CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
is. Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for your own
post? Come on Han...

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
reversible manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
what you meant to say?

Obviously that is NOT what I meant. At least, I infer from your
answer that your daughter although not "planned" was indeed welcomed
into the family. Congratulations on a happy family! I apologize
that you took my "unplanned" phrase in such an absolute way. That
was totally not my intention.

Then... I think you need to think through your thoughts a bit more before
you post them. (a prolem common to all usenet posters...)


As I said, I have never had to face the situation myself.

And having not experienced it, you still feel so comfortable in forming
such a concrete opinion? Don't you base your thoughts on anything more
substantial than that?

I struggle
with how to address it and have the utmost respect for anyone's
opinion and deeds (as I have said before). I hope that you will also.

Yeah - it is a very difficult topic to address which is why I declined to
take it up in detal here. For me (despite what idiots like CW want to
think...), is very complex. Here, I elect only to speak to the things
people say about their beliefs rather than the belief itself. If that makes
any sense...

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically
correct. It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I'm sorry Han but that is not at all factually correct. It's a nice
euphamism for people who like to throw out meaningless things, but think
about it - just for a moment. Now - think about it for a moment longer.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
is. Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for
your own post? Come on Han...

Han - my bad. CW does not know how to post and I apparently do not know how
to read. His post made it look like it was you replying to yourself. I am
sorry for my reply.

--

-Mike-

CW wrote:
While I am for gun control
================================================== =====================
So am I. Sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze. Done
correctly, these things increase control dramatically.

On this point, we are in violent agreement!

--

-Mike-

On 8/1/2012 2:15 PM, Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.
There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you?
True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.
Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.

"Han" wrote in message ...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
what you meant to say?

Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
================================================== =====================
I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual, being
the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many kill files.

CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
reversible manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
what you meant to say?

Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
================================================== =====================
I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual,
being the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many
kill files.

I thought you plonked me asshole... Just can't resist, can you?

--

-Mike-

CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
reversible manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
what you meant to say?

Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
================================================== =====================
I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual,
being the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many
kill files.

Argumentative is the phrase that assholes like you apply to others who bring
up points that show you how hollow your statements are. That's ok - you
provide a great deal of humor with your posts...

--

-Mike-

"Han" wrote:

Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically
correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
------------------------------------
Han,

You keep buying them books, they keep eating the covers.

Lew

On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
om:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you?

True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.

Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't "liberal"
(liberal == PC).

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:16:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/1/2012 2:15 PM, Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.
There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you?
True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.
Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.

Absolutely. Anyone who can't (doesn't want to) handle the "worst case"
scenario has no business trying to get on base.

On 01 Aug 2012 17:21:24 GMT, Han wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.

How does the convenience of one human trump the life of another?

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news:ll1h18hfg3djrb9g4d55df12nb6rre839l@4ax. com:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have
sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause
for emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name
I can call you?

True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I
think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.

Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct.
It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't
"liberal" (liberal == PC).

You are calling me NOT liberal??? I have to hang that on the fridge!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Mike Marlow wrote:
CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
is. Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is
no guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes
of the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for
your own post? Come on Han...

Han - my bad. CW does not know how to post and I apparently do not
know how to read. His post made it look like it was you replying to
yourself. I am sorry for my reply.

No problem - sometimes I overreact too!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 02 Aug 2012 01:32:23 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news:ll1h18hfg3djrb9g4d55df12nb6rre839l@4ax .com:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have
sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause
for emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name
I can call you?

True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I
think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.

Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct.
It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't
"liberal" (liberal == PC).

You are calling me NOT liberal???

Shocking, isn't it. It only took to posts for it to sink in, too.

I have to hang that on the fridge!!

Don't get used to it. ;-)

In article ,
says...

"Han" wrote in message ...

-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

Personally I would prefer a world in which nobody ever got pregnant who
didn't want to. We don't inhabit such a world so we have to do the best
we can with what we've got. And giving women the choice of being nuns
or mothers with no other options just doesn't work for me.

On 8/1/12 10:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Han" wrote in message ...

-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

Personally I would prefer a world in which nobody ever got pregnant who
didn't want to. We don't inhabit such a world so we have to do the best
we can with what we've got. And giving women the choice of being nuns
or mothers with no other options just doesn't work for me.


Yes, because motherhood is such a horrible thing.
I don't think there's ever been a mother on her deathbed who regretted
having children.
It's a human life. Choosing to kill your baby in favor of a more
convenient life just don't work for me.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
****. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
just ludicrous.

Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
topic should be discussed.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are
full of ****. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that
would take more discussion than either of you want to believe, but
what you say above is just ludicrous.

Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
topic should be discussed.

Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have not
commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW took it
upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not expressed them
at all. As I have said, that would be too complex. Needless to say, they
would surprise those who just presume to know. I have limited myself to
only commenting on the logic and the arguments that have been presented.
How is it that such is too emotionally involved?

--

-Mike-

Just Wondering wrote:

I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.

Unless one of the parties lies.

HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.

Unless one of the parties lies.

In the most traditional sense, both parties lie...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have not
commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW took it
upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not expressed them
at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.

You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
said your beliefs are too complex.

It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
expound your beliefs.

Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.

On 8/2/12 1:37 AM, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
****. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
just ludicrous.

Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
topic should be discussed.


How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have
not commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW
took it upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not
expressed them at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.

You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
said your beliefs are too complex.

It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
expound your beliefs.

Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.

No really - not emotionally involved - at least not on the topic at hand.
My own thoughts are too conflicting for that to be the case. You are right
that I probably stepped out of character a bit - or stepped further out of
character in my post, but that was really based more on how I wanted to
discuss things with Han than on my thoughts on the matter. The thing I feel
much more strongly about is the nature of the argument presented than the
topic at hand in this case - again, because this is a topic that holds too
many conflicts for me to weigh in absolutely in short concise statements.

--

-Mike-

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have
not commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW
took it upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not
expressed them at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.

You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
said your beliefs are too complex.

It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
expound your beliefs.

Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.

And... time has proven that this is a topic that is very difficult to
discuss "rationally". Each side believes they are being rational, but just
look at the positional statements that have taken place in this thread - far
from rational. Lots of emotional statements from each side. That's the way
this and similar sorts of topics go. Then you get a guy like me throwing
stuff into the mix, trying to talk about the manner of logic and argument...

I'd say there is no shortage of emotional investment on both sides already,
without me adding my convoluted thoughts into the topic.


--

-Mike-

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned

That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force others
to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying to use the
law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice" group want to
leave the decision up to you and your wife.

Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..

"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:58:14 -0500, -MIKE-
How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?

That "convenience" you state is not nearly as cut and dried as you
would suggest.

The only thing I know is that if I was a woman, (young, old, healthy,
disabled, professional, whatever category you care for), I'd want to
have the option of terminating a pregnancy if thought it was the best
choice for me.

And that being so, who am I or you for that matter, to dictate or
mandate what someone else should do?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned

That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.

Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..

"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned

That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.

Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..

"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."

Well - that all depends on how one views their participation in the
discussion. I do not view mine as an active participant in the abortion/no
abortion discourse - or perhaps you did not bother to read that. My comment
to Han was more centered on his arugment - or his logic. Seems the
proponents of either side do not want to see that, and want to see
adversaries. Too bad. That would be your loss. All of the rest of the
rhetoric on either side is just that - rhetoric. No matter which side you
are on.

--

-Mike-

On 8/2/12 1:33 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:58:14 -0500, -MIKE-
How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?

That "convenience" you state is not nearly as cut and dried as you
would suggest.

The only thing I know is that if I was a woman, (young, old, healthy,
disabled, professional, whatever category you care for), I'd want to
have the option of terminating a pregnancy if thought it was the best
choice for me.


When does the baby get a choice in the matter.
Even pro-choice statistics show that more than 95 percent of abortions
are for convenience. There hasn't been an abortion restrictive
legislation written that didn't contain exemptions for rape, incest,
danger to the life of the mother.

And that being so, who am I or you for that matter, to dictate or
mandate what someone else should do?


That's exactly what every law does.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned

That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.

Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..

"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag
and carrying a cross."

Well - that all depends on how one views their participation in the
discussion. I do not view mine as an active participant in the
abortion/no abortion discourse - or perhaps you did not bother to read
that. My comment to Han was more centered on his arugment - or his
logic. Seems the proponents of either side do not want to see that,
and want to see adversaries. Too bad. That would be your loss. All
of the rest of the rhetoric on either side is just that - rhetoric.
No matter which side you are on.

Let me say it again. I respect anyone's opinion. I am only saying that
in my very personal opinion, the decision whether or not to abort an
(apparently) unwanted pregnancy should be made by the pregnant woman.
Many, many factors may affect that decision. But no one should force the
woman to decide one way or another.

I had more here, but I'll leave it to this. I don't know whether or not
I should be sorry to have instigated this discussion ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


Let me say it again. I respect anyone's opinion. I am only saying
that in my very personal opinion, the decision whether or not to
abort an (apparently) unwanted pregnancy should be made by the
pregnant woman. Many, many factors may affect that decision. But no
one should force the woman to decide one way or another.


Hey Han - I understand your position - and you don't have to either explain
it again or even defend it (if you so chose) to me. I'm not sure what you
saw in my reply to Dave that caused you to make the above statement, but it
was not my intent to cause that in you.


I had more here, but I'll leave it to this. I don't know whether or
not I should be sorry to have instigated this discussion ...

Like I said - Pandora's box...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:55:15 -0500, -MIKE-
When does the baby get a choice in the matter.

I'm comfortable with the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus
becomes a formed, developed, cognitive baby. Before then, I'm quite
fine with termination.

Go ahead please, hit me with your best response about the sanctity of
taking life at any point and 'killing' it. I'm quite prepared to shoot
you down in flames.

On 8/2/12 3:19 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:55:15 -0500, -MIKE-
When does the baby get a choice in the matter.

I'm comfortable with the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus
becomes a formed, developed, cognitive baby. Before then, I'm quite
fine with termination.


Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?


Go ahead please, hit me with your best response about the sanctity of
taking life at any point and 'killing' it. I'm quite prepared to shoot
you down in flames.


Oh, in flames is it? Oh no.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:26:07 -0500, -MIKE-
Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?

You see Mike, the countries with live in, (Canada and the US in this
case) have what most would call enlightened, educated medical
professionals. For the most part, we have the best educated doctors in
the world. That means I trust them their guidelines in this case.

They didn't just choose an arbitrary stage age of development as
you're attempting to suggest above.

Try again Mike.

On 8/2/12 3:40 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:26:07 -0500, -MIKE-
Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?

You see Mike, the countries with live in, (Canada and the US in this
case) have what most would call enlightened, educated medical
professionals. For the most part, we have the best educated doctors in
the world. That means I trust them their guidelines in this case.

They didn't just choose an arbitrary stage age of development as
you're attempting to suggest above.

Try again Mike.


No, I'm trying to see if it's simply the medical professionals' opinions
that determine your opinion in the matter. Because at this point,
medical science has made it almost routine for 6 month old premature
birthed babies to survive. There have been preemies who survived much
earlier. Medical science will only improve making the viability of life
outside the womb, sooner and sooner.

There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
"terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
just trying to see what camp you're in.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article , says...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned

That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force others
to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying to use the
law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice" group want to
leave the decision up to you and your wife.

Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..

"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."

My problem with "gay marriage" is that it's basically redefining a word
to mean what gays want it to mean.

If gays want to live together and screw their brains out that's their
business. If they want the state to sanction their activities I'm fine
with that too. Where I have a problem is with the use of the word
"marriage" to describe it.

I understand the arguments about survivor benefits and tax status and
DNRs and so on and think they can be handled in some fashion other than
by redefining the word "marriage".

Personally I think the government should be out of the marriage game
altogether. If they want to have a form that some couple or triple or
quadruple or however many want to fill out saying that they're planning
to live together and that they have certain rights and privileges with
regard to each other's property and whatnot I'm fine with it. If they
want to give people who have filled out such a form special tax
treatment and make them go through Hell if they decide they want to
dissolve the contract, I'm fine with that too. What I'm not fine with
is calling it "marriage", unless there's at least one person involved
who in principle can or could at one time have gotten pregnant and at
least one person who in principle can or could at one time have gotten
them pregnant. And I don't want to hear about border cases.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE-
There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
"terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
just trying to see what camp you're in.

Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
best of my ability.

Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
fourth month.

And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.

All that being said, I've never been married and I don't have any
children, so I can't say I've had any personal experience with any
facet of this discussion. Maybe my viewpoint might be different if I
had, but I don't believe so.

I live my life by my own set of ethics and they usually rule over any
emotional involvement I've had in other areas. I don't think it would
be any different here. But, then I can only can only guess.

On 8/2/12 9:46 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE-
There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
"terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
just trying to see what camp you're in.

Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
best of my ability.

Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
fourth month.

And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.


That's kind of where the rubber hits the road, huh? It wasn't too long
ago that science thought the smallest thing in existence was the amoeba
and that it was just a blob. Along come better microscopes and they
realize how *big* an amoeba actually is compared to what we can now see
and measure.

Medical science is constantly growing, too. They know more and more
everyday about how unique each fetus is and they are independently
viable earlier and earlier in pregnancy. But what makes it a human
life? Unique DNA? Brain waves? Heartbeat? Feeling pain? Self
recognition? A soul?

So at some point in development in the womb, you agree that a fetus
becomes human. As science progresses and we can learn, know, see,
measure more about human life, this tipping point will get shorter and
shorter. There will come a point when it will be as obvious as night
and day that, very early in pregnancy, the only difference between the
human inside the womb and outside, is location.

It is my fear that when these facts are indisputable, there will still
be millions and millions of people who will refuse to accept it, simply
because they want abortions.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply