ABORTION , and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !!
Robert McElwaine
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
are also against artificial birth control, which would
PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
(Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore, if an aborted
fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
fetus is biologically terminated IN-side the womb, then that
abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery
but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called an
"AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist Gordon-
Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar
Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around people. The
Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed a way to locate
the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA becomes
weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering drugs,
alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes invade and
cause insanity, possession, multiple personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this world
KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be aborted before
birth or terminated immediately after birth, and will simply
STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the United
States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and prevent
it from being violated by others, NOT to stifle it in the
name of power, control, exploitation, ORTHODOX RELIGION, or
the money-god. Any man-made law which fails that test is
automatically and immediately UN-Constitutional, null and
void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to control
her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for ALL
People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before birth, the
world could rapidly become a decent place to live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 *BEST*
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want to
create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE their self-
righteous religious values against the rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
Edgar A Pearlstein
Robert McElwaine (re...@briefcase.com) wrote: Some sense about the Bible,
and a lot of nonsense about "auras".
What the Bible Says About Abortion
Edgar Pearlstein
The Bible doesn't explicitly mention abortion; so we have to be
indirect, and see what it says about some of the arguments used in the
dispute. Opponents of abortion say that: (a) Human life, for moral
purposes, begins at conception. (Biological or legal definitions are not
relevant here.) (b) Human life is sacred.
The idea that human life begins at conception just isn't supported
in the Bible, and sacredness of human life is contradicted all over. So
people who consider abortion to be murder might be shocked to learn that
they are thereby in disagreement with the Bible!
In several places the Bible defines life as breathing, and I found
no place where it defines life otherwise. For example, Genesis 2:7,
which also defines the entrance of the soul: "and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul". Other
references are Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26. Since a
fetus doesn't breathe, it isn't life and doesn't have a soul, according
to biblical definition.
Additional evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a
human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is
only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband (I don't know what is to
be done if she doesn't have a husband!), while for an injury to a born
person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25,
Leviticus 24:17-21). Even an infant under the age of one month is
considered to be worth a lot less than an adult (Leviticus 27:1-8,
Numbers 3:15,28,34,39,40,43). Also, the god once punished David by
killing his newborn son (II Samuel 12:14-19); so apparently the
right-to-life of the infant was not important.
The sanctity of life, born or "unborn", is denied in many places.
Two examples: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling...." (I Samuel 15:3), "they shall fall by the sword: their
infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be
ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)
A lot of the discussion on abortion has to do with "illegitimate"
pregnancies. An adulterous woman is to be killed (Lev.20:10); with no
mention of an exception if she is pregnant. And "A bastard shall not
enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth
generation.." (Deut. 23:2). So according to the Bible neither the fetus
nor the born child is worthy of much consideration.
Note also that Jesus talked of being "born again". He didn't say
"conceived again".
Some quotes that anti-abortion people use out of context:
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.." (Jeremiah 1:5)
This is supposed to show that the "soul" starts at conception. But
reading the entire chapter, including the remainder of the
sentence quoted, it's clear that the god is talking specifically to
Jeremiah, not to the entire human race, as he is telling him that he
was born to be a prophet.
"...he hath blessed thy children within thee." (Psalms 147:13).
Again, this is supposed to mean that "human life" begins before birth;
i.e. that a fetus is the same as a child. But read the rest of the
psalm, and see that "thee" refers to the city of Jerusalem, not
pregnant women!
Jesus Christ
us:
> What the Bible Says About Abortion
> Edgar Pearlstein
>
> The Bible doesn't explicitly mention abortion; so we have to be
> indirect, and see what it says about some of the arguments used in the
> dispute. Opponents of abortion say that: (a) Human life, for moral
> purposes, begins at conception. (Biological or legal definitions are not
> relevant here.) (b) Human life is sacred.
> The idea that human life begins at conception just isn't supported
> in the Bible, and sacredness of human life is contradicted all over. So
> people who consider abortion to be murder might be shocked to learn that
> they are thereby in disagreement with the Bible!
[snip]
Good article, and completely true. Saved.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
\| Pastor Frank
M. Clark
CaptainKIRKusa1
==> VISIT MY STORE: http://www.cafepress.com/nojesus <==
Olrik
Don't you have a spaceship to run or something?
Now scoot.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
Jeremy Martin
> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
> operate it.
So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
customer support, and warranty?
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley
Darren Osland
"Edgar A Pearlstein" <epea...@unlserve.unl.edu> wrote in message
news:af0j6e$p6h$1...@unlnews.unl.edu...
>
> Robert McElwaine (re...@briefcase.com) wrote: Some sense about the Bible,
> and a lot of nonsense about "auras".
>
>
> What the Bible Says About Abortion
> Edgar Pearlstein
>
> The Bible doesn't explicitly mention abortion; so we have to be
> indirect, and see what it says about some of the arguments used in the
> dispute. Opponents of abortion say that: (a) Human life, for moral
> purposes, begins at conception. (Biological or legal definitions are not
> relevant here.) (b) Human life is sacred.
> The idea that human life begins at conception just isn't supported
> in the Bible, and sacredness of human life is contradicted all over. So
> people who consider abortion to be murder might be shocked to learn that
> they are thereby in disagreement with the Bible!
> In several places the Bible defines life as breathing, and I found
> no place where it defines life otherwise. For example, Genesis 2:7,
> which also defines the entrance of the soul: "and breathed into his
> nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul". Other
> references are Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26. Since a
> fetus doesn't breathe, it isn't life and doesn't have a soul, according
> to biblical definition.
What about Jeremiah 1? It speaks about God knowing him BEFORE conception
even takes place?
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you
apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"
And what about Psalm 139? Where it talks about God knowing the child while
inside the womb?
"...you knit me together in my mothers womb..."
"...my frame was not hidden from you in the secret place..."
"...your eyes saw my unformed body..."
The Omniscient Blade
"Robert McElwaine" <re...@briefcase.com> wrote in message
news:540b9a94.02062...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
Why does this keep getting started? I'm sick of debunking it. The bible
can't say ANYTHING about abortion in the way we refer to it nor can it say
ANYTHING about how, why or when human life starts because the people who
wrote it had only the most BASIC idea of how human reproduction works.
Something along the lines of after sex the woman might have a baby 9 months
later that is something to do with the man who had sex with her.
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Why do people insist on trying to compare me to others? Don't they realise
no one can compare to me?
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
Mark K. Bilbo
> [alt.atheism] Robert McElwaine (re...@briefcase.com):
>
>> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
>> operate it.
>
> So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
> customer support, and warranty?
What OS does the fetus come with?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
[Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"]
Mark K. Bilbo
> The Bible doesn't explicitly mention abortion; so we have to...
...make shit up.
Jeremy Martin
>>> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
>>> operate it.
>>
>> So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
>> customer support, and warranty?
>
> What OS does the fetus come with?
Windows or Linux. But, if you would like, you could get a special colored
fetus and run MacOS 10.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"With the job market shrinking, unemployment rising, and more movies about
abusive husbands appearing on the Lifetime Network, the United States is
quickly become a big wad of land wedged between Mexico and Canada and two
oceans that I can't remember offhand. Which it was before, only now there
are a lot more unemployed people living in it."
- Lowtax, Something Awful
Puck Greenman
>On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:16:34 -0700, Jeremy Martin wrote:
>
>> [alt.atheism] Robert McElwaine (re...@briefcase.com):
>>
>>> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
>>> operate it.
>>
>> So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
>> customer support, and warranty?
>
>What OS does the fetus come with?
BIOS only.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
ICQ 15096558
Mark K. Bilbo
> [alt.atheism] Mark K. Bilbo (for...@bout.it):
>
>>>> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
>>>> operate it.
>>>
>>> So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
>>> customer support, and warranty?
>>
>> What OS does the fetus come with?
>
> Windows or Linux. But, if you would like, you could get a special colored
> fetus and run MacOS 10.
Special colored fetus and OS X...
Nope, nope, nope. Not going there.
Bad fingers! No typing!
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:14:42 -0700, "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:16:34 -0700, Jeremy Martin wrote:
>>
>>> [alt.atheism] Robert McElwaine (re...@briefcase.com):
>>>
>>>> A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery but NO-one to
>>>> operate it.
>>>
>>> So.. we should sell fetuses, preferably with a good payment plan,
>>> customer support, and warranty?
>>
>>What OS does the fetus come with?
>
>
> BIOS only.
But MS is working on it...
Jesus Christ
> > What about Jeremiah 1? It speaks about God knowing him BEFORE
> > conception even takes place?
Correction: It speaks about God knowing HIM before conception. The
emphasis is the key here.
> > "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I
> > set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"
> >
> > And what about Psalm 139? Where it talks about God knowing the child
> > while inside the womb?
> >
> > "...you knit me together in my mothers womb..."
> > "...my frame was not hidden from you in the secret place..."
> > "...your eyes saw my unformed body..."
So? God assembles fetuses. Says nothing about them being alive.
> Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good . . .
It's funny how True Christians(tm) disagree with Catholics (which are evil
and satanic) all the time, yet their views on abortion (which is evil and
satanic) mirror each other.
Darren Osland
"Colin Day" <coli...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3D160941...@telocity.com...
> Darren Osland wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What about Jeremiah 1? It speaks about God knowing him BEFORE conception
> > even takes place?
> >
> > "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set
you
> > apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"
> >
> > And what about Psalm 139? Where it talks about God knowing the child
while
> > inside the womb?
> >
> > "...you knit me together in my mothers womb..."
> > "...my frame was not hidden from you in the secret place..."
> > "...your eyes saw my unformed body..."
>
No, that;s wrong. During sex millions of sperm are produced, yet when
fertilisation occurs it is mostly with only one sperm, the other die. So, i
don't believe sperm are sacred, but i do believe that our soul inhabits our
body from the moment of conception. These verses appear to be consistent
with that belief.
Darren Osland
> Darren Osland wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good . . .
> >
> > No, that;s wrong. During sex millions of sperm are produced, yet when
> > fertilisation occurs it is mostly with only one sperm, the other die.
So, i
> > don't believe sperm are sacred, but i do believe that our soul inhabits
our
> > body from the moment of conception. These verses appear to be consistent
> > with that belief.
>
> allowed to have abortions because you don't feel that they should?
I never said anything about women not being allowed to have abortions. I'm
saying that they should be ALLOWED to, i'm just saying that i think God's
Word is pretty clear that they SHOULDN'T have them. I don't want to restrict
any person's rights, i just want to let people know what God thinks of what
they are doing. It seems clear from His Word that from the moment of
conception, and all through gestation, He knows us, and that we have a soul,
and the killing of a baby is murder of an innocent. It's not murder under
common law, but i believe it to be murder under God's Law.
Jesus Christ
us:
I wish all pro-lifers had the same opinion. "I dislike abortion, so I
won't get one".
Colin Day
>
> "Colin Day" <coli...@telocity.com> wrote in message
> news:3D17289B...@telocity.com...
> > Darren Osland wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good . . .
> > >
> > > No, that;s wrong. During sex millions of sperm are produced, yet when
> > > fertilisation occurs it is mostly with only one sperm, the other die.
> So, i
> > > don't believe sperm are sacred, but i do believe that our soul inhabits
> our
> > > body from the moment of conception. These verses appear to be consistent
> > > with that belief.
> >
> > And what justification do have for your belief? Or should women not be
> > allowed to have abortions because you don't feel that they should?
>
> I never said anything about women not being allowed to have abortions. I'm
> saying that they should be ALLOWED to, i'm just saying that i think God's
> Word is pretty clear that they SHOULDN'T have them. I don't want to restrict
So you believe that mythology is a proper basis for ethics?
> any person's rights, i just want to let people know what God thinks of what
> they are doing. It seems clear from His Word that from the moment of
And if the Bible is nothing but a human construct?
> conception, and all through gestation, He knows us, and that we have a soul,
> and the killing of a baby is murder of an innocent. It's not murder under
> common law, but i believe it to be murder under God's Law.
If you can believe that there is a god, you can believe anything.
Colin Day
Darren Osland
"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
news:af7gb1$3bj$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> Verily, verily, "Darren Osland" <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> sayeth unto
> us:
>
> >
> > "Colin Day" <coli...@telocity.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D17289B...@telocity.com...
> > > Darren Osland wrote:
>
> > > And what justification do have for your belief? Or should women not
> > > be allowed to have abortions because you don't feel that they
> > > should?
> >
> > I never said anything about women not being allowed to have abortions.
> > I'm saying that they should be ALLOWED to, i'm just saying that i
> > think God's Word is pretty clear that they SHOULDN'T have them. I
> > don't want to restrict any person's rights, i just want to let people
> > know what God thinks of what they are doing. It seems clear from His
> > Word that from the moment of conception, and all through gestation, He
> > knows us, and that we have a soul, and the killing of a baby is murder
> > of an innocent. It's not murder under common law, but i believe it to
> > be murder under God's Law.
>
> I wish all pro-lifers had the same opinion. "I dislike abortion, so I
> won't get one".
Well, about it....when the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been
caught in adultery, they asked Jesus if she should be put to death, as the
Mosaic Law stated. But did Jesus tell them to put her to death? NO! He just
said to the woman, "go and sin no more". Christian pro-life advocates should
take the same attitude. "I think abortion is wrong, but it's your choice".
Jesus Christ
I am in complete agreement.
Darren Osland
"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
I'm glad we can agree on at least one thing! See, not all fundies are morons
lol :)
Ha, and for all those that call me a fundie, why don't you have a go at the
guy who's ripping at me for enjoying Christian "rock" (and seems upset that
i'm an instigator of loud rhythmic syncopation of the devil, LOL)
M. Clark
> >
>
> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
>
> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
> fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
> statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
> at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
Thank you for posting.
The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
to clearly indicate when life begins. Consider, for example, that in
Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
Jesus was born. Also consider that Luke 1:41 shows that John the
Baptist was referred to as a _baby_ even though he was still in his
mother's womb.
Also consider that Psalm 51:5 (NIV) shows that we start sinning from the
moment we are conceived. And if we are accountable for sin in God's
eyes from the moment we are conceived then God must recognize us as a
person from the moment we are conceived.
Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
life.
M. Clark
> are also against artificial birth control, which would
> PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
> apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
> which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
> ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
> and man became a living Soul.".
>
[snip]
Ray Fischer
>Robert McElwaine <re...@briefcase.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
>>
>> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
>> a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
>> fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
>> statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
>> at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
>
>Thank you for posting.
>
>The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
>to clearly indicate when life begins.
It's only a problem for pro-liars.
> Consider, for example, that in
>Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
>Jesus was born.
And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
--
Ray Fischer Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
rfis...@sonic.net Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about
their business as if nothing had happened. -- Churchill
Jesus Christ
> Robert McElwaine <re...@briefcase.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
> >
> > The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> > a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
> > fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
> > statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
> > at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
>
> Thank you for posting.
>
> The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
> to clearly indicate when life begins. Consider, for example, that in
> Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
> Jesus was born.
And I can point at a picture of my mother from before I was conceived and
say "that's my mother".
> Also consider that Luke 1:41 shows that John the
> Baptist was referred to as a _baby_ even though he was still in his
> mother's womb.
That describes John's quickening. Elisabeth was about 6 months pregnant at
the time, and, at 6 months, the cerebral cortex has formed and the foetus
can "think". 99% of abortions are performed before this, and if any are
performed after it is out of safety for the mother.
> Also consider that Psalm 51:5 (NIV) shows that we start sinning from the
> moment we are conceived. And if we are accountable for sin in God's
> eyes from the moment we are conceived then God must recognize us as a
> person from the moment we are conceived.
Then you should have no problem with all these godless sinners dying and
burning in hell then.
> Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
> life.
Nah. In the words of your Lord and Saviour Paul, I've put away childish
things.
Darren Osland
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:afcvh9$2uo$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >Robert McElwaine <re...@briefcase.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
> >>
> >> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> >> a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
> >> fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
> >> statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
> >> at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
> >
> >Thank you for posting.
> >
> >The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
> >to clearly indicate when life begins.
>
> It's only a problem for pro-liars.
Pro-liars? Show me evidence of a lie i have told!
> > Consider, for example, that in
> >Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
> >Jesus was born.
>
> And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
> entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
Again, you are being ignorant here. Adam did not go through the normal
"fertilisation to gestation to birth" process which we all go through. God
formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before conception,
and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb. I
would think that this is clearly a sign that killing a baby in the womb is
wrong.
> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this? Where is this mentioned in
the bible?
And no-one forces a woman give birth.....no more than she was forced to have
sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either, so don't
go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new thread).
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
>> >to clearly indicate when life begins.
>>
>> It's only a problem for pro-liars.
>
>Pro-liars? Show me evidence of a lie i have told!
>
>> > Consider, for example, that in
>> >Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
>> >Jesus was born.
>>
>> And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
>> entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
>
>Again, you are being ignorant here. Adam did not go through the normal
>"fertilisation to gestation to birth" process which we all go through.
You weren't around at the time, the Bible does say how God made Adam,
and you're spewing bullshit and pretending that it's true.
Hence, "pro-liar".
> God
>formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before conception,
>and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb. I
>would think that this is clearly a sign that killing a baby in the womb is
>wrong.
As is killing sperm and egg.
>> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
>> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
>
>Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this?
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey,
or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodis 20:17
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39
>And no-one forces a woman give birth....
That's a lie.
>..no more than she was forced to have
>sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either, so don't
>go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new thread).
Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
Are you an idiot?
M. Clark
> Verily, verily, idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) sayeth unto us:
>
> > Robert McElwaine <re...@briefcase.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
> > >
> > > The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> > > a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
> > > fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
> > > statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
> > > at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
> >
> > Thank you for posting.
> >
> > The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
> > to clearly indicate when life begins. Consider, for example, that in
> > Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
> > Jesus was born.
>
> And I can point at a picture of my mother from before I was conceived and
> say "that's my mother".
I have no doubt that you can.
>
> > Also consider that Luke 1:41 shows that John the
> > Baptist was referred to as a _baby_ even though he was still in his
> > mother's womb.
>
> That describes John's quickening. Elisabeth was about 6 months pregnant at
> the time, and, at 6 months, the cerebral cortex has formed and the foetus
> can "think". 99% of abortions are performed before this, and if any are
> performed after it is out of safety for the mother.
You snipped the part about Mary being the mother of Jesus at the start
of Mary's pregnancy without noting that.
>
> > Also consider that Psalm 51:5 (NIV) shows that we start sinning from the
> > moment we are conceived. And if we are accountable for sin in God's
> > eyes from the moment we are conceived then God must recognize us as a
> > person from the moment we are conceived.
>
> Then you should have no problem with all these godless sinners dying and
> burning in hell then.
But God is a just God and His wisdom is infinite so these "godless
sinners" may be better off than people who know better anyway.
M. Clark
M. Clark
> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >Robert McElwaine <re...@briefcase.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
> >>
> >> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> >> a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
> >> fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
> >> statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
> >> at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
> >
> >Thank you for posting.
> >
> >The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
> >to clearly indicate when life begins.
>
> It's only a problem for pro-liars.
Hello again Mr. Fischer.
>
> > Consider, for example, that in
> >Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
> >Jesus was born.
>
> And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
> entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
>
> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
But being pro-"choice" means that you are saying that giving birth MUST
be a viable option for a woman or you really aren't giving women a
choice. As I've said before, all the pro-"choice" movement evidently
wants to give women is the _illusion_ of choice.
M. Clark
Ray Fischer
Of course. And?
> As I've said before, all the pro-"choice" movement evidently
>wants to give women is the _illusion_ of choice.
A typical ploy of pro-liars, but hardly credible.
Darren Osland
> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
> >> >to clearly indicate when life begins.
> >>
> >> It's only a problem for pro-liars.
> >
> >Pro-liars? Show me evidence of a lie i have told!
> >
> >> > Consider, for example, that in
> >> >Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
> >> >Jesus was born.
> >>
> >> And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
> >> entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
> >
> >Again, you are being ignorant here. Adam did not go through the normal
> >"fertilisation to gestation to birth" process which we all go through.
>
> You weren't around at the time, the Bible does say how God made Adam,
> and you're spewing bullshit and pretending that it's true.
>
> Hence, "pro-liar".
Pardon? Are we reading the same bible? Both KJV and NIV (the two most used
bibles in the world) both clearly state that Adam was the first human being,
and he was formed out of the dust by God. It is obvious that he was not born
through childbirth. Stop being so ridiculous. You cannot use scripture to
contradict scripture, because in doing so you make yourself a false prophet.
I have not lied here, and you are yet to show me any such lies.
> > God
> >formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before
conception,
> >and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb. I
> >would think that this is clearly a sign that killing a baby in the womb
> > is wrong.
>
> As is killing sperm and egg.
So, if killing sperm and egg is wrong, then that means that for a woman to
have her period is WRONG (because an egg dies), and for a couple to have sex
is WRONG (because of all the sperm that die as a result of sex). Do you see
how flaky your argument is? Sperm and egg are not separate human entities,
because they do not have the necessary genetic information as stand alone.
Therefore, until fertilisation, it doesn't matter what happens with them.
> >> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
> >> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
> >
> >Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this?
>
> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
> neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey,
> or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
> Exodis 20:17
>
> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
> you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> Matthew 5:39
This has nothing to do with abortion. Your horridly poor interpretation of
scripture is laughable. The word covet means to desire something that isn't
yours, and has nothing to do with abortion (don't try to draw any crooked
lines of reasoning, because they wont stand up). As for the words of Jesus,
again, it has nothing to do with abortion. It's about not seeking revenge
and not trying to punish others for their sin. If you want to find some REAL
scriptural references that give the ok to abortion, by all means try!
> >And no-one forces a woman give birth....
>
> That's a lie.
I could say with 99.99999% certainty that women in the western world at
least, do not give birth tied down with shackles.
> > ..no more than she was forced to have
> > sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either, so
> > don't go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new
thread).
>
> Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
> Are you an idiot?
An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consentual sex
that resulted in the pregnancy? Is that so hard for you to follow?!?!? I am
saying that after the so-called "sexual revolution", which could more aptly
be called the sexual DEvolution, woman are free to slut around as much as
they want, and then they cry foul if they get pregnant. Well, sorry ladies,
but if you have sex, a NATURAL consequence is pregnancy. Don't get surprised
about it, just realise that the pregnancy is a result of how you live! And i
have also said that no-one forces you to have the baby, just like no-one
forces you to have your so-called sexual freedom.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The problem is that pro-abortion advocates cannot afford for the Bible
>> >> >to clearly indicate when life begins.
>> >>
>> >> It's only a problem for pro-liars.
>> >
>> >Pro-liars? Show me evidence of a lie i have told!
>> >
>> >> > Consider, for example, that in
>> >> >Luke 1:43 Elizabeth referred to Mary as the MOTHER of her LORD BEFORE
>> >> >Jesus was born.
>> >>
>> >> And Jeremiah was known to God BEFORE CONCEPTION. And the soul of Adam
>> >> entered his body with the FIRST BREATH.
>> >
>> >Again, you are being ignorant here. Adam did not go through the normal
>> >"fertilisation to gestation to birth" process which we all go through.
>>
>> You weren't around at the time, the Bible does say how God made Adam,
>> and you're spewing bullshit and pretending that it's true.
>>
>> Hence, "pro-liar".
>
>Pardon? Are we reading the same bible? Both KJV and NIV (the two most used
>bibles in the world) both clearly state that Adam was the first human being,
>and he was formed out of the dust by God.
And is says not one word about hod God did so.
> It is obvious that he was not born
No it is not.
>> > God
>> >formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before
>conception,
>> >and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb. I
>> >would think that this is clearly a sign that killing a baby in the womb
>> > is wrong.
>>
>> As is killing sperm and egg.
>
>So, if killing sperm and egg is wrong, then that means that for a woman to
>have her period is WRONG (because an egg dies), and for a couple to have sex
>is WRONG (because of all the sperm that die as a result of sex).
That's right.
> Do you see
>how flaky your argument is?
Ah, but it's not my argument. It's yours.
> Sperm and egg are not separate human entities,
Yes they are.
>because they do not have the necessary genetic information as stand alone.
Says who?
>> >> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
>> >> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
>> >
>> >Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this?
>>
>> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
>> neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey,
>> or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
>> Exodis 20:17
>>
>> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
>> you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
>> Matthew 5:39
>
>This has nothing to do with abortion.
It has everything to do with forcing women to give birth.
> The word covet means to desire something that isn't
>yours,
Such as a woman's body.
>> >And no-one forces a woman give birth....
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>I could say with 99.99999% certainty that women in the western world at
>least, do not give birth tied down with shackles.
Your childish ploy doesn't work. Your claim is a lie.
>> > ..no more than she was forced to have
>> > sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either, so
>> > don't go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new
>thread).
>>
>> Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
>> Are you an idiot?
>
>An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
You _are_ an idiot.
David M
> >
>
> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
>
> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
> a question of WHEN human life begins.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly intelligible for two people to
agree on when human life begins but disagree on whether abortion is
permissible after that point. Many liberals, Peter Singer and Jonathan
Glover for instance, argue that a foetus is a living human being but
that it is still permissible to abort it. Of course, this also depends
on what you mean by "human life". If you're referring to the precise
definition "a member of the species Homo sapiens", deciding when a
living human being exists is easier than deciding when the foetus (or
infant) adopts properties that are considered "personal" and more
reflective of humanness - rationality, self-consciousness, moral
agency, etc.
The question of when human life begins is not as clear-cut as many
seem to think it is. Obviously, an embryo is a member of the species
Homo sapiens from the moment it becomes an individual - this can be
determined genetically. But the question is whether an embryo is
*living*, not merely whether it is a member of our species. After all,
a dead man is also a member of our species, despite the fact that he
is (tautologically) not living.
John Burgess in "A Matter of Life and Death" has outlined an
intelligent way of determining when human life begins, namely,
symmetry considerations. If death is the point at which we lose what
we essentially are, the same view of essence should govern "birth" or
"new life". The beginning of life should be the procurement of a
particular essence that is lost at death, so that our definitions of
life and death are in symmetry. It would be interesting to see anyone
argue against this thesis, for Burgess' argument seems the most
objective way of determining the beginning of life.
Burgess outlines three main candidates for death - total organic
breakdown, whole brain death, and cortical death, and discusses their
plausibility as well as which definition of life would symmetrically
follow from each. It is interesting to note that under this method,
human life most certainly does *not* begin at conception, but rather,
at some point later during pregnancy. Taking the example of total
organic breakdown, symmetry would place the beginning of life at
around 6 weeks where rudimentary circulatory activity takes place. The
cortical death view would place the beginning of life at (very
approximately) 25 weeks or so. Either way, we must note, the
anti-abortion view that life begins at conception seems bankrupt, at
least until a "pro-lifer" can defend throwing the symmetry criterion
out the window.
There is, however, recourse for the anti-abortionist. The
anti-abortionist may argue that what matters is not when human *life*
begins, but when some sort of potential for life in a human individual
begins. This view would need to be clarified and argued for, however,
and it seems quite a strange criterion for assigning a right to life.
Ron Nicholson
1f7be40f.02062...@posting.google.com, "David M"
<dav...@crapmail.com> wrote:
An interesting premise. Let's consider though that my body is almost
non-functioning and that we have the capacity to transplant the brain of one
individual to another body. Who would I be? Would I be a merger of two
individuals? Would I be Ron with a new body? Or would someone else just a
have a new/different functioning organ in there body?
How we define an individual is crucial to any argument, whether you find
this particular premise intelligent, or not.
June Gill
Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
woman is hurt.
But anti-choicers would like to force them to give birth.
>> That's a lie.
>
>I could say with 99.99999% certainty that women in the western world at
>least, do not give birth tied down with shackles.
Leg stirrups have gone out of fashion, have they?
>> > ..no more than she was forced to have
>> > sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either, so
>> > don't go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new
>thread).
>>
>> Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
>> Are you an idiot?
>
>An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
>forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consentual sex
>that resulted in the pregnancy? Is that so hard for you to follow?!?!? I am
>saying that after the so-called "sexual revolution", which could more aptly
>be called the sexual DEvolution, woman are free to slut around as much as
>they want, and then they cry foul if they get pregnant. Well, sorry ladies,
>but if you have sex, a NATURAL consequence is pregnancy. Don't get surprised
>about it, just realise that the pregnancy is a result of how you live! And i
>have also said that no-one forces you to have the baby, just like no-one
>forces you to have your so-called sexual freedom.
That's just lovely. Men have sexual freedom and if they're promiscuous
then they're 'Casanovas, ladies' men, Romeos' etc, much envied and
admired for their sexual prowess, but women who do the same are sluts.
How charitable of you. The good old double standard for morals. Well,
sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
abort, and there's nothing you can do about it. They have achieved
their freedom and they're not going to relinquish it to suit you or
anyone else. I predict that in years to come these arguments about
abortion will be regarded in the same way in which we now regard the
arguments about slavery at the time. The very idea that some people (in
this case half of the population) should not have bodily autonomy is
ludicrous in the extreme.
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
M. Clark
> In article <3d1d5e21$0$31823$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Darren
> Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
> >
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:affm3g$rjt$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> >> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> >> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >>
[snip]
de Adam,
> >> and you're spewing bullshit and pretending that it's true.
> >>
> >> Hence, "pro-liar".
> >
> >Pardon? Are we reading the same bible? Both KJV and NIV (the two most used
> >bibles in the world) both clearly state that Adam was the first human being,
> >and he was formed out of the dust by God. It is obvious that he was not born
> >through childbirth. Stop being so ridiculous. You cannot use scripture to
> >contradict scripture, because in doing so you make yourself a false prophet.
> >I have not lied here, and you are yet to show me any such lies.
>
> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
> woman is hurt.
Thank you for posting.
Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
is a life for a life.
M. Clark
>
> >> > God
> >> >formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before
> >conception,
> >> >and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb. I
[snip]
Ray Fischer
>June Gill <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
>> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
>> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
>> woman is hurt.
>
>Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
>specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
>for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
>is a life for a life.
If the woman dies then the one who killed her dies. If the fetus
dies, there is a fine. That's the punishement indicated by that
passage.
Darren Osland
So if it's wrong for women to have their period, and it's wrong for people
to have sex, then why are condoning abortion? Because without sex and
without the menstrual cycle of the female, pregnancy wouldn't happen anyway.
You have said that a woman having her period is wrong. Don't you see how
ridiculous what you're saying is? A woman cannot control having a period, it
is a natural occurence in the anatomy of a female!
> > Do you see
> >how flaky your argument is?
>
> Ah, but it's not my argument. It's yours.
>
> > Sperm and egg are not separate human entities,
>
> Yes they are.
Sperm and Egg are not separate human entities, because they do not have the
requisite genetic information to stand alone as humans. They sperm and egg
are male and female cells, and do not form to create a human until
fertilisation. Until that time they are not separate human entities from the
body.
> >because they do not have the necessary genetic information as stand
> >alone.
>
> Says who?
Did you not study biology in high school? Sperm and Egg only have half the
genetic information. Both one egg and one sperm are required to have the
necessary quota of genetic information to form a human life.
> >> >> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
> >> >> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this?
> >>
> >> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
> >> neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
donkey,
> >> or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
> >> Exodis 20:17
> >>
> >> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
> >> you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> >> Matthew 5:39
> >
> >This has nothing to do with abortion.
>
> It has everything to do with forcing women to give birth.
No woman is forced to give birth, any more than the woman was forced to have
sex in the first place.
> > The word covet means to desire something that isn't
> >yours,
>
> Such as a woman's body.
This has nothing to do with me coveting anything. I do not covet any
female's body.
> >> >And no-one forces a woman give birth....
> >>
> >> That's a lie.
> >
> >I could say with 99.99999% certainty that women in the western world at
> >least, do not give birth tied down with shackles.
>
> Your childish ploy doesn't work. Your claim is a lie.
Ah, so i'm lying by saying that 99.99999% of woman give birth of their own
free will in the western world? Are they all tied down with shackles? Where
in the above statement have i made an incorrect assertion?
> >> > ..no more than she was forced to have
> >> > sex in the first place! (we are not talking about rape here either,
so
> >> > don't go off on that tangent unless you want to start a totally new
> >thread).
> >>
> >> Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
> >> Are you an idiot?
> >
> >An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
>
> You _are_ an idiot.
Don't snip me like that. The original post was this....
An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consensual sex
that resulted in the pregnancy? Is that so hard for you to follow?!?!? I am
saying that after the so-called "sexual revolution", which could more aptly
be called the sexual DEvolution, woman are free to slut around as much as
they want, and then they cry foul if they get pregnant. Well, sorry ladies,
but if you have sex, a NATURAL consequence is pregnancy. Don't get surprised
about it, just realise that the pregnancy is a result of how you live! And i
have also said that no-one forces you to have the baby, just like no-one
forces you to have your so-called sexual freedom.
And as a result all you can come up with is a lame insult? Try actually
talking about the response, instead of just childishly playing games.
Darren Osland
"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> >An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
> >forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consentual sex
> >that resulted in the pregnancy? Is that so hard for you to follow?!?!? I
am
> >saying that after the so-called "sexual revolution", which could more
aptly
> >be called the sexual DEvolution, woman are free to slut around as much as
> >they want, and then they cry foul if they get pregnant. Well, sorry
ladies,
> >but if you have sex, a NATURAL consequence is pregnancy. Don't get
surprised
> >about it, just realise that the pregnancy is a result of how you live!
And i
> >have also said that no-one forces you to have the baby, just like no-one
> >forces you to have your so-called sexual freedom.
>
> That's just lovely. Men have sexual freedom and if they're promiscuous
> then they're 'Casanovas, ladies' men, Romeos' etc, much envied and
> admired for their sexual prowess, but women who do the same are sluts.
> How charitable of you. The good old double standard for morals.
I have no double standards. A discussion about abortion naturally focuses on
the female, since it is generally the female crying out about her right to
control her own body. I am just as in contempt for male sluts as i am for
females ones! Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
intimate between a commited couple.
> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
place?
> They have achieved their freedom and they're not going to relinquish
> it to suit you or anyone else.
Another thing that i find reprehensible is when people focus on the RIGHTS
rather than on the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely people must understand that
every action has a consequence.
> I predict that in years to come these arguments about
> abortion will be regarded in the same way in which we now regard the
> arguments about slavery at the time.
Slavery? Ha, that's a joke. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
shouldn't have sex. You are free to choose whether or not you engage in
sexual activity, and thus you are free to choose whether or not you get
pregnant, because it is a natural consequence of your actions.
> The very idea that some people (in this case half of the population)
> should not have bodily autonomy is ludicrous in the extreme.
And i find it ludicrous that people would put their own selfish desires
ahead of human life. Unable to face the consequences of their decisions,
they look for a quick fix.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> > Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before
>> >conception,
>> >> >and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are in the womb.
>I
>> >> >would think that this is clearly a sign that killing a baby in the
>womb
>> >> > is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> As is killing sperm and egg.
>> >
>> >So, if killing sperm and egg is wrong, then that means that for a woman
>to
>> >have her period is WRONG (because an egg dies), and for a couple to have
>sex
>> >is WRONG (because of all the sperm that die as a result of sex).
>>
>> That's right.
>
>So if it's wrong for women to have their period, and it's wrong for people
>to have sex, then why are condoning abortion?
It is YOUR argument that makes sex and periods wrong. Not mine.
>You have said that a woman having her period is wrong.
No I did not. According to your argument it's wrong.
> Don't you see how
>ridiculous what you're saying is?
That's the point. Your argument, trying to use the passage from
Jeremiah, is ridiculous.
>> > Sperm and egg are not separate human entities,
>>
>> Yes they are.
>
>Sperm and Egg are not separate human entities,
Yes they are.
> because they do not have the
>requisite genetic information
"Separate" doesn't mean "requisite genetic information". It means
separate. I suggest that you make use of a dictionary.
>> >because they do not have the necessary genetic information as stand
>> >alone.
>>
>> Says who?
>
>Did you not study biology in high school?
That's not an answer to the question.
> Sperm and Egg only have half the
>genetic information. Both one egg and one sperm are required to have the
>necessary quota of genetic information to form a human life.
Wrong. Perhaps your problem is that you never learned more than high
school biology. Even college-level undergraduate biology is simplified.
>> >> >> But what the Bible makes quite clear is that forcing a woman to give
>> >> >> birth and denying her an abortion is NOT PERMITTED.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ok, give me some scriptural evidence for this?
>> >>
>> >> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
>> >> neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
>donkey,
>> >> or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
>> >> Exodis 20:17
>> >>
>> >> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
>> >> you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
>> >> Matthew 5:39
>> >
>> >This has nothing to do with abortion.
>>
>> It has everything to do with forcing women to give birth.
>
>No woman is forced to give birth,
You're a liar.
>> > The word covet means to desire something that isn't
>> >yours,
>>
>> Such as a woman's body.
>
>This has nothing to do with me coveting anything.
Liar.
>> >> Sex isn't forced when it's not forced?
>> >> Are you an idiot?
>> >
>> >An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
>>
>> You _are_ an idiot.
>
>Don't snip me like that. The original post was this....
>
>An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
>forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consensual sex
You're an idiot and a liar.
A prime example of a religious fundamentalist.
Ray Fischer
>"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
>If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>place?
You _are_ an idiot.
Bethe Blasienz
>A discussion about abortion naturally focuses on
>the female, since it is generally the female crying out about her right to
>control her own body.
And if a man were able to be pregnant, he too might be "crying out" about his
right to control his own body. Alas, that is not reality.
>Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
>intimate between a commited couple.
Absolutely.
>If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>place?
Ah, but you said sex is to be treasured, something special and intimate between
a committed couple............pregnancy is a possible result of sex and if the
committed couple do not want children, then every precaution should be taken to
prevent that from happening by both partners, not just the woman and not just
the man. Despite their precautions though, an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy
could result. Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should be
able to participate equally in the decision making process about either
carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners should already
have made that decision prior to having sex.
>Another thing that i find reprehensible is when people focus on the RIGHTS
>rather than on the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely people must understand that
>every action has a consequence.
Yes, actions have consequences. Some women choose to abort, others do not.
Why some choose to abort and others do not, I don't know and never will nor
shall I sit in judgement of their decision. Some look at pregnancy as a
responsibility, others do not. However, as a woman, I shall decide what is
right for me should I find myself with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. While
I would listen to the counsel and advice of those important to me, ultimately
the decision is mine to make.
> If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
>shouldn't have sex.
Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
And if her own life is at stake, and abortion her only option for her survival,
what then?
Bethe Blasienz
Bryan, Texas
Packman
> Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
> intimate between a commited couple.
What, you never heard of sex for fun?
M. Clark
> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >June Gill <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
>
> >> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
> >> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
> >> woman is hurt.
> >
> >Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
> >specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
> >for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
> >is a life for a life.
>
> If the woman dies then the one who killed her dies. If the fetus
> dies, there is a fine. That's the punishement indicated by that
> passage.
Thank you for replying.
Regarding a fine if the fetus dies, you are reading that into this
passage because you cannot afford for it to be understood any other way
with respect to your pro-"choice" biases. But as I've said, this
passage is well known for not specifically referring to the mother or
the child with respect to damages or ponalties. It can consequently be
referring to either of them.
M. Clark
Mary Mager
Ron,
Your question is rather off the wall, isn't it? Where is your common sense?
Mary Mager
June Gill
<idont...@toemail.com> writes
I suggest that you read the verses again, Mr Clark. The verse specifies
'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' etc. It is well-known that
foetuses don't have teeth, so this penalty cannot be for injury to a
foetus.
June Gill
Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
>
Really? Who says so? As it happens, that's my view of sex also, but
who am I and who are you to say that it should be so for everyone else?
I also happen to be teetotal, but I don't go around telling others that
they shouldn't have a drink. There is no obligation on anyone to
abstain from either activity, nor to participate in either, so just
because you choose one view doesn't give you the right to try to impose
that view on others. If people want to be promiscuous, that's up to
them - I think they're missing out on the special part of it, but I'm
sure they think I'm missing out on the variety.
>> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
>If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>place?
Because sex is exciting? Do you seriously expect people to only have
sex when they're wanting to have a child?
>> They have achieved their freedom and they're not going to relinquish
>> it to suit you or anyone else.
>
>Another thing that i find reprehensible is when people focus on the RIGHTS
>rather than on the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely people must understand that
>every action has a consequence.
I agree, and that's why I think that abortion is often a very
responsible action to take if the woman is not in a position to look
after a child well. I think it's irresponsible to bring children into
the world if they're going to be deprived of good parental care.
>> I predict that in years to come these arguments about
>> abortion will be regarded in the same way in which we now regard the
>> arguments about slavery at the time.
>
>Slavery? Ha, that's a joke.
A joke, is it? You advocate making women slaves to their reproductive
functions.
>If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
>shouldn't have sex. You are free to choose whether or not you engage in
>sexual activity, and thus you are free to choose whether or not you get
>pregnant, because it is a natural consequence of your actions.
That seems to highlight your agenda very well. You seem to want to stop
people from having sex unless they have the same 'penalties' as you've
imposed upon yourself, ie having only one partner for life. Sounds like
sour grapes to me, because, let's face it - if the woman who aborts had
never had sex there wouldn't be a foetus to abort, so it isn't the
foetus you're concerned about, it's her behaviour, and you want to
punish her by forcing her to carry to term.
>> The very idea that some people (in this case half of the population)
>> should not have bodily autonomy is ludicrous in the extreme.
>
>And i find it ludicrous that people would put their own selfish desires
>ahead of human life. Unable to face the consequences of their decisions,
>they look for a quick fix.
It isn't thinking, feeling human life at the time when abortions on
demand are performed, which is why there's a deadline of 22 weeks (or
whatever it might be in the US) for this procedure - before the foetus
becomes sentient. Considering that there are over 6 billion people on
this planet, I don't think human life is exactly scarce, and the
pleasures in life can be few enough.
Mark Sebree
He does not believe in that. He thinks that sex is only for
procreation. He thinks that people should remain virgins until their
wedding night. He thinks that everyone should follow his morals, his
religion, and his views, even if the people do not agree with any of
them. He is not very realistic in his outlook and expectations.
Mark Sebree
Packman
Obviously.
The Steel Wolf
Clark) scripsit:
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> If the woman dies then the one who killed her dies. If the fetus
>> dies, there is a fine. That's the punishement indicated by that
>> passage.
>Regarding a fine if the fetus dies, you are reading that into this
>passage because you cannot afford for it to be understood any other way
>with respect to your pro-"choice" biases.
Your argument here is fallacious: you've committed an ad hominem
circumstantial. If there is a more appropriate interpretation of this
passage, perhaps you should argue for that rather than simply saying
that it's wrong because for whatever reason he "cannot afford for it
to be understood any other way".
Additionally, your assessment of his motives is likely erroneous.
There are many cases in which it would not matter in the least to a
person if the Bible condemned abortion. Thus not only have you made
your argument fallacious as described above, you haven't even
demonstrated that the motives you are ascribing to him are necessarily
correct!
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.
PGP fingerprint: 8C37 6F91 A883 F7C9 2ECC F65C 0DEC AB5A 3084 906D
The Steel Wolf
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:afkqkl$iu1$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
>> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> > God formed him from the earth. Yes, Jeremiah was known to God before
>> >> > conception, and in Psalms it is shown that God knows us while we are
>> >> > in the womb. I would think that this is clearly a sign that killing
>> >> > a baby in the womb is wrong.
>> >> As is killing sperm and egg.
>> >So, if killing sperm and egg is wrong, then that means that for a woman
>> >to have her period is WRONG (because an egg dies), and for a couple to have
>> >sex is WRONG (because of all the sperm that die as a result of sex).
>> That's right.
>So if it's wrong for women to have their period, and it's wrong for people
>to have sex, then why are condoning abortion? Because without sex and
>without the menstrual cycle of the female, pregnancy wouldn't happen anyway.
>
>You have said that a woman having her period is wrong. Don't you see how
>ridiculous what you're saying is? A woman cannot control having a period, it
>is a natural occurence in the anatomy of a female!
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
The Steel Wolf
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>place?
Do you really think that the only purpose of sex is reproduction?
Do you think that people only get pregnant through *consensual* sex?
>You are free to choose whether or not you engage in sexual activity,
This is not always the case.
>> The very idea that some people (in this case half of the population)
>> should not have bodily autonomy is ludicrous in the extreme.
>And i find it ludicrous that people would put their own selfish desires
>ahead of human life.
There is a difference between human biology and sentience.
Old Noah
answer will you, I need more responses (no I don't care if you're an
american)
Glenn
Darren Osland
> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
> >
> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
> >place?
>
> You _are_ an idiot.
Try constructing an intelligent argument rather than a low-brow insult.
Q: If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
place?
A: Because they wanted to have sex.
Q: But surely they realised that a possible result of sex is pregnancy?
A: Yeah, they knew that, but they thought contraception took care of that.
Q: But surely they were smart enough to realise that contraception is not
100% foolproof.
A: Yeah, they knew it wasn't 100% safe.
Q: But they still had sex anyway, even though they knew contraception isn't
100% foolproof, and they knew they might get pregnant.
A: Yeah, but they could always rely on having an abortion.
Q: So abortion is a quick-fix for people who ignored the risks and denied
the consequences?
A: Of course it is. But it's their "right".
Q: But for every "right" a person has, there are accompanying
responsibilities aren't there?
A: Stuff the responsibilities, they just want to have sex.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
>> >June Gill <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
>>
>> >> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
>> >> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
>> >> woman is hurt.
>> >
>> >Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
>> >specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
>> >for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
>> >is a life for a life.
>>
>> If the woman dies then the one who killed her dies. If the fetus
>> dies, there is a fine. That's the punishement indicated by that
>> passage.
>
>passage because you cannot afford for it to be understood any other way
>with respect to your pro-"choice" biases.
Same back at you, pro-liar.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>> >
>> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>> >place?
>>
>> You _are_ an idiot.
>
>Try constructing an intelligent argument rather than a low-brow insult.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:5-7
Darren Osland
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3D20C42E...@fortwayne.infi.net...
Incorrect assumption based on your poor interpretation, and ignorance of
what i have said above. I never said sex is ONLY for procreation. I said
that my belief is that sex should be something wonderful between an intimate
and commited couple. It doesn't have to be for procreation, it can be a
wonderful way to express a couples love for each other.
Darren Osland
"The Steel Wolf" <steel...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3d26ffb6....@news.central.cox.net...
> anno Domini Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:53:24 +1000, "Darren Osland"
> <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>
> >"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
> >place?
>
> Do you really think that the only purpose of sex is reproduction?
No, as i have said before, sex should be an expression of intimacy and love.
> Do you think that people only get pregnant through *consensual* sex?
I'm not talking about rape here.
> >You are free to choose whether or not you engage in sexual activity,
>
> This is not always the case.
Again, i'm not talking about rape, i'm talking about people who willingly
engage in sex, and then feel suprised or shocked that they get pregnant.
The Steel Wolf
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>"The Steel Wolf" <steel...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:3d26ffb6....@news.central.cox.net...
>> anno Domini Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:53:24 +1000, "Darren Osland"
>> <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>> >place?
>> Do you really think that the only purpose of sex is reproduction?
>No, as i have said before, sex should be an expression of intimacy
>and love.
Then you just answered your own question.
>> Do you think that people only get pregnant through *consensual* sex?
>I'm not talking about rape here.
Do you not think it's worthy of consideration in this issue?
Darren Osland
> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> Darren Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> >> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they
will
> >> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
> >> >
> >> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the
first
> >> >place?
> >>
> >> You _are_ an idiot.
> >
> >Try constructing an intelligent argument rather than a low-brow insult.
>
> Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
> pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
> turn again and rend you.
> Matthew 7:5-7
Hmm you obviously didn't read all of Matthew, because then you would have
read the words of Jesus when he tells us to not call each other idiots. Did
you miss that part?
Thomas P.
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"The Steel Wolf" <steel...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:3d26ffb6....@news.central.cox.net...
>> anno Domini Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:53:24 +1000, "Darren Osland"
>> <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>>
>> >"June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>>
>> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>
>> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
>> >place?
>>
>> Do you really think that the only purpose of sex is reproduction?
>
>No, as i have said before, sex should be an expression of intimacy and love.
>
>
>> Do you think that people only get pregnant through *consensual* sex?
>
>I'm not talking about rape here.
>
>
>> >You are free to choose whether or not you engage in sexual activity,
>>
>> This is not always the case.
>
>Again, i'm not talking about rape, i'm talking about people who willingly
>engage in sex, and then feel suprised or shocked that they get pregnant.
People have sex for all kinds of reasons, even reasons you do not
approve of. Sometimes they take reasonable precautions and pregnancy
happens anyway. Sometimes they are just ignorant (young teens for
example who go to schools where Christians have prevented effective
sex education) Your answer is that they should have known better and
all 3 (child inc.) will just have to suffer the consequences.
snip
Thomas P.
Duke,you incredible idiot, you make yourself more of a joke with each post.
Duke's response:
"When you can do better, let me know."
Thomas P.
And it can be just for fun.
Darren Osland
"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3d21a5e4...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:46:54 +1000, "Darren Osland"
> <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark Sebree" <seb...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
> >news:3D20C42E...@fortwayne.infi.net...
> >> Packman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Darren Osland wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
> >> > > intimate between a commited couple.
> >> >
> >> > What, you never heard of sex for fun?
> >>
> >> He does not believe in that. He thinks that sex is only for
> >> procreation. He thinks that people should remain virgins until their
> >> wedding night. He thinks that everyone should follow his morals, his
> >> religion, and his views, even if the people do not agree with any of
> >> them. He is not very realistic in his outlook and expectations.
> >
> >
> >Incorrect assumption based on your poor interpretation, and ignorance of
> >what i have said above. I never said sex is ONLY for procreation. I said
> >that my belief is that sex should be something wonderful between an
intimate
> >and commited couple. It doesn't have to be for procreation, it can be a
> >wonderful way to express a couples love for each other.
> >
>
> And it can be just for fun.
Yeah, it should be for fun, between committed couples who are prepared for
what might happen.
Puck Greenman
>>Regarding a fine if the fetus dies, you are reading that into this
>>passage because you cannot afford for it to be understood any other way
>>with respect to your pro-"choice" biases.
Tell me that you have no pro-"life" biases.
Then explain why your biases are good, and why ours are bad.
Puck Greenman
So; are you saying that the truth is not acceptable?
Ray made a simple observation of fact.
Just a teeny pick. Your taboo, is nothing that Jesus, or any other
priphet/teacher ever taught.
The man responsible for that, is the homophobic, misogynist, Paul/Saul.
Darren Osland
"Puck Greenman" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:p9c3iu0ttsfq62er8...@4ax.com...
Just because someone thinks differently does not make them an idiot.
Thomas P.
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Sorry, but you only get to set the terms for yourself not others.
M. Clark
Thank you for replying.
There are times when issues are not clear which is why we have judges.
But the bottom line is we're talking about abortion and teeth are beside
the point if a life is destroyed.
M. Clark
M. Clark
> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote:
> >> M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> >> >June Gill <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Osland <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> writes
> >>
> >> >> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
> >> >> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
> >> >> woman is hurt.
> >> >
> >> >Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
> >> >specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
> >> >for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
> >> >is a life for a life.
> >>
> >> If the woman dies then the one who killed her dies. If the fetus
> >> dies, there is a fine. That's the punishement indicated by that
> >> passage.
> >
> >Regarding a fine if the fetus dies, you are reading that into this
> >passage because you cannot afford for it to be understood any other way
> >with respect to your pro-"choice" biases.
>
> Same back at you, pro-liar.
Again, the passage does not specify who has to suffer the damage.
M. Clark
Puck Greenman
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between my comments and
your reply.
Unless you are saying that /truth/, is a matter of opinion.
mme...@steinbeck.ucs.indiana.edu
By the exact same logic, people who cross the street have no right to
expect medical care or be upset after they're struck by a drunk
driver.
--Mark
--
Mark Meiss (mme...@indiana.edu) 812/855-1878 / Disciple of Loki and
http://steinbeck.uits.indiana.edu/~mmeiss/ / Fomenter of Entropy
Researcher, Advanced Network Management Lab /-----------------------------
Wanna-be Author of Novels and Short Fiction / What fools these normals be.
stoney
Message ID: <1f7be40f.02062...@posting.google.com> wrote
in alt.atheism;
>re...@briefcase.com (Robert McElwaine) wrote in message news:<540b9a94.02062...@posting.google.com>...
Oh, McElwaine-a total nutcase. You're wasting your time, David.
(snip)
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Chris Nelson
news:3d21ac9b$0$28005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
...or strangers having a one-night stand, or people involved in a group sex
orgy, or other forms of fun. ;)
--
Chris
Darren Osland
"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote...
> People have sex for all kinds of reasons, even reasons you do not
> approve of.
Heck, in the past I'VE had sex in ways i don't approve of LOL :)
>Sometimes they take reasonable precautions and pregnancy
> happens anyway.
Yes, and this shows that pregnancy is something that at times can't be
stopped, and people know this, and by people engaging in sex they are
accepting the fact that this may happen.
> Sometimes they are just ignorant
Ignorance should not be a defence!
> (young teens for example who go to schools where
> Christians have prevented effective sex education)
I would not prevent sex education. I would simply be in favour of kids being
taught how it is. Kids shouldn't be having sex. They should learn about the
responsibilities that come with it, and if they can't handle the
responsibilities why should they get the privileges?
> Your answer is that they should have known better and
> all 3 (child inc.) will just have to suffer the consequences.
No, the child doesn't have to suffer. There are options like adoption, or
involving family into the equation. And as for father and mother suffering,
i make this statement.....
What are we saying about our world if we always have a get-out-of-jail-free
card every time they have to take responsibility for our actions?
June Gill
[snip]
>> >> Try Exodus 21:22-25 then. The scriptures don't seem to consider
>> >> abortion to be of any importance since only a fine is imposed if the
>> >> woman is hurt.
>> >
>> >Thank you for posting.
>> >
>> >Read the verses again Ms. Gill. This passage is well known for not
>> >specifying whether the mother or her child has to suffer damage in order
>> >for penalties to be applicable. And the maximum penalty indicated (v23)
>> >is a life for a life.
>>
>> I suggest that you read the verses again, Mr Clark. The verse specifies
>> 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' etc. It is well-known that
>> foetuses don't have teeth, so this penalty cannot be for injury to a
>> foetus.
>
>Thank you for replying.
>
>There are times when issues are not clear which is why we have judges.
>But the bottom line is we're talking about abortion and teeth are beside
>the point if a life is destroyed.
The bottom line is that you interpret biblical verses to suit your own
agenda, something which you can't accuse me of doing, because even if it
said in big, bold type 'Thou shalt not commit abortion', it wouldn't
make any difference to me. I accept that in your view abortion is
murder, and I respect your right to hold that view, even though I
strongly disagree with it, but please don't try to twist biblical verses
into saying something which they categorically don't say, just as a
means of backing up your opinion. Have the guts to have your own
opinion, regardless of what you find in an old book which represents the
ideas and beliefs of people long ago; people who were probably very
intelligent but who didn't have the benefit of the education we take for
granted.
Read the verses objectively and note the important 3-letter word there:
'If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely _BUT_ there is no serious injury ...' This clearly means
serious injury to the woman, because an accidental hit would be most
unlikely to cause injury to a foetus - it's pretty well cushioned by the
amniotic fluid. Since the verses which follow go into great detail
about the penalties for owners of animals which attack people or other
animals, it's quite obvious that the unborn weren't even considered,
after all, they're the domain of women, and we all know the attitude of
the Bible to women. If you have any lingering doubts, read Numbers
5:11-31, which instructs priests to administer a noxious substance,
which would cause a woman's abdomen to swell (and cause her to abort
also) and her thigh to wither if she had been unfaithful to her husband,
but have no ill effects if she had been faithful. (Do you believe that
process would work, by the way?) Infidelity was thought of as far more
serious than abortion.
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: ABORTION , and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !!
>
> From: "Darren Osland" <d.os...@optusnet.com.au>
> Reply to: [1] "Darren Osland"
> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:07:09 +1000
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.abortion,
> [3] alt.religion.christian-teen,
> [4] alt.atheism,
> [5] alt.christnet,
> [6] alt.religion.christian
> Followup to: [7] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [8] <540b9a94.02062...@posting.google.com>
> [9] <1fecm5e.1ma0oag1v3yztiN%idont...@toemail.com>
> [10] <afcvh9$2uo$1...@newbolt.sonic.net>
> [11] <3d1b3e19$0$31824$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> [12] <affm3g$rjt$1...@newbolt.sonic.net>
> [13] <3d1d5e21$0$31823$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> [14] <fX0cDXAC...@jgdodworth.demon.co.uk>
> [15] <3d206d51$0$28005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> [16] <3d26ffb6....@news.central.cox.net>
> [17] <3d21436f$0$20999$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> [18] <3d21a5ed...@nyheder.get2net.dk>
>
>
**snip
>What are we saying about our world if we always have a get-out-of-jail-free
>card every time they have to take responsibility for our actions?
***Wow..you just associated having a child with being in jail.
B.
RoundBall
> >From: "Darren Osland" d.os...@optusnet.com.au
>
> >A discussion about abortion naturally focuses on
> >the female, since it is generally the female crying out about her right to
> >control her own body.
>
> And if a man were able to be pregnant, he too might be "crying out" about his
> right to control his own body. Alas, that is not reality.
> >Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
> >intimate between a commited couple.
>
>
> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
> >place?
>
> between
> a committed couple............pregnancy is a possible result of sex and if the
> committed couple do not want children, then every precaution should be taken > to
> prevent that from happening by both partners, not just the woman and not just
> the man. Despite their precautions though, an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy
> could result.
We need a grade school biology review. Pregnancy is a possible result
of sex because that is what sex is supposed to cause.
> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should be
> able to participate equally in the decision making process about either
> carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners should already
> have made that decision prior to having sex.
>
Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex, and if
they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they should have
not initiated the pregnancy in the first place. Abortion does not make
sense. Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy
with the expectation that if it resulted in a pregnancy you would
terminate it?
> >Another thing that i find reprehensible is when people focus on the RIGHTS
> >rather than on the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely people must understand that
> >every action has a consequence.
>
> Yes, actions have consequences. Some women choose to abort, others do not.
> Why some choose to abort and others do not, I don't know and never will nor
> shall I sit in judgement of their decision. Some look at pregnancy as a
> responsibility, others do not. However, as a woman, I shall decide what is
> right for me should I find myself with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. While
> I would listen to the counsel and advice of those important to me, ultimately
> the decision is mine to make.
>
If you were born a conjointed twin and you didn't care for the other
twin's personality/habits/looks/whatever, would it be your decision to
make to go through a proceedure that would safely remove you from the
other twin and yet in the process kill the other twin? In the case of
the unborn child you would have made a past decision to have the child
by having sexual intercourse, unless perhaps you were raped, but the
situation is similar except that the conjointed twin is replaced by an
internally conjointed unborn human being. If you wouldn't kill the
twin than it would seem inconsistent to kill the child. ( I hope you
wouldn't answer the first sentence with a "yes", otherwise you would
creep me out.)
> > If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
> >shouldn't have sex.
>
> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
the problem of getting raped. If someone fell in the road and injured
herself in front of you as you were driving down the road, I don't
think you would express your "freedom to move" by running over her.
Sure, if someone pushed the person there, they ( the pusher) should
pay the consequences, but you must still respect the life of the
person in the road.
> And if her own life is at stake, and abortion her only option for her survival,
> what then?
This arguement doesn't apply to most situations.
In this case I guess the doctor will just have to flip a coin or
something to decide who lives and who dies.
RoundBall
Ron Nicholson
13fca75f.02070...@posting.google.com, "Mary Mager"
<bycr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ron Nicholson <ba...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<B943D3B7.633B%ba...@rogers.com>...
>> On 6/29/02 8:59 PM, in article
>> 1f7be40f.02062...@posting.google.com, "David M"
>> <dav...@crapmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> re...@briefcase.com (Robert McElwaine) wrote in message
>>> news:<540b9a94.02062...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS !
>>>>
>>>> The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
>>>> a question of WHEN human life begins.
>>>
>>> I disagree. I think it's perfectly intelligible for two people to
>>> agree on when human life begins but disagree on whether abortion is
>>> permissible after that point. Many liberals, Peter Singer and Jonathan
>>> Glover for instance, argue that a foetus is a living human being but
>>> that it is still permissible to abort it. Of course, this also depends
>>> on what you mean by "human life". If you're referring to the precise
>>> definition "a member of the species Homo sapiens", deciding when a
>>> living human being exists is easier than deciding when the foetus (or
>>> infant) adopts properties that are considered "personal" and more
>>> reflective of humanness - rationality, self-consciousness, moral
>>> agency, etc.
>>>
>>> The question of when human life begins is not as clear-cut as many
>>> seem to think it is. Obviously, an embryo is a member of the species
>>> Homo sapiens from the moment it becomes an individual - this can be
>>> determined genetically. But the question is whether an embryo is
>>> *living*, not merely whether it is a member of our species. After all,
>>> a dead man is also a member of our species, despite the fact that he
>>> is (tautologically) not living.
>>>
>>> John Burgess in "A Matter of Life and Death" has outlined an
>>> intelligent way of determining when human life begins, namely,
>>> symmetry considerations. If death is the point at which we lose what
>>> we essentially are, the same view of essence should govern "birth" or
>>> "new life". The beginning of life should be the procurement of a
>>> particular essence that is lost at death, so that our definitions of
>>> life and death are in symmetry. It would be interesting to see anyone
>>> argue against this thesis, for Burgess' argument seems the most
>>> objective way of determining the beginning of life.
>>>
>>> Burgess outlines three main candidates for death - total organic
>>> breakdown, whole brain death, and cortical death, and discusses their
>>> plausibility as well as which definition of life would symmetrically
>>> follow from each. It is interesting to note that under this method,
>>> human life most certainly does *not* begin at conception, but rather,
>>> at some point later during pregnancy. Taking the example of total
>>> organic breakdown, symmetry would place the beginning of life at
>>> around 6 weeks where rudimentary circulatory activity takes place. The
>>> cortical death view would place the beginning of life at (very
>>> approximately) 25 weeks or so. Either way, we must note, the
>>> anti-abortion view that life begins at conception seems bankrupt, at
>>> least until a "pro-lifer" can defend throwing the symmetry criterion
>>> out the window.
>>>
>>> There is, however, recourse for the anti-abortionist. The
>>> anti-abortionist may argue that what matters is not when human *life*
>>> begins, but when some sort of potential for life in a human individual
>>> begins. This view would need to be clarified and argued for, however,
>>> and it seems quite a strange criterion for assigning a right to life.
>>
>> An interesting premise. Let's consider though that my body is almost
>> non-functioning and that we have the capacity to transplant the brain of one
>> individual to another body. Who would I be? Would I be a merger of two
>> individuals? Would I be Ron with a new body? Or would someone else just a
>> have a new/different functioning organ in there body?
>>
>> How we define an individual is crucial to any argument, whether you find
>> this particular premise intelligent, or not.
>
> Ron,
>
> Your question is rather off the wall, isn't it? Where is your common sense?
Once again, attack the poster rather than argument.
Ron Nicholson
3d206d51$0$28005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "Darren Osland"
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> "June Gill" <ju...@jgbudworth.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>>> An idiot? You are implying that i'm an idiot for saying that women aren't
>>> forced to give birth any more than they are forced to have consentual sex
>>> that resulted in the pregnancy? Is that so hard for you to follow?!?!? I
> am
>>> saying that after the so-called "sexual revolution", which could more
> aptly
>>> be called the sexual DEvolution, woman are free to slut around as much as
>>> they want, and then they cry foul if they get pregnant. Well, sorry
> ladies,
>>> but if you have sex, a NATURAL consequence is pregnancy. Don't get
> surprised
>>> about it, just realise that the pregnancy is a result of how you live!
> And i
>>> have also said that no-one forces you to have the baby, just like no-one
>>> forces you to have your so-called sexual freedom.
>>
>> That's just lovely. Men have sexual freedom and if they're promiscuous
>> then they're 'Casanovas, ladies' men, Romeos' etc, much envied and
>> admired for their sexual prowess, but women who do the same are sluts.
>> How charitable of you. The good old double standard for morals.
>
> I have no double standards. A discussion about abortion naturally focuses on
> the female, since it is generally the female crying out about her right to
> control her own body. I am just as in contempt for male sluts as i am for
> females ones! Sex is something to be treasured, something special and
> intimate between a commited couple.
That does sound like a double standard. One for Christians, and another for
others. One standard for couples and one for singles and others.
>> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they will
>> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the first
> place?
>
>
>> They have achieved their freedom and they're not going to relinquish
>> it to suit you or anyone else.
>
> Another thing that i find reprehensible is when people focus on the RIGHTS
> rather than on the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely people must understand that
> every action has a consequence.
>
>
>> I predict that in years to come these arguments about
>> abortion will be regarded in the same way in which we now regard the
>> arguments about slavery at the time.
>
> Slavery? Ha, that's a joke. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
> shouldn't have sex. You are free to choose whether or not you engage in
> sexual activity, and thus you are free to choose whether or not you get
> pregnant, because it is a natural consequence of your actions.
>
>
>> The very idea that some people (in this case half of the population)
>> should not have bodily autonomy is ludicrous in the extreme.
>
> And i find it ludicrous that people would put their own selfish desires
> ahead of human life. Unable to face the consequences of their decisions,
> they look for a quick fix.
>
>
>
>
Ron Nicholson
3d21436e$0$20999$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "Darren Osland"
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
I don't think it's particularly fair to discriminate against single folk.
Ray Fischer
>Yeah, it should be for fun, between committed couples who are prepared for
>what might happen.
What qualifies you to say that sex should be between committed couples?
Ray Fischer
Yes it does, pro-liar.
"If men who are fighting hit A PREGNANT WOMAN ..."
Ray Fischer
>There are times when issues are not clear which is why we have judges.
>But the bottom line is we're talking about abortion and teeth are beside
>the point if a life is destroyed.
A life was destroyed so that you could eat a hamburger.
Does that make you a murderer?
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> sorry, but if women get pregnant when they don't want a child they
>will
>> >> >> abort, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>> >> >
>> >> >If they didn't want to get pregnant, why did they have sex in the
>first
>> >> >place?
>> >>
>> >> You _are_ an idiot.
>> >
>> >Try constructing an intelligent argument rather than a low-brow insult.
>>
>> Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
>> pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
>> turn again and rend you.
>> Matthew 7:5-7
>
>Hmm you obviously didn't read all of Matthew, because then you would have
>read the words of Jesus when he tells us to not call each other idiots. Did
>you miss that part?
I just don't give a shit, idiot. YOU live by the bible. Whether or
not I do is none of your damn business.
Ray Fischer
>bet...@cs.com (Bethe Blasienz)
>> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should be
>> able to participate equally in the decision making process about either
>> carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners should already
>> have made that decision prior to having sex.
>
>Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex,
Maybe they did. The decision to end any pregnancy with an abortion.
> and if
>they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they should have
>not initiated the pregnancy in the first place.
They didn't initiate pregnancy. Where do you get such ideas?
> Abortion does not make
>sense.
Then don't get one.
> Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy
People have sex because it's fun. It is not "supposed" to cause
pregnancy. It is supposed to be fun.
>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
>
>Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>the problem of getting raped.
Spare is the hypocritical garbage. YOU take human lives daily.
You let children starve, you kill sperm and/or eggs, you kill living
skin cells.
> If someone fell in the road and injured
>herself in front of you as you were driving down the road, I don't
>think you would express your "freedom to move" by running over her.
Here's a clue: A fetus will cause a woman considerable pain, injury,
expense, and risk to her health and life. She has the basic,
fundamental right to prevent such harm to herself. Don't like it?
Tough. You can either pay her to put up with it or accept it. What
you may not do is make her a slave.
Thomas P.
<d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote...
>> People have sex for all kinds of reasons, even reasons you do not
>> approve of.
>
>Heck, in the past I'VE had sex in ways i don't approve of LOL :)
>
>
>>Sometimes they take reasonable precautions and pregnancy
>> happens anyway.
>
>Yes, and this shows that pregnancy is something that at times can't be
>stopped, and people know this, and by people engaging in sex they are
>accepting the fact that this may happen.
Yes, and they need to decide what to do about it - not you.
>
>> Sometimes they are just ignorant
>
>Ignorance should not be a defence!
Who made you judge?
>
>
>> (young teens for example who go to schools where
>> Christians have prevented effective sex education)
>
>I would not prevent sex education. I would simply be in favour of kids being
>taught how it is. Kids shouldn't be having sex. They should learn about the
>responsibilities that come with it, and if they can't handle the
>responsibilities why should they get the privileges?
The privilege? They have both the ability and the drive. They need
to have knowledge.
>
>
>> Your answer is that they should have known better and
>> all 3 (child inc.) will just have to suffer the consequences.
>
>No, the child doesn't have to suffer. There are options like adoption, or
>involving family into the equation.
Your world must be very neat and well-run. The rest of us don't live
in a 50's family show.
Yes, there are many options. One of those options is abortion. The
people involved decide what is best for them.
> And as for father and mother suffering,
>i make this statement.....
>
>What are we saying about our world if we always have a get-out-of-jail-free
>card every time they have to take responsibility for our actions?
You seem determined that someone is going to pay and suffer. Don't
worry; they will. Outside help is not required.
Taking responsibility for one's actions means, among other things,
deciding what is the best thing to do for the people involved. You
have everyone put into a narrow little box. Unfortunately not every
situation will fit into that box.
Thomas P.
wrote:
He does seem very worried that someone may not suffer enough.
Bystander
RoundBall <phan...@msn.com> wrote:
>bet...@cs.com (Bethe Blasienz)
>> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should be
>> able to participate equally in the decision making process about either
>> carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners should already
>> have made that decision prior to having sex.
>
>Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex,
Maybe they did. The decision to end any pregnancy with an abortion.
> and if
>they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they should have
>not initiated the pregnancy in the first place.
They didn't initiate pregnancy. Where do you get such ideas?
> Abortion does not make
>sense.
Then don't get one.
> Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy
People have sex because it's fun. It is not "supposed" to cause
pregnancy. It is supposed to be fun.
(What utter bullshit Ray. You get dumber as you go along. You going to
justify everything by saying it's fun?)
>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
>
>Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>the problem of getting raped.
Spare is the hypocritical garbage. YOU take human lives daily.
You let children starve, you kill sperm and/or eggs, you kill living
skin cells.
> If someone fell in the road and injured
>herself in front of you as you were driving down the road, I don't
>think you would express your "freedom to move" by running over her.
Here's a clue: A fetus will cause a woman considerable pain, injury,
expense, and risk to her health and life. She has the basic,
fundamental right to prevent such harm to herself. Don't like it?
Tough. You can either pay her to put up with it or accept it. What
you may not do is make her a slave.
(You are a sick individual Ray who doesn't deserve to be a parent. I
feel sorry for any child around you and your sick warped mind. You can only
produce more sick individuals. Your children will be a waste and burden on
society with sick thinking because of your poisoning. Unfortunately the rest of
us will have to deal with them. Hopefully we can take care of their sick minds
because of your poison.)
--
Ray Fischer Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
rfis...@sonic.net Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about
their business as if nothing had happened. -- Churchill
--
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://nnrpinfo.go.foorum.com/
Craig Chilton
Bystander <Byst...@mail.com> wrote:
> Ray Fischer <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> "RoundBall" <phan...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Bethe Blasienz <bet...@cs.com> wrote:
>>>> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should
>>>> be able to participate equally in the decision making process about
>>>> either carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners
>>>> should already have made that decision prior to having sex.
>>> Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex...
>> Maybe they did. The decision to end any pregnancy with an abortion.
A very SENSIBLE decision that doubtlessly has been made by
multiple MILLIONS of couples over the years. I have always thought
that -- in a good contingency plan for an ill-timed pregnancy, the man
should be prepared to pay for the abortion, since the woman has to
undergo the inconvenience and discomfort involved in it.
>>> ...and if they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they
>>> should have not initiated the pregnancy in the first place.
>> They didn't initiate pregnancy. Where do you get such ideas?
<<sigh>> Just another example of the hateful and selfish
mindset and mentality (what there is of it) of the Anti-Choicers,
Ray. FAIR-minded, NON-buttinsky people are sensible enough to
realize that someone's unwanted pregnancy and the decision
they make pertaining how to handle it is absolutely NONE of their
business. If science ever discovers that Anti-Choicers all possess
a rogue "busybody gene," that would not be a bit surprising to me.
>>> Abortion does not make sense.
>> Then don't get one.
And, of course, abortion is one of the most SENSIBLE of all of
the REMEDIES in modern medicine. In just minutes, a woman is
able to UNDO a certain and very serious threat to most of her plans
and aspirations for the future, both short-term and long-term, put her
life and well-being completely BACK on track, and RESTORE
everything, including her full range of future opportunities, to
PRE-ill-timed-pregnancy levels. From all of these standpoints, this
hugely-beneficial remedy is just about the closest thing to a working
time machine that society possesses!
>>> Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy?
>> People have sex because it's fun. It is not "supposed" to cause
>> pregnancy. It is supposed to be fun.
Unless, of course, pregnancy is the objective, as it frequently
is. In THAT event, it's just as much fun, with that other dimension
added to it. FUN is the common denominator. ALL consensual
sex is fun!
> (What utter bullshit Ray. You get dumber as you go along.
> You going to justify everything by saying it's fun?)
The only BS being disseminated herein as at the hands of the
Anti-Choicers. Of COURSE you idiots are opposed to people having
fun. That just doesn't go along at all with being a prudish,
Puritanical control-freak does it? (What an awful notion! People
actually having FUN enjoying sex?! Perish forbid!!! Can't have
THAT!!! Break out the ducking-stool and the pillory! Burn 'em at
the stake!)
And you wonder why MOST Americans regard you Anti-
Choicers with a rapid-fire set of adjectives such as:
mean-spirited... selfish... hateful... stupid... control-freakish...
clueless... buttinsky... ignorant... under-educated (in many cases)...
insipid... busybodyish... hypocritical... and mindless -- just to
mention some of the more ACCURATE descriptors. MOST
Anti-Choicers deserve almost ALL of those descriptors. Your
agenda is bigoted, sociopathic, and completely devoid of any
and all redeeming social significance. Anti-Choicers are completely
without excuse.
>>>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those
>>>> things do happen.
>>> Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>>> the problem of getting raped.
>> Spare is the hypocritical garbage. YOU take human lives daily.
>> You let children starve, you kill sperm and/or eggs, you kill living
>> skin cells.
Hypocrisy is the name of the game for Anti-Choicers. Skin cells
are clonable, but go undefended. And sperm & ova, comprising the
actual Stage One of the reproductive process, all are POTENTIAL
people, and are living, unique, human entities. JUST as Stages 2, 3,
and 4 (zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses) are. But the Anti-Choicers
LAMELY defend their NOT regarding sperm & ova as equally "valuable"
simply mecause the haven't MET yet? How VERY lame. How
UTTERLY clueless. Anti-Choicers are most assuredly America's
most hateful, sick JOKE! The epitome of hypocrisy.
>>> If someone fell in the road and injured herself in front of you as
>>> you were driving down the road, I don't think you would express
>>> your "freedom to move" by running over her.
>> Here's a clue: A fetus will cause a woman considerable pain, injury,
>> expense, and risk to her health and life. She has the basic,
>> fundamental right to prevent such harm to herself. Don't like it?
>> Tough. You can either pay her to put up with it or accept it. What
>> you may not do is make her a slave.
Precisely, Ray. When a woman WANTS to carry-to-term,
that's just fine. And, interestingly, the vast majority of women who
recognize that the timing is wrong for that, and get abortions, simply
go on to HAVE children LATER, when her situation has improved
and the timing is better for that.
And forcing a woman to carry-to-term against her will by denying
access to abortion to her would most ASSUREDLY be to put her in a
position of involuntary servitude. Slavery to a parasitical, non-
sentient organism which she has NO desire to gestate. But
Anti-Choicers are SO hateful and clueless, they actually SEEK to
impose that unnecessary and potentially immense hardship upon tens of
MILLIONS of women! Meanwhile... what do the Anti-Choicers have to
lose? NOTHING. *THEY* get off scot-free, while imposing MISERY
upon countless millions of people, in the scenario of their heinous
and inexcusable agenda.
> (You are a sick individual Ray who doesn't deserve to be a parent. I
> feel sorry for any child around you and your sick warped mind.
ROTFL!!!! Hey readers!! Taka a look at THIS statement by an
Anti-Choicer, and ask yourself if you would want anything to do with
such a hateful and callous loser. NO WONDER "Bystander" and
most of his sociopathic ilk COWER behind phony aliases and e-mail
addresses.
You might also make note of the fact that many, if not MOST of
those of us who are PRO-Choice have no qualms at standing behind our
writings with our REAL names and e-mail address, just as Ray and I are
doing in this post. It's not hard at all to have the courage of one's
convictions when NOT touting a SHAMEFUL agenda.
> You can only produce more sick individuals. Your children will be
> a waste and burden on society with sick thinking because of your
> poisoning. Unfortunately the rest of us will have to deal with them.
> Hopefully we can take care of their sick minds because of your poison.)
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
Just look at the sociopathic little bigot WHINING because there
are people out here who don't want anything to do with his brand of
mindless hatefulness -- so raise their kids NOT to possess such ACTUAL
mind-poison.
You are a VERY sick joke, Anonymous-Coward "Bystander."
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
Bystander <Byst...@mail.com> wrote:
> Ray Fischer <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> "RoundBall" <phan...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Bethe Blasienz <bet...@cs.com> wrote:
>>>> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should
>>>> be able to participate equally in the decision making process about
>>>> either carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners
>>>> should already have made that decision prior to having sex.
>>> Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex...
>> Maybe they did. The decision to end any pregnancy with an abortion.
A very SENSIBLE decision that doubtlessly has been made by
multiple MILLIONS of couples over the years. I have always thought
that -- in a good contingency plan for an ill-timed pregnancy, the man
should be prepared to pay for the abortion, since the woman has to
undergo the inconvenience and discomfort involved in it.
>>> ...and if they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they
>>> should have not initiated the pregnancy in the first place.
>> They didn't initiate pregnancy. Where do you get such ideas?
<<sigh>> Just another example of the hateful and selfish
mindset and mentality (what there is of it) of the Anti-Choicers,
Ray. FAIR-minded, NON-buttinsky people are sensible enough to
realize that someone's unwanted pregnancy and the decision
they make pertaining how to handle it is absolutely NONE of their
business. If science ever discovers that Anti-Choicers all possess
a rogue "busybody gene," that would not be a bit surprising to me.
>>> Abortion does not make sense.
>> Then don't get one.
And, of course, abortion is one of the most SENSIBLE of all of
the REMEDIES in modern medicine. In just minutes, a woman is
able to UNDO a certain and very serious threat to most of her plans
and aspirations for the future, both short-term and long-term, put her
life and well-being completely BACK on track, and RESTORE
everything, including her full range of future opportunities, to
PRE-ill-timed-pregnancy levels. From all of these standpoints, this
hugely-beneficial remedy is just about the closest thing to a working
time machine that society possesses!
>>> Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy?
>> People have sex because it's fun. It is not "supposed" to cause
>> pregnancy. It is supposed to be fun.
Unless, of course, pregnancy is the objective, as it frequently
is. In THAT event, it's just as much fun, with that other dimension
added to it. FUN is the common denominator. ALL consensual
sex is fun!
> (What utter bullshit Ray. You get dumber as you go along.
> You going to justify everything by saying it's fun?)
The only BS being disseminated herein as at the hands of the
Anti-Choicers. Of COURSE you idiots are opposed to people having
fun. That just doesn't go along at all with being a prudish,
Puritanical control-freak does it? (What an awful notion! People
actually having FUN enjoying sex?! Perish forbid!!! Can't have
THAT!!! Break out the ducking-stool and the pillory! Burn 'em at
the stake!)
And you wonder why MOST Americans regard you Anti-
Choicers with a rapid-fire set of adjectives such as:
mean-spirited... selfish... hateful... stupid... control-freakish...
clueless... buttinsky... ignorant... under-educated (in many cases)...
insipid... busybodyish... hypocritical... and mindless -- just to
mention some of the more ACCURATE descriptors. MOST
Anti-Choicers deserve almost ALL of those descriptors. Your
agenda is bigoted, sociopathic, and completely devoid of any
and all redeeming social significance. Anti-Choicers are completely
without excuse.
>>>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those
>>>> things do happen.
>>> Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>>> the problem of getting raped.
>> Spare is the hypocritical garbage. YOU take human lives daily.
>> You let children starve, you kill sperm and/or eggs, you kill living
>> skin cells.
Hypocrisy is the name of the game for Anti-Choicers. Skin cells
are clonable, but go undefended. And sperm & ova, comprising the
actual Stage One of the reproductive process, all are POTENTIAL
people, and are living, unique, human entities. JUST as Stages 2, 3,
and 4 (zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses) are. But the Anti-Choicers
LAMELY defend their NOT regarding sperm & ova as equally "valuable"
simply mecause the haven't MET yet? How VERY lame. How
UTTERLY clueless. Anti-Choicers are most assuredly America's
most hateful, sick JOKE! The epitome of hypocrisy.
>>> If someone fell in the road and injured herself in front of you as
>>> you were driving down the road, I don't think you would express
>>> your "freedom to move" by running over her.
>> Here's a clue: A fetus will cause a woman considerable pain, injury,
>> expense, and risk to her health and life. She has the basic,
>> fundamental right to prevent such harm to herself. Don't like it?
>> Tough. You can either pay her to put up with it or accept it. What
>> you may not do is make her a slave.
Precisely, Ray. When a woman WANTS to carry-to-term,
that's just fine. And, interestingly, the vast majority of women who
recognize that the timing is wrong for that, and get abortions, simply
go on to HAVE children LATER, when her situation has improved
and the timing is better for that.
And forcing a woman to carry-to-term against her will by denying
access to abortion to her would most ASSUREDLY be to put her in a
position of involuntary servitude. Slavery to a parasitical, non-
sentient organism which she has NO desire to gestate. But
Anti-Choicers are SO hateful and clueless, they actually SEEK to
impose that unnecessary and potentially immense hardship upon tens of
MILLIONS of women! Meanwhile... what do the Anti-Choicers have to
lose? NOTHING. *THEY* get off scot-free, while imposing MISERY
upon countless millions of people, in the scenario of their heinous
and inexcusable agenda.
> (You are a sick individual Ray who doesn't deserve to be a parent. I
> feel sorry for any child around you and your sick warped mind.
ROTFL!!!! Hey readers!! Taka a look at THIS statement by an
Anti-Choicer, and ask yourself if you would want anything to do with
such a hateful and callous loser. NO WONDER "Bystander" and
most of his sociopathic ilk COWER behind phony aliases and e-mail
addresses.
You might also make note of the fact that many, if not MOST of
those of us who are PRO-Choice have no qualms at standing behind our
writings with our REAL names and e-mail address, just as Ray and I are
doing in this post. It's not hard at all to have the courage of one's
convictions when NOT touting a SHAMEFUL agenda.
> You can only produce more sick individuals. Your children will be
> a waste and burden on society with sick thinking because of your
> poisoning. Unfortunately the rest of us will have to deal with them.
> Hopefully we can take care of their sick minds because of your poison.)
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
Krisbam
>
>RoundBall <phan...@msn.com> wrote:
>>bet...@cs.com (Bethe Blasienz)
>>> Should that happen, in a perfect world, both partners should be
>>> able to participate equally in the decision making process about either
>>> carrying to term or not. What is better is that both partners should already
>>> have made that decision prior to having sex.
>>
>>Yes, they should have made up their decision before having sex,
>
>Maybe they did. The decision to end any pregnancy with an abortion.
>
>> and if
>>they did not want to carry through with the pregnancy they should have
>>not initiated the pregnancy in the first place.
>
>They didn't initiate pregnancy. Where do you get such ideas?
>
>> Abortion does not make
>>sense.
>
>Then don't get one.
>
>> Why initiate a proceedure which is supposed to cause pregnancy
>
>People have sex because it's fun. It is not "supposed" to cause
>pregnancy. It is supposed to be fun.
>
> (What utter bullshit Ray. You get dumber as you go along. You going to
>justify everything by saying it's fun?)
Sex isn't supposed to be fun?
>
>>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
>
>>
>>Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>>the problem of getting raped.
>
>Spare is the hypocritical garbage. YOU take human lives daily.
>You let children starve, you kill sperm and/or eggs, you kill living
>skin cells.
>
>> If someone fell in the road and injured
>>herself in front of you as you were driving down the road, I don't
>>think you would express your "freedom to move" by running over her.
>
>Here's a clue: A fetus will cause a woman considerable pain, injury,
>expense, and risk to her health and life. She has the basic,
>fundamental right to prevent such harm to herself. Don't like it?
>Tough. You can either pay her to put up with it or accept it. What
>you may not do is make her a slave.
>
>
> (You are a sick individual Ray who doesn't deserve to be a parent.
You're a sick individual that's in great need of psychiatric treatment.
Robert
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3d31ec86...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Bystander said a long time ago, he or she isn't pro-life or
pro-choice. So unless you know something that others don't know, I guess
you just jumped to another wild conclusion on your part.
>
> You might also make note of the fact that many, if not MOST of
> those of us who are PRO-Choice have no qualms at standing behind our
> writings with our REAL names and e-mail address, just as Ray and I are
> doing in this post. It's not hard at all to have the courage of one's
> convictions when NOT touting a SHAMEFUL agenda.
>
> > You can only produce more sick individuals. Your children will be
> > a waste and burden on society with sick thinking because of your
> > poisoning. Unfortunately the rest of us will have to deal with them.
> > Hopefully we can take care of their sick minds because of your poison.)
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
actually he is right, and you are a good example Craig of a sickness
fortunatly not too many people are inflicted with.
June Gill
<phan...@msn.com> writes
>bet...@cs.com (Bethe Blasienz) wrote in message news:<20020701123330.16
>386.00...@mb-ct.news.cs.com>...
[snip]
>> > If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she
>> >shouldn't have sex.
>>
>> Guess she shouldn't get raped or incested either, but those things do happen.
>
>Agreed, but still, taking a human life should not be the solution to
>the problem of getting raped. If someone fell in the road and injured
>herself in front of you as you were driving down the road, I don't
>think you would express your "freedom to move" by running over her.
>Sure, if someone pushed the person there, they ( the pusher) should
>pay the consequences, but you must still respect the life of the
>person in the road.
Oh, lovely. Here's yet another misogynist, who, like Pastor Dave,
thinks that rape victims should be forced to carry to term - both of
these guys smugly comfortable in the knowledge that it can't happen to
them. Imagine the outcry about unusual and cruel punishment if a man
were sentenced to 9 months of great discomfort, followed by hours and
hours (maybe days) of agonising pain, and then another 16+ years of loss
of freedom. Such a sentence would never be allowed in a civilised
society no matter what crime a man had committed, but in Roundball's
view, it's perfectly OK to pass such a sentence on a woman who has
committed no crime, but just happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time. What a despicable attitude. He, Pastor Dave and others of
their ilk cry crocodile tears for potential human life, yet do not
accord that status to half of the existing world population. To them
women are merely brood mares who should have no rights to bodily
autonomy. How unfortunate for them that they live in a time when such
views are no longer acceptable, although I'm sure they could find some
countries where theirs would be the majority view.
>> And if her own life is at stake, and abortion her only option for her survival,
>> what then?
>
>This arguement doesn't apply to most situations.
>In this case I guess the doctor will just have to flip a coin or
>something to decide who lives and who dies.
Oh Bethe, what a silly question - the foetus could be male, you know, so
obviously the woman's life wouldn't matter in such a case. Have you
ever heard of anything so sick as tossing a coin to decide whether a
woman should live? If all women suddenly decided to be celibate, people
like Roundball would demand that rape be made mandatory, because, in
their view, women have no right to do anything like that - their bodies
are merely for the use and abuse of men.
Craig Chilton
Robert, if you haven't picked up on his/her very OBVIOUS
Anti-Choice sentiment, you aren't HALF as bright as I though you were.
Of course... THAT isn't really saying much ---
>> You might also make note of the fact that many, if not MOST of
>> those of us who are PRO-Choice have no qualms at standing behind our
>> writings with our REAL names and e-mail address, just as Ray and I are
>> doing in this post. It's not hard at all to have the courage of one's
>> convictions when NOT touting a SHAMEFUL agenda.
>>> You can only produce more sick individuals. Your children will be
>>> a waste and burden on society with sick thinking because of your
>>> poisoning. Unfortunately the rest of us will have to deal with them.
>>> Hopefully we can take care of their sick minds because of your poison.)
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
> Actually he is right, and you are a good example Craig of a sickness
> fortunatly not too many people are inflicted with.
Yeah -- if you want to call a combination of being a fair-minded
egalitarian and a human rights activist a "sickness."
Fortunately, the majoirity of Americans agree with the views that
I espouse. I just wish that MORE of them were ACTIVISTS.
Darren Osland
<mme...@steinbeck.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:aft2oj$17g$1...@steinbeck.ucs.indiana.edu...
No, because the drunk driver isn't under their control, but their sex life
is.
Darren Osland
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3d22...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Incorrect. The term "get-out-of-jail-free card" is a common colloquial
expression for escaping from responsibility or consequence. Get it right.
Thomas P.
Whether or not they cross the street is under their control. The only
difference is that you don't disapprove of their choice of sexual
behavior.
Thomas P.
One can see it as a consequence or as a punishment. There is nothing
wrong with alleviating consequences; we do it all the time. It is, in
fact, responsible behavior. Your use of the expression "get out of
jail free card" and your entire argument implies that a punishment
needs to be imposed, and that avoidance of that punishment must be
prevented.
Brett A. Pasternack
It's specifically a term for escaping from *punishment*, and having a
child should never be a punishment.
Craig Chilton
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> Darren Osland wrote:
>>> ?? wrote:
>>>> What are we saying about our world if we always have a
>>>> get-out-of-jail-free card every time they have to take responsibility
>>>> for our actions?
>>> ***Wow..you just associated having a child with being in jail.
>> Incorrect. The term "get-out-of-jail-free card" is a common colloquial
>> expression for escaping from responsibility or consequence. Get it right.
> It's specifically a term for escaping from *punishment*, and having a
> child should never be a punishment.
Okay, then. Suppose a woman having NO desire to be pregnant
happens to get that way after a round of fabulous, enjoyable casual
sex.
IF she were to be forced to carry-to-term against her will, she
would have EVERY RIGHT to regard the pregnancy any way she
wanted, including:
-- Punishment (but likely only if she were on a guilt trip
induced by some Anti-Choicer/RRR cultist).
-- Being a victim of involuntary servitude to a non-sentient
entity that she wants nothing to do with.
-- Harboring an undesireable parasite.
FORTUNATELY, though, if she lives in the USA, she DOES have
a "Get out of Jail for $300" card that she can play. And by availing
herself of the REMEDY of abortion, she gets to put her life BACK on
track, and have all of her well-being and full range of future
opportunities RESTORED to pre-ill-timed-pregnancy levels.
Thus, the story -- unlike prior to 1973 -- has a VERY happy ending!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Darren Osland
"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3d22c48c...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:07:09 +1000, "Darren Osland"
> <d.os...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote...
> >> People have sex for all kinds of reasons, even reasons you do not
> >> approve of.
> >
> >Heck, in the past I'VE had sex in ways i don't approve of LOL :)
> >
> >
> >>Sometimes they take reasonable precautions and pregnancy
> >> happens anyway.
> >
> >Yes, and this shows that pregnancy is something that at times can't be
> >stopped, and people know this, and by people engaging in sex they are
> >accepting the fact that this may happen.
>
> Yes, and they need to decide what to do about it - not you.
I'm not saying it's my decision, i'm saying that people don't take enough
responsibility for their actions.
> >> Sometimes they are just ignorant
> >
> >Ignorance should not be a defence!
>
> Who made you judge?
I'm not judging them as people, i'm saying that as an adult, it's deplorable
to simply use childish ignorance as a defence for kids sleeping around. They
need to learn responsibility and discipline (which, i hope you agree, are
more important values than safe-sex).
> >> (young teens for example who go to schools where
> >> Christians have prevented effective sex education)
> >
>
> >I would not prevent sex education. I would simply be in favour of kids
being
> >taught how it is. Kids shouldn't be having sex. They should learn about
the
> >responsibilities that come with it, and if they can't handle the
> >responsibilities why should they get the privileges?
>
> The privilege? They have both the ability and the drive. They need
> to have knowledge.
All the knowledge in the whole world couldn't give a teenager the ability to
make such an adult decision. They don't have the requisite cognitive
functions at such an age to adequately comprehend the consequences of their
actions! (mind you, many adults don't either).
> >> Your answer is that they should have known better and
> >> all 3 (child inc.) will just have to suffer the consequences.
> >
> >No, the child doesn't have to suffer. There are options like adoption, or
> >involving family into the equation.
>
> Your world must be very neat and well-run. The rest of us don't live
> in a 50's family show.
Ha, my world is hell like everyone else's! lol :)
> Yes, there are many options. One of those options is abortion. The
> people involved decide what is best for them.
I'm glad we have gotten past the idea that abortion is a natural
consequence, and can focus on the fact that this is a decision, one that has
more side-effects than people will talk about. I have met many women who
thoroughly regret having an abortion, some of whom can now no longer have
children. The problem with having an abortion is that you are taking
short-term action on a long-term situation. It certainly needs to be though
through much better than what it is. I even spoke to a girl once who didn't
use contraception at all when she slept around, cos she was too lazy to take
the pill, and hated the decrease of pleasure from condoms. She just said
that if anything happened, she knew where to get "it" scraped out. So sad
when young women get to such a dissociative state.
> > And as for father and mother suffering,
> >i make this statement.....
> >
> >What are we saying about our world if we always have a
> > get-out-of-jail-free card every time they have to take
> > responsibility for our actions?
>
> You seem determined that someone is going to pay and suffer. Don't
> worry; they will. Outside help is not required.
> Taking responsibility for one's actions means, among other things,
> deciding what is the best thing to do for the people involved. You
> have everyone put into a narrow little box. Unfortunately not every
> situation will fit into that box.
As concerned as i am about the moral implications of abortion, i am far more
concerned with the long-term psychological effects on all those involved. I
think that this is an issue that should not be akin to a "drive-thru"
service (and i've seen it happen before). I wish the women's lib groups
would just be quite and let the woman involved take her time about making a
better informed decision. Just telling her that the baby isn't alive, and
that it's not human and that it's all legal and it's ok isn't the way to go.
At least tell the girl how she could feel in a few years time!