| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
James!
I didn't read carefully. You were replying to Robert Z. whose lines end
in an =
I also received off list from a third person:
"I notice that one or two of my posts to PHYS-L have lines ending in =.
Others don't. I have not seen this in any other list server. I use
Outlook Express. It would be a major hassel to change because of my
filing system. What can I do to avoid the =s?"
We've discussed this previously w/o my remembering a resolution.
bc evidently has difficulty reading.
p.s. women not permitted an abortion endure mandatory motherhood.
The term(s) they (refer below) redefine are e.g. unborn child for fetus,
killing a baby for aborting a fetus, etc. This is a technique George
lakoff discusses in the context of the strict father model (metaphor),
the basis of his book "Moral Politics".
James E Mackey wrote:
I have no idea what "s's" you are talking about. You certainly have a
right to your opinion and to disagree with mine,. Was it Twain who said,
"I disagree with what you said, but I will defend your right to say
it."?. It seems that morality of some type is always superimposed on a
society. Also I do not understand what ""pro mandatory motherhoodites"
means...forcing someone to become a mother? And what terms are these
"mandatory motherhoodites" redefining?
James Mackey
Bernard Cleyet wrote:
It's difficult enuff reading something w/ which I so much disagree w/o
having to mentally elide the ='s. Please repost w/o the ='s
Thanks.
bc, who attempts to never use Göbbels talk.
BTW societies w/ very high infant mortality do not treat neonates as
"people". They don't get funerals, etc. When the neonate grows into a
baby, i.e. several months old, then it gets "person hood". Perhaps this
is to reduce the attachment that will so often result in loss.
Therefore, I think the reason pro mandatory motherhoodites redefine
terms (words) is to take advantage of attachment, thereby, using one of
the stronger human emotions to emotionally blackmail people to accept
their morality. Remember, an acorn is not an unborn oak.
James E Mackey wrote:
A few comments on Bob's Humanist human rights statement.
James Mackey
Robert B Zannelli wrote:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D==3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
No. Humanists see Human rights in broader terms. The right of a fetu=s {read BABY - liv ing being )doesn't trump the rights of a women to =
have autonomy over her body (read KILL THE LIVING BABY ). But it's p=
ure hypocrisy for most of the so called pro life crowd who can be fou=
nd warmly supporting war (Do ALL the pro life crowd warmly support t=
he war??), the death penalty ( ditto?) as well as honoring the right=
of a stem cells over those of Human beings suffering from terrible d=
iseases and disabilities ( Actually I and many others that I know sup=
port such research with proper ethical and moral controls). Their rea=
l motivation is opposition to women's rights (I guess since I oppose =
birth control abortions, I must also be opposed to women's right, eve=
n if I don't think that I am). Also they can be generally found supp=
orting politicians who reject the idea that poor children have a righ=
t to health care. The United States has one of the highest child mort=
ality rates among wealthy western countries because of this.(I'm not =
sure what this statement has to do with the above, other than an atte=
mpt to paint with a VERY broad brush anyone who holds a different vie=
w?)
Bob Zannelli
=20