--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is why we'll never agree. Being human is about expressing
> humanity, not about chromosome number, or genetic engineering, or
> symbiosis, or phenotypic modification. It's about language,
> society,
> culture, art, curiosity,
On 29/07/2006, at 10:45 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant,
nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things,
and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is
something else at work in defining humanity for y
Richard Baker wrote:
Brother John said:
Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source
of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they
not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking
by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not l
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Gary Denton wrote:
He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as
that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control
pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the
uterine wall. It would not be the a
Brother John wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
...
(Must--not--argue--with--John... No, it's no use, I
can't help but gang up on you: Personally, I think
you ARE a long ways down a slippery slope to "every
sperm is sacred". Sorry.)
Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that every sperm is sacred,
Brother John wrote:
Why would any adult not want to have children?
There are probably a thousand or more valid reasons the most basic of
which is that we are all individuals with varying needs, desires and
capabilities
Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who
On 31/07/2006, at 3:34 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still
others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having
babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty?
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a
Charlie wrote:
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a shag, and babies were
the side-effect of that.
Exactly. The Idea of some past golden age is a crock.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the
possibility of it
David Hobby wrote:
Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects
out of the house without killing them. Why? Because
it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering.
My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them
out the window still alive.
The only flying inse
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for t
Julia Thompson wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects
out of the house without killing them. Why? Because
it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering.
My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them
out the window still alive.
Julia Thompson wrote:
Brother John wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I
have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as
good at parenting as their children would deserve.
2) If you decide you want a child, you'd b
Again, with the
responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread
thing; but it could take days for me to get through it
all, so here goes:
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >DanM wrote:
> No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is
> that
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For a right-to-life
> person, every child has an inalienable right to
> life. The only possible
> exception is when their right to life conflicts with
> the right to life of
> the mother. The mother's health is important, of
> course, but not as
> crit
>-- PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey, Pat -- this is actually my quoting of Dan, not my
own opinion:
> > > For a right-to-life
> > > person, every child has an inalienable right to
> > > life. The only possible
> > > exception is when their
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:30 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
>
> Again, wi
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
"If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
no
On 4 Aug 2006, at 12:10AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
"If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants d
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are
different from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
non-human
primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an
adult is,
and just a
> Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great
> apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you
> will), than, say, cows.
I have nothing against the great apes but why demote the cows to make the
apes feel better?
Ritu
GCU From Sacred to Less Than 'Limited Hu
Dan Minette wrote:
>
> Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
> from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some
> grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as
> killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
> > > Dan Minette wrote:
> > > > >DanM wrote:
> > <>
> > > ...The thesis is that the mother and
> > > society owe the child at least a chance at life.
> > > For a right-to-life
> > > person, every child has an inalienable ri
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:34 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
>
>
> A
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote:
If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly
a human
death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500
deaths of
women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of
millions of
people when women
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William T Goodall
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
>
>
> On 5 A
At 08:01 PM Saturday 8/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote:
If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly
a human
death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500
deaths of
women attempting abortion must be weighted a
On 6 Aug 2006, at 2:06AM, Dan Minette wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of William T Goodall
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM
Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or
oneself? And how wome
> Dan Minette wrote:
> > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
> > > Dan
> > And I was refusing to have my pro-choice
> stance
> > deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens
> etc.)
>
> OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be
> who is a protected person being and what is not.
As your dis
[WARNING: OFF-TOPIC ALERT!!! - SEE BELOW AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!]
Pat wrote:
>
> The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all
> accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one
> soul per functioning head.
>
Experiences with people who have the two brain hemisp
201 - 230 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
