"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message 
news:0mruq05k6n0sng9ig6ufim4d8eklh9b2vg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:21:48 -0500, Jeff George
> <george666@comcast.net.munged> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <ghcuq0tug4ehufu00u1c3r5hladt6s7oko@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have seen no pro-abortion people here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you support legal abortion on demand you are pro-abortion. You just
>>>>>>don't like being called that because you feel it's negative. Too bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>What would you call someone who advocated abortion over birth?
>>>>
>>>>Pro-abortion.
>>>
>>>Then how would you separate my position, which is to allow the woman
>>>to choose without caring what her choice is, and the position of
>>>wanting that choice to be abortion?  You seem to use the same term for
>>>both and they are quite different.
>>
>>You are correct in stating that I am using the same term for both
>>situations. Both positions can be classified as pro-abortion, as they
>>both consider abortion to be an acceptable option.
>
> Sorry.  I have demonstrated you are using the same term for two
> separate positions, in fact positions that can be mutually exclusive.
>
> If one person advocated always getting an abortion and another
> advocated giving a pregnant woman a choice yet strongly councils
> against getting an abortion you would consider them the same.
>
> Not so.
>
>
>>>
>>>No, there are a lot of people here who seem to oppose allowing a woman
>>>to have a choice.
>>
>>You are referring to a choice regarding a specific situation, not
>>choice in general. I don't think anyone has ever advocated that people
>>shouldn't be able to make choices.
>
> It is generally understood that the definition of the word
> 'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
> freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
> her pregnancy or to terminate it.  Any attempt to expand the
> usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
> more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
> because no argument can be sustained within the original and
> correct usage.
>
> If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
> the word 'bug' no one will assume you are peaking of
> termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
> insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
>
> Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
> transparent and pathetic ploy.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>There are two issues here which some seem to insist on ramming into
>>>one, and they are wrong.
>>
>>There really is no right or wrong here, just opinions.
>
> Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
> to person and over time.
>
> I should have said incorrect.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>Not nearly as hostile as killing clinic workers, going door to door in
>>>>>their home neighborhoods to spread propaganda among their neighbors
>>>>>and harassing and in some cases physically attacking women on a public
>>>>>street who are attempting to enter a legal public place of business.
>>>>
>>>>You have to keep in mind that anyone doing that feels that they are
>>>>attempting to intervene to stop other killing.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant.  That is rationalization and is both hostile and illegal.
>>
>>It's only rationalization if one feels that the reasoning isn't strong
>>enough.
>
> Reasoning is irrelevant.  There is never justification for such
> activity.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>The alternative is to tell her what she must do and not allow her
the
>>>>>>>freedom to control her own life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>She can do whatever she wants as long as she doesn't destroy life. She
>>>>>>doesn't have that right.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then she can never wash her hands, and she must be arrested over a cut
>>>>>finger.  That all destroys life.  And human life at that.
>>>>
>>>>That is true, but it is not an individual life; it is part of her
>>>>existing body, something that would probably exist regardless of other
>>>>circumstances.
>>>
>>>Is a fetus part of her 'existing body'?
>>
>>It is until the time for it to be born.
>
> Than as a part of her body she can demand it removal.  If I have a
> wart I can have it removed at my option.
>

If you choose to view the situation thusly, you have just demonstrated that 
taxpayers should not have to pay for an abortion unless it were judged a 
medical necessity.

Individuals who are members of some sort of welfare (taxpayer-funded) 
insurance plan, such as Medicaid or Neighborhood Health Plan (such as we 
have in RI) cannot have wart-removal covered by their insurance, unless it 
can be demonstrated that the wart was or will become cancerous.  If the wart 
is to be removed for cosmetic and/or convenience reasons only, the patient 
must pay in full.

Thus, by your own analogy, you have asserted that my tax dollars should not 
go to cover the costs of destroying future human beings, which I thank you 
for.


>>
>>
>>>If not she has a right to
>>>demand it be removed promptly.  If it is she has a right to have it
>>>removed as unwanted.
>>
>>Except that she would then be making decisions for 3 individuals
>>instead of just herself.
>
> No.  A fetus is not an individual and DOES NOT COUNT.  She is the only
> person involved.
>
>>
>>
>>>>Pregnancy is not like that. It requires the input of
>>>>two complete individuals, from which a new individual is created.
>>>>Therefore that female is also taking the responsibility and trust of
>>>>the male involved in creating that life, and shouldn't have unilateral
>>>>control over the new life created.
>>>
>>>No.  Sex does not imply approval to complete any resulting pregnancy.
>>
>>No, it doesn't, but if a pregnancy does result we now have 3 lives
>>involved.
>
> And that is totally irrelevant.
>
> No (zero) consideration is due anyone or anything other than the
> wishes of the woman involved.  Ever, under any conditions.
>