Rutherford Institute Urges Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for Abortion Clinics

It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fbac2ff587e2f6

I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!

Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.


On Sep 3, 5:18*am, Spender wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"

wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message


Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.

You must be a religious folk or something.
Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
That's the accepted definition.

The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
necessarily born.

I don't like to get hung up on semantics, but I am curious to know
what your authority for this is.

I know you like your definition better because it allows
you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.

Semantics aside, it is a fact that the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act (BAIPA) is meant to make the killing of a baby that has
survived an abortion attempt murder.

The trouble is that the Act only applies to killing on Federal
jurisdictions. [These include Indian resevations, and the only
example of it ever being used to prosecute that I heard of involved an
American Indian.]

Some states have passed such laws, including Illinois, but that only
happened after Obama was kicked upstairs :-)
to the US Senate. While he was an Illinois legislator, he killed a
bill that was congruent to the BAIPA, and later lied that it did not
have the same language as BAIPA, and after his lie was exposed, his
campaign put out another lie as to his reasons.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.


Peter Nyikos

pnyikos wrote:
It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
article of this thread.

There is yet another example of you NOT reading all of the posts and
then LYING about what has been posted.

....
I don't like to get hung up on semantics,

That's another lie.

--
Ray Fischer

In article 21f2b6fc-77cf-400a-9ca7-51afd766d7e5
@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com, says...

It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fbac2ff587e2f6

I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!

Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.

And dream up more pro-lie bull **** and disinformation.

On Sep 3, 5:18Â*am, Spender wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"

wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message


Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.

You must be a religious folk or something.
Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
That's the accepted definition.

The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
necessarily born.

I don't like to get hung up on semantics, but I am curious to know
what your authority for this is.

I know you like your definition better because it allows
you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.

Semantics aside, it is a fact that the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act (BAIPA) is meant to make the killing of a baby that has
survived an abortion attempt murder.

The trouble is that the Act only applies to killing on Federal
jurisdictions. [These include Indian resevations, and the only
example of it ever being used to prosecute that I heard of involved an
American Indian.]

Some states have passed such laws, including Illinois, but that only
happened after Obama was kicked upstairs :-)
to the US Senate. While he was an Illinois legislator, he killed a
bill that was congruent to the BAIPA, and later lied that it did not
have the same language as BAIPA, and after his lie was exposed, his
campaign put out another lie as to his reasons.

Thank goodness for President Obama.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
Peter Nyikos
Baby, still bad. Abortion, still decency!
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!

Spender wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:37:05 -0500, Bill Allen wrote:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:18:50 -0500, Spender wrote:

The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive,

Then I murdered several salmon and a few veggies last night.
Come arrest me.

Another nut who thinks the abortion issue is about animals.

Another pro-liar who thinks he can get away with lying to people.

--
Ray Fischer

"pnyikos" wrote in message

It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fbac2ff587e2f6

I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!

Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.


On Sep 3, 5:18 am, Spender wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"

wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message


Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.

You must be a religious folk or something.
Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
That's the accepted definition.

The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
necessarily born.

I don't like to get hung up on semantics, but I am curious to know
what your authority for this is.

I know you like your definition better because it allows
you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.

Semantics aside, it is a fact that the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act (BAIPA) is meant to make the killing of a baby that has
survived an abortion attempt murder.

The trouble is that the Act only applies to killing on Federal
jurisdictions. [These include Indian resevations, and the only
example of it ever being used to prosecute that I heard of involved an
American Indian.]

Some states have passed such laws, including Illinois, but that only
happened after Obama was kicked upstairs :-)
to the US Senate. While he was an Illinois legislator, he killed a
bill that was congruent to the BAIPA, and later lied that it did not
have the same language as BAIPA, and after his lie was exposed, his
campaign put out another lie as to his reasons.


Consider this also (this is mainly for those specifically demanding that
abortion is murder).

If a girl decides to abort her fetus, who's going to press the charges of
murder against the doctor?
Technically only the girl or her partner can (if he's still around) because
they conceived it.

This makes the claim of murder absurd on its face.

The thing is, only a planned and wanted fetus can be murdered, not an
unplanned and unwanted one.
Every fetus must have a married couple (or de facto) planning for its life,
otherwise it has no life plan. No life plan means no Life (capital l).

What we should just do is deliver all unwanted born babies to the religious
right's homes and get them to raise them all and see how they like it.
They seem to be obsessed with babies so much.

"Spender" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:15:36 -0500, "W.T.S." wrote:

The difference is pro-choice tells the truth. The pro-lie side, well
lies constantly.
Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
supply if nothing else.

Abortion in America is not about population control.


Essentially true, though population is one of the things that needs to be
considered.
We can't keep growing the population forever.
The problem is the religious right refuses to consider anything beyond 'life
is precious' or life is sacred', i.e. they live with blinders on and their
heads in the sand.


It is about convenience.


Convenience is a word associated with TV remote controls and corner shops.
It is not appropriate to use it for important life decisions such as raising
a child.
Raising a child is very serious. It requires 1/ a married couple, 2/ a lot
of money and 3/ a huge commitment. And that's just for starters.

"Spender" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:56:39 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
wrote:

Consider this also (this is mainly for those specifically demanding that
abortion is murder).

If a girl decides to abort her fetus, who's going to press the charges of
murder against the doctor?
Technically only the girl or her partner can (if he's still around)
because
they conceived it.

The states files murder charges, you idiot.


Has that ever happened where a girl chose to abort?
I seriously doubt it, and there's almost no chance it ever can.

In article . com,
says...

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:15:36 -0500, "W.T.S." wrote:

The difference is pro-choice tells the truth. The pro-lie side, well
lies constantly.
Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
supply if nothing else.

Abortion in America is not about population control. It is about
convenience.

So what is the problem? Convenience, population control, the day of the
week. Any reason for an abortion is a good reason. Pro-liars should be
retroactively aborted for the sake of having a decent, normal society.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!

In article ,
says...

"Spender" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:15:36 -0500, "W.T.S." wrote:

The difference is pro-choice tells the truth. The pro-lie side, well
lies constantly.
Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
supply if nothing else.

Abortion in America is not about population control.

Essentially true, though population is one of the things that needs to be
considered.
We can't keep growing the population forever.
The problem is the religious right refuses to consider anything beyond 'life
is precious' or life is sacred', i.e. they live with blinders on and their
heads in the sand.

It is about convenience.

Convenience is a word associated with TV remote controls and corner shops.
It is not appropriate to use it for important life decisions such as raising
a child.
Raising a child is very serious. It requires 1/ a married couple, 2/ a lot
of money and 3/ a huge commitment. And that's just for starters.

True. And pro-liars will fight tooth and nail to prevent one cent being
spent on a child after birth, not even for one square inch of additional
school space or one cent for health care, not a penny for unemployment
or welfare. But, they'll spend a fortune on new prisons. Strange,
isn't it?
Baby, bad. Abortions, wonderful!
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!

Groan. It's been almost ten years since I posted in talk.origins, where
Peter Nyikos was a trenchant egomaniac PITA denier of evolution. Judging
from this post, he hasn't changed a bit. Damn, I had hoped that by now he
would have passed into the afterlife so God could explain to him that
Intelligent Design is junk science. Of all the newsgroups in all the world,
he had to be cross-posted to one of mine.

(Mea culpa for the personal whine.)


"pnyikos" wrote in message
...
It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fbac2ff587e2f6

I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!

Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.


On Sep 3, 5:18 am, Spender wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"

wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message


Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.

You must be a religious folk or something.
Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
That's the accepted definition.

The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
necessarily born.

I don't like to get hung up on semantics, but I am curious to know
what your authority for this is.

I know you like your definition better because it allows
you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.

Semantics aside, it is a fact that the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act (BAIPA) is meant to make the killing of a baby that has
survived an abortion attempt murder.

The trouble is that the Act only applies to killing on Federal
jurisdictions. [These include Indian resevations, and the only
example of it ever being used to prosecute that I heard of involved an
American Indian.]

Some states have passed such laws, including Illinois, but that only
happened after Obama was kicked upstairs :-)
to the US Senate. While he was an Illinois legislator, he killed a
bill that was congruent to the BAIPA, and later lied that it did not
have the same language as BAIPA, and after his lie was exposed, his
campaign put out another lie as to his reasons.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.


Peter Nyikos