you would have seen the difference. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life, then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child of a rapist? OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane and preferable to killing it. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any such genetic trait. But why is an exception for incest so popular? Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it. I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to see that it's a reason. You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it": "I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? " And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply? Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the post is about too. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote: In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life, then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child of a rapist? OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane and preferable to killing it. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any such genetic trait. But why is an exception for incest so popular? Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it. I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to see that it's a reason. You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it": "I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? " And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply? Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the post is about too. A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going. Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life, influencing the child's development? |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote: In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote: I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life, then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child of a rapist? OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane and preferable to killing it. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any such genetic trait. But why is an exception for incest so popular? Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it. I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to see that it's a reason. You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it": "I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? " And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply? Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the post is about too. A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going. Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing? Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals. Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life, influencing the child's development? I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/9/19 8:28 AM, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give it away? But why is an exception for incest so popular? If the female is a minor, and the male more than a year or two older, it's statutory rape and covered by the rape exception. If it's not forcible rape and the female is over 18, she's thought to know what's she's doing, so why does she deserve an exception? Do people want the exception a) just for the sake of voluntary sex between minors and siblings who are no more than 1 or 2 years older (in states where that is not rape)? b) because of possible birth defects. I think b is more likely that a, but no one ever mentions either reason. They just say incest. So what do you think the reason is? Hi Micky, I think you are being sincere, so I will answer. It is about emotion and compromise. A rape/incest pregnancy is the LEAST wanted pregnancy that abortionists can think of, so they throw it out there for its emotional impact. Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against another human being unless they are protecting themselves or others against deadly force. And indeed there are times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would be justified in using deadly force to take her child's life. It is up to the mother. And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child is punishing the wrong person. What we should do as a society is bend over backwards to support her and put the child up for adoption if she so desires. As far as compromise goes. It is a simple numbers game. Come up with a way to prove a rape/incest pregnancy and we will trade you birth control abortions for rape/incest abortions. It is all about saving as many lives as we can. And you know, the abortionists will never go for the compromise because they are *just that callous* to human suffering. The children they murder try to run from the pain and scream with their unformed mouths. The abortionists want the ability to butcher human lives at will. The "karma" on that one will be a thing to behold. And Liberals wonder why human life is denigrated elsewhere as well. Abortion rolls over into other areas of life too. We now have godless mass murders who think no more of human life than squashing a bug. It is about emotion and compromise. How another human being can murder such a helpless human being is beyond me. But somehow they have found a way -- they have abandoned their souls. We are look at the face of pure evil here. "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born" -- Teaching of the Apostles 2:2 €œYou shall not murder." -- Exodus 20:13 -T |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote:
Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against another human being unless they are protecting themselves or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would be justified in using deadly force to take her child's life.Â* It is up to the mother. And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as a society is bend over backwards to support her and put the child up for adoption if she so desires. -T You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains. When is it a child? Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later. Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass? At what point does it change. Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever? Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed? |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:38:54 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote: Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against another human being unless they are protecting themselves or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would be justified in using deadly force to take her child's life.Â* It is up to the mother. And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as a society is bend over backwards to support her and put the child up for adoption if she so desires. -T You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains. When is it a child? Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later.. Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass? At what point does it change. Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever? Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed? Thanks, Ed. I now have "Every Sperm Is Sacred" playing in my head. Cindy Hamilton |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/10/19 9:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote: Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against another human being unless they are protecting themselves or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would be justified in using deadly force to take her child's life.Â* It is up to the mother. And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as a society is bend over backwards to support her and put the child up for adoption if she so desires. -T You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains.Â* When is it a child? Â*Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later. Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever? Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed? Many months before I was born, I remember being in a swimming contest. Selfish competitor that I am, I won. Unfortunately the other swimmers lost. Poor snowflakes didn't even get trophies for participating. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever? That is not your call. You can not say it is okay to kill anyone because they are unloved or whatever other excuse you come up with. You only get to use deadly force when protecting yourself or others who are being threatened with deadly force. Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed? No conception so not a human being. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from killing animals because their lives begin at conception? Cindy Hamilton |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote: On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from killing animals because their lives begin at conception? Cindy Hamilton For breakfast this morning I had two partially formed chickens, fried, over easy. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote: On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from killing animals because their lives begin at conception? Cindy Hamilton You are sick. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy
Hamilton wrote: On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote: On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans That's not so. Life began a long time ago and has continued without interruption ever since. look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from killing animals because their lives begin at conception? Cindy Hamilton |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sincere question with landmines
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change. It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans look different as they age and that goes all the way to our deaths. Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever? That is not your call. You can not say it is okay to kill anyone because they are unloved or whatever other excuse you come up with. You only get to use deadly force when protecting yourself or others who are being threatened with deadly force. Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed? No conception so not a human being. IDK where human life begins, but I find it hard to believe that it begins at conception, that it's already a human being, when there is nothing more than the DNA of a mother and father in a couple of cells. If you believe in god, how do you know that god doesn't insert a soul, make it a human at 8 weeks or at birth? Who exactly came up with the "at conception" part? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Elephants and landmines | Home Repair | |||
A sincere thanks to those who respond and help | Home Repair | |||
Sincere Request | Home Repair |