Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate
Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate
APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9, 1994 156 >rates. > >4) It is impossible for one person to have two different sets of finger- >prints. > >5) It is impossible for one person to have two brains. > >6) It is impossible for one person to have four eyes (six if the woman >is pregnant with twins, eight with triplets, and so on). > >Considering all of the above, we have no choice but to conclude that >abortion kills a person. > >Do you get my point? Please address these specific, provable medical >facts. If you do not wish to discuss these issues, then do not bother >to respond. I refuse to throw labels and insults. Stick to the facts. >Furthermore, I refuse to defend myself or any other pro-lifer I know >against charges of sexism. If you wish to believe I am a sexist, so >be it. Any of the women I know will disagree with you on this (even >the women I know who are pro-choice). Their opinion is much more >important to me than yours is. If you do respond, >respond to the issues I have addressed. You may disagree with me, but >if you do, have the courtesy to offer concrete evidence to support >your assertion that the unborn child is not human. If not, why not? >My family is from Missouri - show me. > I say: I have been involved in pro-choice activities for years, and I have YET to have an answer to what I feel is the real question: WHAT GIVES ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY LIFE, MY BODY, AND MY DECISIONS? Article 45 Reference 161833 From waynet@indirect.com Date Thu, Aug 4, 1994 2:25 PM Joe Moore (jrmo@prpix2.pr.att.com) wrote: : Lisa Ann Kazmier writes: : >Simply put, this group wishes by government action to compell : >any woman to take her pregnancy to term. Even when the law did : >so, many women sought ways around this, for their own reasons, : >which were numerous and cannot be classifed as typically : >convenience or economics or anything else. It seems the message : >is "we’ll leave you alone -- after you have the child." But by : >then that woman’s life is undeniably altered, whether or not : >she raises the baby. : Simply put, this group wishes by government action to compel : doctors to preserve human life. When the law did so, doctors : and quacks illegally performed procedures that undeniably : eliminated human lives for convenience or economics or something : else. This group doesn’t wish to compel women to breed. By
APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9, 1994 157 : her own actions, the woman’s life is undeniably altered whether : or not she aborts or brings the child to term. But why do you think YOU should be the one to decide HOW her life is altered? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne (waynet@indirect.com) "My ancestors were Puritans from England. They arrived here in 1648 in the hope of finding greater restrictions than were permissible under English law at that time." - Garrison Keillor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 46 Reference 161844 From n-peal@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Date Thu, Aug 4, 1994 3:39 PM pcrotty@UWYO.EDU writes: >In article , ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes: >>prc@physics.physics.wm.edu (Patrick Crotty) writes ... >>> n-peal@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) writes: >> >>>>Why is the life of a fetus more important than the >>>>life of a woman? >>> >>>It’s not. It’s not any *less* important, either. Women generally do not >>>die during childbirth, so having a baby is usually not a threat to the >>>woman’s life. >> >>Having a baby is always a threat to a woman’s life, and always causes >>some injury. Why should a fetus have more rights to a woman’s body >>than does the woman herself? >Umm.....I am, to say the *least*, confused. Did you yourself not say >something along the lines of "A woman’s right to her body should end >where the fetus begins", or something to that effect? Yup. You’re right...he did. You’re not alone in your confusion, however...people on t.a. have been trying to get Ray to explain his abortion restriction views for months and months. >>>>I’d say they are very fortunate. I’d also say >>>>they should be thankful to currently have the >>>>freedom to make that extremely personal choice for >>>>themselves. >>> >>>Too bad their unborn child doesn’t have any say in the matter..... >> >>Just as poor people, even those dying, have no say in what you may do >>with your property. >> >>>>I can see how those acts would help women. How would banning >>>>abortion help women? >>>
- Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPH
- Page 107 and 108: Appendix A The talk.abortion newsgr
- Page 109 and 110: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 111 and 112: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 119 and 120: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 121 and 122: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 123 and 124: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 125 and 126: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 129 and 130: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 137 and 138: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 139 and 140: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 141 and 142: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 143 and 144: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 145 and 146: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 147 and 148: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 149 and 150: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 151 and 152: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 153 and 154: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 155: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 159 and 160: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 161 and 162: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 163 and 164: Appendix B Density Scores Table B.1
- Page 165 and 166: APPENDIX B. DENSITY SCORES 165 Tabl
- Page 167 and 168: Appendix C Supplemental Analysis 16
- Page 169 and 170: APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
- Page 171 and 172: APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
- Page 173 and 174: APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
- Page 175 and 176: APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
- Page 177 and 178: BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 Best, Michael L. 1
- Page 179 and 180: BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 Fisher, Bonnie, Mi
- Page 181 and 182: BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 Hiltz, Starr Roxan
- Page 183 and 184: BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 Mansbridge, Jane.
- Page 185 and 186: BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 Pateman, Carole. 1
- Page 187 and 188: BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 Savicki, Victor, D
- Page 189: BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 U. S. Congress, Of
APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9, 1994 156<br />
>rates.<br />
><br />
>4) It is impossible for one person to have two different sets of finger-<br />
>prints.<br />
><br />
>5) It is impossible for one person to have two brains.<br />
><br />
>6) It is impossible for one person to have four eyes (six if <strong>the</strong> woman<br />
>is pregnant with twins, eight with triplets, and so on).<br />
><br />
>Considering all of <strong>the</strong> above, we have no choice but to conclude that<br />
>abortion kills a person.<br />
><br />
>Do you get my point? Please address <strong>the</strong>se specific, provable medical<br />
>facts. If you do not wish to discuss <strong>the</strong>se issues, <strong>the</strong>n do not bo<strong>the</strong>r<br />
>to respond. I refuse to throw labels and insults. Stick to <strong>the</strong> facts.<br />
>Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, I refuse to defend myself or any o<strong>the</strong>r pro-lifer I know<br />
>against charges of sexism. If you wish to believe I am a sexist, so<br />
>be it. Any of <strong>the</strong> women I know will disagree with you on this (even<br />
><strong>the</strong> women I know who are pro-choice). Their opinion is much more<br />
>important to me than yours is. If you do respond,<br />
>respond to <strong>the</strong> issues I have addressed. You may disagree with me, but<br />
>if you do, have <strong>the</strong> courtesy to offer concrete evidence to support<br />
>your assertion that <strong>the</strong> unborn child is not human. If not, why not?<br />
>My family is from Missouri - show me.<br />
><br />
I say:<br />
I have been involved in pro-choice activities for years, and I have YET<br />
to have an answer to what I feel is <strong>the</strong> real question:<br />
WHAT GIVES ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY LIFE, MY BODY,<br />
AND MY DECISIONS?<br />
Article 45<br />
Reference 161833<br />
From waynet@indirect.com<br />
Date Thu, Aug 4, 1994 2:25 PM<br />
Joe Moore (jrmo@prpix2.pr.att.com) wrote:<br />
: Lisa Ann Kazmier writes:<br />
: >Simply put, this group wishes by government action to compell<br />
: >any woman to take her pregnancy to term. Even when <strong>the</strong> law did<br />
: >so, many women sought ways around this, for <strong>the</strong>ir own reasons,<br />
: >which were numerous and cannot be classifed as typically<br />
: >convenience or economics or anything else. It seems <strong>the</strong> message<br />
: >is "we’ll leave you alone -- after you have <strong>the</strong> child." But by<br />
: ><strong>the</strong>n that woman’s life is undeniably altered, whe<strong>the</strong>r or not<br />
: >she raises <strong>the</strong> baby.<br />
: Simply put, this group wishes by government action to compel<br />
: doctors to preserve human life. When <strong>the</strong> law did so, doctors<br />
: and quacks illegally performed procedures that undeniably<br />
: eliminated human lives for convenience or economics or something<br />
: else. This group doesn’t wish to compel women to breed. By
Change language