oconnor@sunset.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (02/12/88)
An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says: :-( In article <...> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: :-( >An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says: :-( >> In article <...> moiram@tekgen.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: :-( >>> ... But that's :-( >>>a matter of *personal opinion*, or more precisely, a matter of religious :-( >>>conviction. And the right to religious freedom is guaranteed by the :-( >>>Constitution. :-( :-( >> This is a wonderful little falacy of the pro-choice side. They feel :-( >> that ALL PRO-LIFERS are moved by religious feelings. :-( :-( >Read it again, john-boy : that is NOT what Moira Mallison said. :-( >Are you a liar, or are you stupid or illiterate ? :-( :-( The why the mention of freedom of religion? What does that have to do :-( with this discussion/argument? Listen VERY carefully, john-boy : Moira Mallison opined that the "humanity" of the fetus was a religous issue, and that since the constitution forbids the goverment from interfering with religion (except in the Obvious manners that are tangential to this discussion) the goverment had no right to interfere with a woman's chosen abortion. You, like a driveling idiot, somehow claimed this was a fallacy. Without any evidence, of course. Then claimed that the pro-choice side feel all the pro-lifers are moved by religion. Can even YOU find some connection here ? If you can, get professional help. And take a course in logic and argument. You need it badly. :-( [snip...] :-( >If all this and lots more of the same are not true, then you are :-( >a TYPICAL ANTI-CHOICE HYPOCRITICAL LYING ASSHOLE. If they are :-( >true, you are either a five year old or a PSYCHOTIC FANATIC. :-( :-( If what you wrote is truly what you believe, then either, you have a :-( very small mind or delusions of deityhood. So which is it? Neither, you silly little wuss. The parts you [snipped] where a simple extension of your (indefensible) statement that the right to life was of paramount and overriding importance. Of course you snipped it, since it makes you look VERY stupid. But the net remembers, yes they do. Care to try to defend your position. It will be quite amusing to watch you try. :-( >No right is paramount. A life without liberty and the ability :-( >to pursue happiness is not worth calling a "human life". :-( :-( Then, until recently, there were very few "human lives". Ever hear of :-( peasants? Not persons? Deserved to die? Better off dead? Picture :-( living in a city where 200,000 of the 500,000 people dropped dead of :-( the plague. Should the other 300,000 just given up due to terrible :-( conditions making their life unlivable. Now, john-boy, get real. No doubt you think peasants are drab, oppressed, totally unhappy people, with no liberty at all. Peasants did not have the liberty and oportunities for happiness that modern Americans do, true, but hell, almost NOBODY did back in the time of the Black Death. But peasants still led lives full of love and hate and joy and sorrow and yes, even some happiness. That's why they continued on. Did you know that the Black Death was the single largest factor in the birth of the Renaissance ? That the survivors enjoyed an enourmous increase in wealth ? A silver lining in a very grey cloud. :-( Have you ever heard of perseverance? Sure have. Experienced it too. There's this complete moron who thinks if he repeats his inane drivel enough people will begin to believe him. Even though he regularly gets dissected and toasted for it. And nobody does anything but laugh at him. Talk about perseverance, boy does that John M. have it. Not much else, tho. :-( Dealing with problem without toasting something? Do you :-( really believe this or do you like frothing at the mouth? I never toast my ice-cream to stop it from melting, so I guess I can deal with a problem without toasting something. Your welcome to crawl into my freezer for a few days if you like. OH, and not that I ever do froth, but if I did, well it sure beats drooling all over the place. :-( >Easy. Death is what happens when the anti-choicers finally win. :-( >Until then, pro-choicers must fight the good fight. It's :-( >what makes life worth living. :-( :-( Actually, if you wait long enough, they should swing up from abortion :-( into infanticide, treating food and water as medical treatment. Then :-( they work on the retarded. They aren't really people. They aren't :-( LIKE US. Isn't making a utopia fun? Who next? The blind? The lame? :-( The elderly? Are their lives REALLY important, especially the unhappy :-( ones. LET'S TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES TO DECIDE WHOSE LIFE IS WORTH LIVING! Uh oh, the "slippery slope" argument ! The "thin edge of the wedge" argument ! The reducio-ad-absurdium argument ! Do I need to rebut this ? No, the Supreme Court already has. I can't stop laughing enough to really do a good job shredding it anyway ! :-( >Or does John-boy believe in predestination ? That's a real loser :-( >of a philosophy. "The fetus was PREDESTINED to be aborted". Chortle. :-( :-( We are predestined to do what we will. What we will do is unknown and :-( therefore not totally predictable. Therefore, for all intents an :-( purposes, since the future is unpredicable, you can not say for :-( certain what a person is destined for until you see what they have :-( done. In otherwords, you can only see destiny in retrospect. Oh jeez this stuff cracks me up. How could I know that anyone with access to the net would be stupid enough to believe in the totally bankrupt and worthless philosophy of pre-destination ? And would try to defend it ! Now I understand the "peasant" reference : John Morron is STILL living in the dark ages. (Burned any witches lately, John-boy ?) :-( >> In any event, if it was my *personal opinion* that all women, :-( >> blacks, etc. were sub-human, should I be legally allowed to act :-( >> in a manner assuming that those beliefs were correct :-( :-( >Yes you are, johny. As long as you don't violate any other person's rights. :-( :-( And just what constitutes violating their rights? Not hiring them? :-( Calling them derogatory names? Hitting them? Killing them? Gee, :-( those black people wandered into OUR neighborhood and we have a right :-( to prevent others from using it so let's chase 'em onto the highway... :-( THAT kind of infringement? Why? C'mon John-boy, surely you know the answers to this. Even an absolute moron must be aquainted with the famous "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" saying. And the famous "Some evils are so loathsome that the abridgement of some rights in the prevention of them is justified" philosophy. These are basic tenants of every legal system on Earth. Well, now-a-days, anyway: maybe not back in Jon Morron's Dark Ages. :-( >> or should those groups (and others) be protected from such :-( >> anti-social behavior? :-( :-( >Do you know what "anti-social" means ? Anyway, see the previous reply. :-( >What about protecting dogs from dog haters ? Protecting cows from :-( >cow haters ? Where do we draw your well defined line ? Chimps ? :-( :-( Got a good argument for personhood of dogs and cows laying around? :-( How about infants? Here you are exposed as a species-bigot. Yes, American law gives rights to dogs and cows. Phone the ASPCA if you need a list. "Is a person" and "has rights' are NOT equivalent. And not everyone or everything gets the same rights. For example, in New York, a minor can void a contract AT WILL. Adults can't. So the minor has a RIGHT the adult does not. For exactly the same reason that the adult can vote and the minor can't. :-( Yes, Dennis is God and he knows everything so he MUST be right... Tut tut, your blaspheming, naughty naughty. Besides that, I can't be God. If I was God, what would that make Jack Welsh ? Answer me THAT ! Know everything is another matter ... :-) Your ad-hominem attack is about as sophistacted as "NYAH", BTW. :-( >> > Moira Mallison :-( >> John Morrow These are my opinions (no one else seems to want them...) :-( > Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sunset.steinmetz.UUCP ?? :-( John Morrow These are my opinions (no one else seems to want them...) :-( :-( Nuclear war IS the worst thing that can happen to HUMANS caused by :-( humans to date... You really do lack imagination, john-boy. I can think of MUCH worse things for which the machinery is already in place. How about razing the planet, johny ? How about killing of every other living thing on it, even the plants ? WE humans could EASILY do this. Personally, I'd rather either die in a war or live in the aftermath than EITHER of these scenarios. So, looks like your wrong again. As usual. Try to argue (logically) with THIS posting, John Morron, I dare you ! -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sunset.steinmetz.UUCP ?? ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "Nuclear War is NOT the worst thing people can do to this planet."