In article <1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu40cu.pat1kmt77ir0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <1hu3zjs.wwuz2817fx7iN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're arguing
> > > > > - either for or against!
> > > >
> > > > He's a leftard?
> > >
> > > What's a 'leftard,'
> >
> > Look in a mirror.
>
> Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> with the word 'leftard?'


Why?

In article <1hu40ay.bgh7i71f4rzojN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu3zfc.1fbyi1wrhov99N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Xns98E2D101EF9FEta2eene2@216.196.97.131>, Mitchell Holman
> > > > <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
> > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > news:45E21CC0.C384BC9C@yahoo.co.uk:
> > > [.]
> > > > > > Society has laws that protect the weakest people, or at least try
> > > > > > to.
> > > > > > That's why they went after OJ. Just because a foetus can't make
> > > > > > decisions for itself isn't reason for it to have no rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > Show us what rights a fetus has.
> > > >
> > > > You miss the point. Here's a hint - Show us what rights a black had in
> > > > the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
> > >
> > > If you're trying to argue that the anti-abortion movement is a civil
> > > rights movement, then go ahead.
> >
> > You keep missing the point. I'm not surprised. Keep trying.
>
> How, exactly, did I miss the point?

By not getting it. Hint: look at some of my others posts in this
thread when I comment to someone that HE got it. Then see what HE wrote
and MAYBE you'll be able to figure it out.......but I doubt it.

In article <dis5u2pmemm2apa8m53qua9gk0e72nrb26@4ax.com>,
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:04:58 -0500, Harold Burton
> <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <HDsEh.1584$aO6.128@trndny06>,
> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
> >
> >Yep, but choosing isn't absolute, a fact Don left out.
>
> Why would anyone say that choosing is "absolute?" So few things are.


> But when the choice is Your to make,


And how does one determine that the choice is his to make? Like having
the choice to go to a restaurant in NYC and ordering food with
trans-fats in it? Or deciding that I'd like to permit smoking in my bar
or restaurant and not being given that choice.


> is there some good reason why
> Someone Else ought to be making it for you, or forcing you to do
> something that would otherwise not be Your choice?


Happens all the time. See above for two examples. There are many more.

In article <qes5u2ddf75m0ou38hc604g1sk1c1okvu6@4ax.com>,
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:58:56 -0500, Harold Burton
> <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why does
> >"fetuses don't make choices" bother you so much?
>
> Doesn't bother me at all.


that must be why you kept posting about it.

 
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-D5A04B.16560726022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

>> Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
>> with the word 'leftard?'
>
>
> Why?

At least folks could get a picture of what you mean when you use the term.

--
____________________


George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________


JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
The New Face of the Republican Party
http://tinyurl.com/y2j2yr

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu40ay.bgh7i71f4rzojN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu3zfc.1fbyi1wrhov99N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <Xns98E2D101EF9FEta2eene2@216.196.97.131>, Mitchell Holman
> > > > > <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > news:45E21CC0.C384BC9C@yahoo.co.uk:
> > > > [.]
> > > > > > > Society has laws that protect the weakest people, or at least try
> > > > > > > to.
> > > > > > > That's why they went after OJ. Just because a foetus can't make
> > > > > > > decisions for itself isn't reason for it to have no rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Show us what rights a fetus has.
> > > > >
> > > > > You miss the point. Here's a hint - Show us what rights a black
> > > > > had in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
> > > >
> > > > If you're trying to argue that the anti-abortion movement is a civil
> > > > rights movement, then go ahead.
> > >
> > > You keep missing the point. I'm not surprised. Keep trying.
> >
> > How, exactly, did I miss the point?
>
> By not getting it. Hint: look at some of my others posts in this
> thread when I comment to someone that HE got it. Then see what HE wrote
> and MAYBE you'll be able to figure it out.......but I doubt it.

I don't know why you have such a problem saying what you mean, Harold.
But you've clearly got a problem with it.

If you're going to compare the restricted rights of the unborn to the
restricted rights of blacks in the 1920s to the 1940s, in the context of
a discussion of legal protections for the weak, then obviously you're
saying that the anti-abortion movement has a lot in common with the
civil rights movement.

So quit dithering: Either you agree with this characterization, or you
don't. If there's something I've overlooked, then just say what it is.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hu40cu.pat1kmt77ir0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <1hu3zjs.wwuz2817fx7iN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're arguing
> > > > > > - either for or against!
> > > > >
> > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > >
> > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > >
> > > Look in a mirror.
> >
> > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> > with the word 'leftard?'
>
> Why?

Because I asked nicely.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:04:21 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <dis5u2pmemm2apa8m53qua9gk0e72nrb26@4ax.com>,
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:04:58 -0500, Harold Burton
>> <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <HDsEh.1584$aO6.128@trndny06>,
>> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>> >
>> >Yep, but choosing isn't absolute, a fact Don left out.
>>
>> Why would anyone say that choosing is "absolute?" So few things are.
>
>
>> But when the choice is Your to make,
>
>And how does one determine that the choice is his to make?

In this case, wouldn't you at least imagine that the choice would be
Hers, and not His?

Seems to me it would.

> Like having
>the choice to go to a restaurant in NYC and ordering food with
>trans-fats in it? Or deciding that I'd like to permit smoking in my bar
>or restaurant and not being given that choice.

I can't even Imagine how such things would apply. Pray, explain how
the analogy is apt.

>> is there some good reason why
>> Someone Else ought to be making it for you, or forcing you to do
>> something that would otherwise not be Your choice?
>
>Happens all the time. See above for two examples. There are many more.

Regulating a public service is one thing.

Regulating something intensely Private is quite another.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:04:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:


>Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.

Bottom line, I'm OK with a woman deciding For Herself whether to have
an abortion or not.

Otherwise the decision belongs to Someone Else.

Seems to me that's not appropriate.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>>>>>
>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>>>
>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
>>>
>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
>>> someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
>>> business in the first place.
>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>
> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
> children yet?
>

There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!

Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45E33DDB.5A8415B5@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
>
> Show everyone else that anyone ever made any such claim.

Uh...it's right in this thread fool!

In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
>
>
> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.

Dumb Shits in Academia do not last but about one sixth as long as Bush
and Cheney.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Ockham's Razor wrote:
> In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
>>
>> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>
> Dumb Shits in Academia do not last

Yes they do, it's called TENURE!

Curt wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>>>>>> But not in reality.
>>>>> Because you don't define it as "murder".
>>>> No, I don't. So?
>>> That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that a
>>> living thing isn't being killed either way.
>> But it's still not murder, regardless.
>
> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?

Ever seen a man in an iron lung?

Curt wrote:
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>> Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
>>
>> Any is not.
>>
>> Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
>>
>>> That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the world
> should that be
>>> the law?
>> Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong in
>> Law.
>>
>> It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
>> fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.
>
> It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's nothing in
> the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.

sigh....


Go away for a long long time.

f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
> >>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
> >>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
> >>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
> >>>
> >>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
> >>>
> >>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
> >>> someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
> >>> business in the first place.
> >> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
> >
> > Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
> > children yet?
>
> There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!

How do you reconcile your objection with your obvious endorsement of
masturbation?

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

 
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> > > > >
> > > > > But not in reality.
> > > >
> > > > Because you don't define it as "murder".
> > >
> > > No, I don't. So?
> >
> > That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that a
> > living thing isn't being killed either way.
>
> But it's still not murder, regardless.

Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?

Curt

 
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message

> >The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>
> Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
>
> Any is not.
>
> Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
>
> > That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the world
should that be
> >the law?
>
> Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong in
> Law.
>
> It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
> fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.

It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's nothing in
the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.

Curt

Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But not in reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you don't define it as "murder".
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't. So?
> > >
> > > That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that a
> > > living thing isn't being killed either way.
> >
> > But it's still not murder, regardless.
>
> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?

Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

In article <f0MEh.24785$s72.5475@fe12.news.easynews.com>,
f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:

> Ockham's Razor wrote:
> > In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >>
> >> -snip-
> >>
> >>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
> >>
> >> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
> >
> > Dumb Shits in Academia do not last
>
> Yes they do, it's called TENURE!

You know nothing about Tenure. It is awarded after about 20 or so years
of high level productivity. The dumb shits like bush are weeded out
long before that.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On Feb 26, 6:38 pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>
> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> > > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>
> > > > > > But not in reality.
>
> > > > > Because you don't define it as "murder".
>
> > > > No, I don't. So?
>
> > > That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that a
> > > living thing isn't being killed either way.
>
> > But it's still not murder, regardless.
>
> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?

How does a newborn live on it's own?

 
"kompressor" <merc@des.benz> wrote in message
news:uKlEh.13056$ff2.8048@fe02.news.easynews.com...


> > So what you are trying to say is that educated
> > people tend to be liberal
>
> No what I'm saying is that liberal educators have used tenure to enforce
> the solidity of their hold on academia.

You've got it backwards. They're thinkers, they're fairly smart, they tend
to read a lot and know a lot of things, and as a result they become liberal.

The smart ones that become conservative do so for tax reasons -- they've
inherited trust funds and the like, and they don't like to pay taxes on
them.

Curt

On Feb 26, 6:39 pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > >The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>
> > Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
>
> > Any is not.
>
> > Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
>
> > > That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the world
> should that be
> > >the law?
>
> > Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong in
> > Law.
>
> > It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
> > fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.
>
> It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's nothing in
> the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.

If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being,
scientists are better equipped than politicians and clergy to
determine what a human is.

 
"Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45E1FDEC.84CB7520@yahoo.co.uk...
>


> > >
> > > Fetuses don't make choices.
> >
> > Neither to babies.
> >
> Yet they are protected by law.

Because they're people.

Curt

On Feb 26, 6:36 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> f650 <f...@rd.dually> wrote:
> > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > >>> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > >>>>> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
> > >>>>>>> right.
> > >>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
> > >>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>
> > >>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
> > >>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>
> > >>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
>
> > >>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
> > >>> someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
> > >>> business in the first place.
> > >> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>
> > > Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
> > > children yet?
>
> > There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
>
> How do you reconcile your objection with your obvious endorsement of
> masturbation?

And yours of cannibalization?