A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Off Topic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old August 16th 19, 02:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default Off Topic

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think we need to accept that a child in the womb deserves

more
consideration than a tumor which must be removed.


Does it? A tumor can only destroy one person's life.
Ads
  #172  
Old August 16th 19, 08:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Off Topic

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 11:33:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 7:41:54 AM UTC-4, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.08.2019 um 18:21 schrieb Tom Kunich:
You mean the laws guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout
the first trimester? Those laws? Hey, even sharia law allows
abortion in the case of incest and
rape.https://qz.com/1628427/saudi-arabias...than-alabamas/
Wouldn't you Ayatollah Tom?

Jay, all you are doing is claiming that you maintain your morals and
ethics simply by redefining when life starts.

By *Defining* when life starts. Re-defining would imply that there is a
globally accepted definition, which there isn't.

IIRC, traditional Jewish law defines life to start at birth.
IIRC, some Christian churches in Medieval times defined life to start at
Christening, so that killing an infidel did not count as murder.
You seem to define life to start at implantation.
The German law ascribes some (but not all) human rights to a fertilized
egg, which makes many fertilization treatments difficult, e.g. PID is
illegal.


Yes, it's complicated; and people need to accept the fact that these issues are
very complicated. That applies to those who say "the legal definition settles
it" as well as to those who say "what my religion says settles it."

I've long been struck by the attitude of pregnant women I've known. Never
once did I hear a woman refer to her "fetus." It was always "the baby." I
know a young man who posted the first sonogram of his child on the refrigerator
and called it their first "baby picture." Women talk about their "baby bumps"
and say "I felt the baby kick." I've known women musicians who deliberately
sang to "the baby" from the moment they knew they were pregnant.

Granted, I've known very few women who were pregnant not from choice. Perhaps
that's because I hang out with people with higher senses of personal
responsibility. But given the attitudes I've described above, whatever one's
personal beliefs, I think we need to accept that a child in the womb deserves
more consideration than a tumor which must be removed.


Or you don't hang out with the less fortunate. Working ambulance on the eastside San Jose, I saw so many dead fetuses that it would make your head spin -- typically second trimester or later since earlier miscarriages probably got flushed or didn't involve ambulance transport. When everything didn't come out all at once, the drill was to cut the cord, wrap up the fetus and wait for the placenta, which usual got delivered on the way to the hospital. Placentas are surprisingly hot. Everything went to pathology to make sure nothing was left behind. Many times the mothers were very young and unemotional and incredibly uneducated about their own bodies. Some didn't know they were pregnant because they were so young that they didn't have regular periods. Those girls were by definition rape victims. There's a whole other world out there that is not your pleasant village in Ohio filled with middle class parents admiring ultrasounds. Your concepts of personal responsibility require a level of physical, emotional and intellectual capacity that many of these girls simply lacked. Many were kids and certainly not capable of raising kids.

-- Jay Beattie.


While you were working this ambulance did they tell you that some 168 out of 200 auto-abort up to the time of delivery? That you weren't seeing people getting back alley abortions but that this is a totally natural process? That poor would be parents simply didn't know what to do?

Only 31% of ALL pregnancies last to the full 9 months. This is why hospitals are equipped to handle very young babies.

Remember, I was informed of all of this working on means to DETECT failures before they occurred.
  #173  
Old August 16th 19, 08:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Off Topic

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 6:25:58 PM UTC-7, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think we need to accept that a child in the womb deserves

more
consideration than a tumor which must be removed.


Does it? A tumor can only destroy one person's life.


Destroy? You have absolutely NO IDEA what it feels like to cross the line where you can no longer have children of your own. Knowing that everything that is you will come to a complete and abrupt end some day. While I have step children and I love them it is not the same. The father that didn't have 2 minutes for his daughters over their entire childhoods gets all of the attention when he arrives for a birthday or holiday. The man who begrudged paying a pittance in child support while I was paying all of the bills is still the most important male figure. He even begrudged co-signing on his son's college loan that the son repaid himself in full. The son has a degree in Electronics Engineering as I had and is not the general manager of an aviation company in San Diego. He might say "Hi" in passing.

Jay has everything and he doesn't realize what he is taking from others by some twisted logic.
  #174  
Old August 17th 19, 01:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Off Topic

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 12:30:49 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 6:25:58 PM UTC-7, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think we need to accept that a child in the womb deserves

more
consideration than a tumor which must be removed.


Does it? A tumor can only destroy one person's life.


Destroy? You have absolutely NO IDEA what it feels like to cross the line where you can no longer have children of your own. Knowing that everything that is you will come to a complete and abrupt end some day. While I have step children and I love them it is not the same. The father that didn't have 2 minutes for his daughters over their entire childhoods gets all of the attention when he arrives for a birthday or holiday. The man who begrudged paying a pittance in child support while I was paying all of the bills is still the most important male figure. He even begrudged co-signing on his son's college loan that the son repaid himself in full. The son has a degree in Electronics Engineering as I had and is not the general manager of an aviation company in San Diego. He might say "Hi" in passing.

Jay has everything and he doesn't realize what he is taking from others by some twisted logic.


Well, I don't have GPS or a power meter, so I don't have everything, and how am I taking things from others by twisted logic? I let others make their own choices. I'm not dictating anyone's choice when it comes to having kids or not. That's personal -- like religion or pizza toppings.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #175  
Old August 18th 19, 10:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Off Topic

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:11:40 PM UTC+2, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Well, I see you have no children of your own. There's probably a good
reason for that.


One reason is that it's a terrible idea that's in everybody's worst interest (no matter which USAian does it).

Another reason is that having kids takes away your correct reason and perspective about the world around you, replacing it with what amounts to a deranged self-interest of glandular origin. No thanks.



Hmm, a bit extreme but I can understand what you saying. People who choose not to have children often get accused of being selfish. After asking people who have children why they have children you often get a vague answer (it is natural..) or an answer that can be classified as selfish. Weird.

Lou
  #176  
Old August 18th 19, 02:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Off Topic

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:11:40 PM UTC+2, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Well, I see you have no children of your own. There's probably a good
reason for that.


One reason is that it's a terrible idea that's in everybody's worst interest (no matter which USAian does it).

Another reason is that having kids takes away your correct reason and perspective about the world around you, replacing it with what amounts to a deranged self-interest of glandular origin. No thanks.



Hmm, a bit extreme but I can understand what you saying. People who choose not to have children often get accused of being selfish. After asking people who have children why they have children you often get a vague answer (it is natural..) or an answer that can be classified as selfish. Weird.

Lou


If you don't mind my asking, what is your age?
  #177  
Old August 18th 19, 06:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Off Topic

Op zondag 18 augustus 2019 15:48:17 UTC+2 schreef Tom Kunich:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:18:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:11:40 PM UTC+2, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Well, I see you have no children of your own. There's probably a good
reason for that.

One reason is that it's a terrible idea that's in everybody's worst interest (no matter which USAian does it).

Another reason is that having kids takes away your correct reason and perspective about the world around you, replacing it with what amounts to a deranged self-interest of glandular origin. No thanks.



Hmm, a bit extreme but I can understand what you saying. People who choose not to have children often get accused of being selfish. After asking people who have children why they have children you often get a vague answer (it is natural..) or an answer that can be classified as selfish. Weird.

Lou


If you don't mind my asking, what is your age?


62
  #178  
Old August 18th 19, 08:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Off Topic

Well, you may hopefully be one of those who do not see a future closing in and an end to the lou h. party line. But most people as they get older get their greatest joys from their children - even those with whom they do not get along with. It is the carrying on of the blood line and it is built into the psyche of most people. If you consider yourself as having positive points the end of your own custom DNA is rather sad.

Abortion is something that should not be left to a woman to decide. Most especially in places like Planned Parenthood where they know EXACTLY the buttons to push to make women throw away a life. What is especially disgusting is that on a couple of occasions people that WOEK for Planned Parenthood tried to blow the whistle only to have the government often through the offices of courts, order their silence.

Consider - pregnant women have very stormy mental conditions because of rather large hormonal swings. Furthermore the adoption process has been taken over by something that I find difficult to understand. They will take children away from parents for them leaving children in a parked car yet they will not allow my daughter to adopt babies apparently because she and her husband are religious.

I do not remember where you're posting from but the Democrats in this country have been working very hard to turn it into a socialist government. They will not be successful and in the end it may very well prove fatal for most of the Democrats involved in that but this is what all of the problems stem from.
  #179  
Old August 19th 19, 12:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 02:18:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 9:11:40 PM UTC+2, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Well, I see you have no children of your own. There's probably a good
reason for that.


One reason is that it's a terrible idea that's in everybody's worst interest (no matter which USAian does it).

Another reason is that having kids takes away your correct reason and perspective about the world around you, replacing it with what amounts to a deranged self-interest of glandular origin. No thanks.



Hmm, a bit extreme but I can understand what you saying. People who choose not to have children often get accused of being selfish. After asking people who have children why they have children you often get a vague answer (it is natural..) or an answer that can be classified as selfish. Weird.

Lou


Is this Modern America Thinking? I ask as when I was growing up some
people had kids and some didn't. Some people had a lot of kids and
some only had a few.A few even had kids before they got married, and
some didn't get married at all.

I don't remember any disparaging remarks. My parent's had two kids,
some cousin's had a tribe of 12. I don't remember any finger pointing
or envy.

But, of course things were different back than. No food stamps, no aid
to unwed mothers, no collage loans, in essence, "no workie, no eatie",
and strange as it may seem people seemed to get by.

Of course, if you were making plans and saving money when your kid was
maybe 7 or 8 years old to pay for his collage you probably don't have
all that time to worry about the neighbor's and why they had 2 kids
instead of the 3 that you had.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #180  
Old August 19th 19, 12:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 12:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Well, you may hopefully be one of those who do not see a future closing in and an end to the lou h. party line. But most people as they get older get their greatest joys from their children - even those with whom they do not get along with. It is the carrying on of the blood line and it is built into the psyche of most people. If you consider yourself as having positive points the end of your own custom DNA is rather sad.

Abortion is something that should not be left to a woman to decide.


By God Tom! You are right!

And equally bicycle rights should not be decided by bicyclists.
No Sir! From now on bicycle rules must be made only by non bicyclists!
After all who might know better that what bicyclists require than
those truck and car drivers.
--

Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Off topic for UK, on topic for another good laugh at cyclists Mr Pounder Esquire UK 1 May 22nd 16 09:25 PM
Three Greatest Inventions (2/3 On Topic, 1/3 Off Topic) Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman General 21 December 19th 06 05:40 AM
Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic spindrift UK 50 August 7th 06 06:25 AM
Sort of on topic/off topic: Rising toll of kids hurt on roads wafflycat UK 4 March 24th 06 06:28 PM
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind Thomas Wentworth General 7 November 8th 05 10:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.