Abortion: The leading cause of death
Joseph P. Belk
My deepest gratitude to Phillip Sherrod for posting this
excellent perspective.
phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
>As hard as it may be to believe, abortion is the number one cause of death
>in the United States.
>The following figures for causes of death were taken from the "Statistical
>Abstract of the United States, 1996" published by the Census Bureau. It
>summarizes statistics for the year 1993 (the last year for which full
>statistics are available).
>Of course, our government doesn't consider abortion to be "death", so the
>abortion figure is taken from "Abortion Surveillance: United States 1992"
>published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on May 3, 1996 (it
>takes several years for them to collect and report the statistics).
>The AIDS death statistics are for the year 1995; they were obtained from
>"HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, June 1996", published by the CDC.
>The abortion death figure does not include deaths of the mothers as a
>result of abortions, it is just the deaths of the babies. The abortion
>death count also does not count illegal or unreported abortions, nor does
>it include multiple pregnancy (twins triplets, etc.) deaths, or deaths in
>mothers that may occur years later due to an increased risk of breast
>cancer.
> Cause of death Number of deaths
> ------------------------------- ----------------
> Induced abortions 1,359,145
> Cardiovascular disease 948,088
> Cancer (all types) 529,904
> Pulmonary disease (emphysema, etc.) 101,077
> Pneumonia and influenza 82,820
> Infectious diseases (not AIDS) 70,143
> Diabetes 53,894
> Accidents other than motor vehicle 48,630
> AIDS 43,204
> Motor vehicle accidents 41,893
> Suicide 31,102
> Homicide 26,009
> Liver disease 25,209
> Kidney disease 23,317
> Death during birth or shortly after 15,097
> Congenital abomalies 12,444
>Here are some comparisons to put these statistics in perspective:
>About every two weeks (14.7 days) there are as many deaths due to induced
>abortions as there were in the entire Vietnam war (55,000).
>If induced abortions were reduced by 50% the savings of lives would be
>greater than finding a cure for all cancer.
>We spend millions of dollars installing air bags in cars to save a few
>thousand lives, but the _total_ deaths due to automobile accidents amount
>to only 3% of the deaths due to induced abortions.
>As startling as these statistics are, they are _underestimates_ of the
>actual deaths due to induced abortions. The CDC's "Abortion Surveillance
>-- United States, 1992" document contains the following statement on pages
>34-35: "The numbers, ratios, and rates of abortion from this analysis are
>conservative estimates because the number of legal abortions reported to
>CDC for 1992 was probably lower than the number actually performed. Totals
>provided by central health agencies are often lower than those obtained by
>direct surveys of abortion providers. For example, the total number of
>abortions reported to CDC for 1992 was approximately 11% lower than that
>reported to The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a private organization
>that directly contacts abortion providers to obtain information on the
>number of abortions performed."
>If the reported number is 11% too low, then the actual number of induced
>abortions would be 1,508,651 which exceeds the total deaths due to heart
>disease, strokes, and cancer _combined_.
>Phil Sherrod
Bruce Forest
> My deepest gratitude to Phillip Sherrod for posting this
> excellent perspective.
>
> phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
>
>
> >As hard as it may be to believe, abortion is the number one cause of death
> >in the United States.
>
> >The following figures for causes of death were taken from the "Statistical
> >Abstract of the United States, 1996" published by the Census Bureau. It
> >summarizes statistics for the year 1993 (the last year for which full
> >statistics are available).
>
Of course, using Belk's logic, we should include all deaths by spontaneous
abortion, as well as induced, which of course would make induced abortion
number 2, far below the number of spontaneous abortions yearly.
But that wouldn't be good propaganda, so Belk wouldn't do it.
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@mindspring.com/ bfo...@interramp.com
"It's not a pizza till it comes out of the oven."
"No, no..it's a pizza the minute you stick your hands in the dough!!"..Seinfeld
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui
iQCVAgUBMkIIyrTTUY7wnHzhAQH1bwP/QzOGbW1jGiiSaVw1Ci
2MMbW52a36GPzi/9wDPEpBgrYfgtqttgCwFRRiun7VHvJTmsjKzw
6ZH/qpO27dnWvR29fhcQ143WaXQ5esvLc+EvwA/Fz4cSbCH6Jm
gc6lxk2FBL3pvXthLEYzVs8YYXXSC3NDftJvlDovPNAJhuHUK2E==vZri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
Note subject change.
Keywords fixed.
Followups trimmed.
In article <54b4gv$p...@news.usit.net>, bel...@usit.net (Joseph P. Belk) writes:
[some stuff deleted]
> phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
>
>
> >As hard as it may be to believe, abortion is the number one cause of death
> >in the United States.
See below for an explanation as to why I consider this line to be
somewhat misleading.
>
> >The following figures for causes of death were taken from the "Statistical
> >Abstract of the United States, 1996" published by the Census Bureau. It
> >summarizes statistics for the year 1993 (the last year for which full
> >statistics are available).
>
[opinion piece deleted]
>
> > Cause of death Number of deaths
> > ------------------------------- ----------------
> > Induced abortions 1,359,145
> > Cardiovascular disease 948,088
> > Cancer (all types) 529,904
> > Pulmonary disease (emphysema, etc.) 101,077
> > Pneumonia and influenza 82,820
[rest of figures deleted, AIDS among them]
[opinion piece deleted]
Assuming the figures are accurate, and they do appear to be, abortion is
indeed the leading cause of death -- for foetii -- in the United States.
The figures are interesting, but it's not clear why abortion, based on these
figures alone, is a problem, since foetii have no special constitutional
protections, nor is it clear that they should have said protections, at least
during the first trimester, where about 90% of the abortions are done, if I
recall correctly.
One would also hope that the induced abortions would be further broken down,
week by week, if possible. There is a vast difference between a
chemically-induced abortion and an abortion of a third-trimester foetus
(typically done only because the mother is in danger of death if it is not
done, as far as I know). Certainly it is not something to be taken lightly
after a certain point; much like a factory should identify problems early on
during car production, a woman and her doctor should identify problems early on
during a pregnancy, and hopefully they can be resolved before the pregnancy
gets to a point where it becomes dangerous, either to abort or not to abort.
But it is quite interesting, and points to a possible funding problem.
Can anyone post figures relating to the research $$$ being thrown at the
various methods of death, and how do they compare among each other? It might
help to clarify concepts. Also, the number of $$$ being thrown at facilities
designed to combat these deaths (e.g., for cardiovascular disease, one might
want the amount of money spent on educating the people about fatty food,
cholesterol, etc.)
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
Susan
In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
*In article <54b4gv$p...@news.usit.net>, bel...@usit.net wrote:
*
*> My deepest gratitude to Phillip Sherrod for posting this
*> excellent perspective.
*>
*> phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
*>
*>
*> >As hard as it may be to believe, abortion is the number one cause of death
*> >in the United States.
*>
*> >The following figures for causes of death were taken from the "Statistical
*> >Abstract of the United States, 1996" published by the Census Bureau. It
*> >summarizes statistics for the year 1993 (the last year for which full
*> >statistics are available).
*>
*Of course, using Belk's logic, we should include all deaths by spontaneous
*abortion, as well as induced, which of course would make induced abortion
*number 2, far below the number of spontaneous abortions yearly.
Of course, using Bruce's logic, we should include all deaths by old age, as
well as spontaneous abortion...Bla Bla Bla
*But that wouldn't be good propaganda, so Belk wouldn't do it.
*
*--
*Bruce Forest...
--
Susan***
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Rousseau
M. Grey de Shirland
ew...@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com (Eric Williams @ PCB x5577) wrote:
>Note subject change.
>Keywords fixed.
>Followups trimmed.
>In article <54b4gv$p...@news.usit.net>, bel...@usit.net (Joseph P. Belk) writes:
>[some stuff deleted]
>> phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
> > Cause of death Number of deaths
>> > ------------------------------- ----------------
>> > Induced abortions 1,359,145
>> > Cardiovascular disease 948,088
>> > Cancer (all types) 529,904
>> > Pulmonary disease (emphysema, etc.) 101,077
>> > Pneumonia and influenza 82,820
>[rest of figures deleted, AIDS among them]
>[opinion piece deleted]
[snip]
>But it is quite interesting, and points to a possible funding problem.
>Can anyone post figures relating to the research $$$ being thrown at the
>various methods of death, and how do they compare among each other? It might
>help to clarify concepts. Also, the number of $$$ being thrown at facilities
>designed to combat these deaths (e.g., for cardiovascular disease, one might
>want the amount of money spent on educating the people about fatty food,
>cholesterol, etc.)
The amount of money spent, per AIDS death, is over $40,000. Per death
by cancer and heart disease, less than $2000 each. Per death by
stroke, about $700.
M. Grey de Shirland, M.D.
"When short-term pharmacological illusions are substituted for long-term
religious delusions, all is lost sooner rather than later."
Joseph P. Belk
Professor Francis J. Beckwith has dealt with Bruce Forest
in masterful fashion, avoiding all the pitfalls of
temperament to which I am prey, keeping his temper,
while exposing Bruce Forest's sophomoric debating
tactics and lack of logic. Were I capable of that
quality in my own material, perhaps I wouldn't get
gratuitous insults from such a weak-minded source.
bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>In article <54b4gv$p...@news.usit.net>, bel...@usit.net wrote:
>> My deepest gratitude to Phillip Sherrod for posting this
>> excellent perspective.
>>
>> phillip...@nashville.com (Phillip Sherrod) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >As hard as it may be to believe, abortion is the number one cause of death
>> >in the United States.
>>
>> >The following figures for causes of death were taken from the "Statistical
>> >Abstract of the United States, 1996" published by the Census Bureau. It
>> >summarizes statistics for the year 1993 (the last year for which full
>> >statistics are available).
>>
>Of course, using Belk's logic, we should include all deaths by spontaneous
>abortion, as well as induced, which of course would make induced abortion
>number 2, far below the number of spontaneous abortions yearly.
>But that wouldn't be good propaganda, so Belk wouldn't do it.
On the other hand, it must be excellent propaganda
for the abortion advocates when Bruce Forest
belittles the loss felt by all couples who have
suffered the misfortune of miscarriage, as my wife
and I have. Presumably Bruce claims we were
propagandizing as we worked through our grief over
the loss of our precious children?
Nice bedside manner, Bruce.
Small wonder you don't practice medicine.
Lillith
Time and time again discussions get heated about abortion.
I know this may appear simplistic but what things come down to is that
Pro-Choice are just that, people who are for the right to CHOOSE between
having or not having an abortion. If you want or need one, the choice is
there, if you do not want one then you don't need to deal with the
decision.
Right-to-Lifers want there not to be a choice.
In my mind it is that simple - I want the freedom to choose. Whether I
would ever want an abortion or not, at least I have the comfort of
knowing that I have the right to choose.
If someone believes in their heart of hearts that an abortion is taking
a life, well, then don't have one. Don't put your personal beliefs ahead
of my own beliefs. What you choose to believe and teach in your homes
and places of worship is yours to do with what you will but I could
never force my morals on others let alone take away their freedom to
choose - why would I want someone to do that to me?
Lillith
Alan B. Mac Farlane
Hi Lillith:
I come up with the same conclusion that you do, however, to me it is clear
that the pro-lifers do not want the pro-choicers to run their lives. Such
is the no tollerance plank to have a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw
abortion and recognize the sperm, ovum, zygote, fetus as an unborn child -
a living person with all the rights and priveledges therein.
I call it facism. And I do not want to have anything to do with the
Republician Party as they are the Party of Pat Robertson and the Christian
Fundamentals who want to take your choice and individual freedom in
running your own medical life and death.
Hope that helps the discussion.
Alan
posted and mailed for comsec
--
Alan Brainiac Mac Farlane
Disclaimer, don't need no stinkin disclaimer. I am on a Macintosh !
Dark...@cold.soul
Lillith <Lil...@usa.net> wrote:
>Time and time again discussions get heated about abortion.
>I know this may appear simplistic but what things come down to is that
>Pro-Choice are just that, people who are for the right to CHOOSE between
>having or not having an abortion. If you want or need one, the choice is
>there, if you do not want one then you don't need to deal with the
>decision.
>Right-to-Lifers want there not to be a choice.
>In my mind it is that simple - I want the freedom to choose. Whether I
>would ever want an abortion or not, at least I have the comfort of
>knowing that I have the right to choose.
>If someone believes in their heart of hearts that an abortion is taking
>a life, well, then don't have one. Don't put your personal beliefs ahead
>of my own beliefs. What you choose to believe and teach in your homes
>and places of worship is yours to do with what you will but I could
>never force my morals on others let alone take away their freedom to
>choose - why would I want someone to do that to me?
>Lillith
Hola, Lillith...
Let me start out by saying that I am seriously pro-choice, although I
think it may well be murder. I am pretty much pro-murder as well, in
the sense that if they'd make it legal for me to just kill those
people who truly annoy me (or would ruin my life...), I'd take
advantage of the choice.
That stated, I'll try to explain why the anti-abortionists want to
take your choice from you.
THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
It's actually that simple.
Look at it from another point of view.
Let's say a serious fluke brought a strict fundamentalist government
into power in the US. Women were forced to cover up all but their
eyes, were not allowed education, and their husbands were given
"choice" in the matter of beating them or even killing them.
This would outrage you? Even though it was now the law? You would
protest? Attempt to take the male "choice" away?
The anti-abortion forces see what they consider "murder of children"
as murder of children. To the average anti-abortionist, every
abortion is the killing of an unarmed victim.
Frankly, as women get unilateral "choice" in abortion matters due to
the fact that it is their bodies involved, I'd like to extend abortion
rights for 3 months AFTER birth, to give the father a reasonable time
to decide on being a father, and make his own unilateral decision on
either allowing the child to survive, or killing it.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
>
### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion is
murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful killing
of a person. For these pro-lie a sperm fecundating an egg: there is an
instant person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they have
to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not stupid
persons they are liars pure and simple.
John Hausmann
Pure Silk (pure...@usa.net) wrote:
: On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 22:54:03 -0800, "Vasile Aciobanitei"
: <val...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >*
: >*
: >*> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
: >*> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
: >*>
: >*### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion is
: >*murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful killing
: >*of a person. For these pro-lie a sperm fecundating an egg: there is an
: >*instant person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they have
: >*to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
: >*(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not stupid
: >*persons they are liars pure and simple.
: >*
: Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
: themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
: and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
And how many pro-lifers fit the profil you describe? Is it some statistically
insignificant percentage? Do you know what that means?
--
The sagacious reader who is capable of reading between these lines what does
not stand written in them, but is nevertheless implied, will be able to form
some conception.
-Goethe. Truth and Beauty
Pure Silk
>*
>*
>*> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
>*> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
>*>
>*### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion is
>*murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful killing
>*of a person. For these pro-lie a sperm fecundating an egg: there is an
>*instant person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they have
>*to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
>*(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not stupid
>*persons they are liars pure and simple.
>*
Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
"Pure Silk"
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/1574
The game of life is a lot like football. You have to tackle your problems,
block your fears, and score your points when you get the opportunity.
--Lewis Grizzard, 'Don't sit under the Grits Tree With Anyone Else But Me'
Joseph P. Belk
bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Joseph P. Belk | "The Gospel of Life is not for believers alone:|
|Eternal Life of | *it is for everyone.* The issue of life and its|
| East Tennessee | defense and promotion is not a concern for |
| unemployed | Christians alone....The value at stake is one |
| homeless | which every human being can grasp by the light |
| joyful in the Lord | of reason; thus it necessarily concerns |
|<bel...@usit.net> | everyone."-*Evangelium Vitae* 101, John Paul II|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Forest
Is Belk so desperate to insult me that he merely reposts his insults of the
previous week? I, however, have no desire to respond to this again and
again.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> haus...@netcom.com (John Hausmann) wrote in article
<hausmannD...@netcom.com>...
> Pure Silk (pure...@usa.net) wrote:
> : On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 22:54:03 -0800, "Vasile Aciobanitei"
> : <val...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> : >*
> : >*
> : >*> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
> : >*> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
> : >*>
> : >*### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above:
"abortion is
> : >*murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful
killing
> : >*of a person. For these pro-lie a sperm fecundating an egg: there is
an
> : >*instant person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they
have
> : >*to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
> : >*(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not
stupid
> : >*persons they are liars pure and simple.
> : >*
>
> : Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
> : themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
> : and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
>
> And how many pro-lifers fit the profil you describe? Is it some
statistically
> insignificant percentage? Do you know what that means?
>
### Why are you asking for statistics? So called "pro-life" definition is
a lie in itself. You want there to be more violence and murder against
abortion clinics and doctors so you can say "oh really, pro-lie are
violent and murder people"?. Watch out! here is another violent person
that post : M. W(r)ong.
Kenneth Gore
> >
It's rather noticeable that you are, indeed, struggling with the thought
of accepting the fact that abortion truely is an act of premeditated
murder, which is very, very true. Moreover, you should recognize that
the act of murder is not merely based on some legal premise, judicially,
but most significantly and more importantly, but a moral concept which
must always be condemned as a crime against humanity itself. Murder is
murder is murder no matter how you view or define the act!
Manya F
>
>Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
>themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
>and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
>
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
In article <01bbc49e.2b99d7c0$33d5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
<val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>
>> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
>> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
>>
>### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion is
>murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful killing
>to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
>(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not stupid
>persons they are liars pure and simple.
>
necessesarily believe abortion to be murder, as in the'unlawful killing'
you talk about. Nontheless it _is_ the killing of a human being. A human
being with no fewer rights than you or me. I'd also like to challenge
the sarcastic tone in your posting when saying that "there is an instant
life". If you don't believe that there is, then when exactly do you
believe the unborn child becomes a human being? This is where the
problem lies for pro-abortionists. I have not yet heard an argument in
which holes cannot be picked.
Thanks,
Manya.
--
Manya F
Michael Reedich
Vasile Aciobanitei wrote:
> ### I am struggling only with your stupidity. Murder is a term that
> pertain to law terminology, therefore in murder definition a fetus is not
> a person. Murder = unlawful killing of a person.
Wait a minute...are you really saying that killing someone is NOT murder if
a government allows it? Is your morality defined so easily?
Consider History before you make such a statement.
There were times when many people were not considered persons; Blacks, Jews,
Homosexuals etc.
Maybe you were so interested in calling someone else stupid that you didn't
think clearly.
Mike
amazon
Manya:
It's great to see a pro-life person try to step into another's shoes.
Whether you are for or against abortion - that is up to you. To take
away the right to choose is a whole other thing.
Believe as you would but let me decide what to do with my own body.
Amazon
James V. Reagan
Pure Silk wrote:
> Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
> themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
> and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
>
As the saying goes:
"Guns don't kill people... anti-abortionists do!"
--
James V. Reagan
Joe Fralix
In reading this thread, I am getting increasingly concerned about the
misrepresentation of "pro-life" and the flaming of those of us who
believe that all life is given by God and that man, in our futile
attempt to control every aspect of our lives, have ascended to the
position of deciding on a whim who should live and who should die. It
is a bioligical fact that life begins at conception, whether you accept
this fact or not. Animal rights proponents understand this fact in the
realms of the non-human animal kingdom through the imposition of fines
and imprisonment for the killing of a doe and her unborn fawn. What is
the difference in the pre-mature taking of a human life? I would assume
that most animal rights activists are also pro-choice.
Another fact that I find missing in this discussion relates to the
statistics that prove abortion is simply another form of birth control.
95% of all abortions are performed for convenience. Less than 3% are
the result of incest or rape and the remaining 2+% are performed because
the life of the mother is in danger.
PS - I know my opinion is in opposition to the root of this thread and I
will be flamed for expressing it. Too bad! That is the risk I take.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Joe Fralix <fra...@nortel.ca> wrote in article
<32765A...@nortel.ca>...
>
> Another fact that I find missing in this discussion relates to the
> statistics that prove abortion is simply another form of birth control.
> 95% of all abortions are performed for convenience. Less than 3% are
> the result of incest or rape and the remaining 2+% are performed because
> the life of the mother is in danger.
>
> PS - I know my opinion is in opposition to the root of this thread and I
> will be flamed for expressing it. Too bad! That is the risk I take.
>
### Is also true that more than 95% of abortion are done before 3 months.
But who doesn't like his/her life to be confortable or ease? Did I flame
you?
HEATHER BOWENS
A QUESTION ABOUT SPAMMING:
I HAVE A "FRIEND" WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SPAMMING BUT I DON'T THINK HE
IS.
HE IS STUDYING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND IS WORRIED THAT THE
ANN ARBOR POLICE ARE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE NAKED MILE.
THEY HAVE BEEN THREATENING TO DO SO.
THE NAKED MILE IS WHERE 2-300 BEAUTIFUL YOUNG GIRLS GO RUNNING THRU THE
STREETS BUCK NAKED.
TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE FIGHT TO KEEP THE NAKED MILE GO TO
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/themile
BUT I DIGRESS.
SOME OF HIS SO-CALLED "FRIENDS" HAVE SAID THAT TO TALK ABOUT THE NAKED
MILE ON USENET IS SPAMMING.
BUT I TOLD MY "FRIEND" I DON'T THINK IT IS.
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT SPAMMING WAS WHEN YOU TRIED TO USE THE USENET
NEWSGROUPS FOR ADVANCING YOUR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
SO SINCE HE IS NOT SELLING ANYTHING I DON'T THINK HE IS SPAMMING.
PLUS THE WHOLE "OFF-TOPIC" ISSUE IS SO SUBJECTIVE. I SURE WOULDN'T WANT
TO LET SOME BOZO DECIDE FOR ME WHAT IS OFF-TOPIC BECAUSE OF HIS LIMITED
BANDWIDTH.
I WILL ADMIT MY "FRIEND" IS A LITTLE OBSESSED ABOUT THE NAKED MILE.
HE TELLS ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE HE MEETS ON LINE TO COME TO ANN ARBOR FOR
THE NEXT RUNNING.
HE EVEN TOLD ME ABOUT SOME PLACE THAT IS GIVING AWAY FREE VIDEOS OF THE
NAKED MILE BUT DON'T ASK ME WHERE THOSE SITES ARE LOCATED.
BUT OBSESSION DOESN'T equal SPAMMING IN MY BOOK.
AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT OTHER USENET READERS THOUGHT.
PARTICULARLY AVID USENET READERS WHO FOLLOW POSTS AND THREADS
RELIGIOUSLY.
I TRIED TO POST THIS QUEERY TO AS MANY GROUPS AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I
WANT TO GET A BROADBASED REACTION- NOT JUST FROM A FEW SELECT NICHE
GROUPS SUCH AS ALT.SEX OR MISC.BIZ WHOSE VIEWS MAY NOT BE REFLECTIVE OF
THE SENTIMENTS OF THE WHOLE USENET COMMUNITY.
ANOTHER THING BOTHERS ME ABOUT SOME OF MY "FRIENDS" CRITICS.
THEY HAVE A COMBINATION MESSIANIC COMPLEX ANAL-RETENTIVE PROBLEM.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE GIVEN THAT JOINT DIAGNOSIS BEFORE BUT I FEEL
THAT THOSE OF YOU IN THE MEDICINE USENET GROUPS OUGHT TO BE INFORMED.
THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE THE LORD TRYING TO SAVE USENET FROM ANYONE
WHO THEY DEEM IN THEIR JUDGEMENT (EVEN THOUGH THE BIBLE SAYS "JUDGE
NOT")
IS VIOLATING THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE SPIRIT OF USENET INTERCHANGE.
THESE MESSIANIC/ANAL-RETENTIVES MAY THINK THEY ARE THE SAVIOUR BUT
THEIR
LANGUAGE IS ANYTHING BUT HEAVENLY- THEY USE THE MOST FOUL PERJORATIVES
IN ATTACKING ANYONE THEY FEEL IS THREATING THEIR PATHETIC LITTLE
FIEFDOMS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE LIKE THE WORST OF THE RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS I
KNOW,
BUT THEY ARE HEATHEN. THEY DETERMINE IN THEIR NARROW LITTLE MIND WHAT
IS ON TOPIC AND WHAT IS OFF. THEIR LACK OF REASONING, ANALYTICAL SKILLS
AND LATERAL THINKING IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.
HEATHEN FUNDAMENTALIST ANAL RETENTIVE MESSIANICS IS THE BEST WAY TO
DESCRIBE THEM.
THESE CYBER-PIRATES MAKED THE CDA LOOK LIKE A GRAMMAR SCHOOL CODE
FROM THE 50'S.
THEY'RE MORE OBSESSED WITH SHOVING THEIR SNIVELING, MORONIC, LEWD AND
MERITLESS "NET-VALUES" DOWN EVERYBODY'S THROAT THAN MY "FRIEND" IS
OBSESSED WITH THE NAKED MILE.
SOMEHOW THEY FEEL THEY GOT "THE WORD" (FROM ABOVE) (OR MORE LIKELY-
BELOW)THAT THEY ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE USENET GATE AND IF THEY DON'T
STOP SO-CALLED "VIOLATORS" THE WORLD WILL END.
THESE SMUG SELF-RIGHTEOUS HEATHEN FUNDAMENTALIST ANAL RETENTIVE
MESSIANICS ARE SO POMPOUS THEY RIVAL THE WORST INTOLERANCE I'VE SEEN
IN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. EVEN THE JIHAD SHOWS MORE RESTRAINT.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THOUGHTS ARE ON THESE TOPICS, I THINK
MAINSTREAMING THE INTERNET IT DEPENDANT ON STOPPING THESE ABERRATIONAL
LIFE FORMS.
I GUESS ON THIS ONE POINT I AGREE WITH MY NAKED MILE-OBSESSED "FRIEND"
THAT IS THESE
ABERRATIONAL SMUG INTOLERANT SELF-RIGHTEOUS CRUDE MESSIANIC
ANAL-RETENTIVE HEATHEN OUGHT TO CONSIDER RUNNING IN THE NAKED MILE
IT MIGHT CHEER THEM UP. JUST TYPE NAKED MILE IN YAHOO FOR ALL THE
RELATED NAKED MILE LINKS.
PS: HERE'S A GOOD NAKED MILE SITE:
http://www.infochase.com/test/underground
########################################
KINDLY IGNORE EVERYTHING AFTER THIS LINE. I HAD TO ADD "FILLER" TEXT
TO OVERRIDE A NETSCAPE ERROR MESSAGE I KEPT GETTING
rec.collecting., rec.crafts., rec.drugs., rec.equestrian,
rec.fag-bashing,
rec.folk-dancing, rec.food., rec.gambling., rec.games.,
rec.gardens., rec.guns, rec.heraldry,
rec.humor., rec.hunting., rec.juggling, rec.kites,
rec.knives, rec.mag., rec.martial-arts, rec.misc,
rec.models., rec.motorcycles., rec.music., rec.nude,
rec.org., rec.outdoors., rec.parks.theme,
rec.pets., rec.photo, rec.ponds, rec.puzzles.,
rec.pyrotechnics, rec.radio., rec.roller-coaster,
rec.running, rec.scouting., rec.scuba., rec.skiing.,
rec.skydiving, rec.sport., rec.toys.,
rec.travel., rec.video., rec.windsurfing, rec.woodworking,
sci.aeroanutics., sci.agriculture.,
sci.answers
Followup-To:
comp.periphs., comp.programming., comp.protocols.,
comp.publish., comp.realtime,
comp.research.japan, comp.risks, comp.robotics.,
comp.security., comp.simulation,
comp.society., somp.soft-sys., comp.software.,
comp.software-eng, comp.sources.,
comp.speciification., comp.speech, comp.std.,
comp.sw.components, comp.sys,
comp.terminals., comp.text.comp.theory.comp.unix.,
comp.virus, compl.windows.,
gnu.announce, gnu.bash.bug, news.answers, ews.groups.,
news.lists., news.misc,
news.newusers.questions, news.software.,
rec.animals.wildlife, rec.answers, rec.antiques.,
rec.aquaria., rec.arts., rec.audio., rec.autos.,
rec.aviation., rec.backcountry, rec.bicycles.,
rec.birds, rec.boats., rec.climbing
alt.gnn.exodus
alt.gopher
alt.gossip.royalty
alt.gothic.
alt.gourmand
alt.government.abuse
alt.grad-student.tenured
alt.graffiti
alt.graphics.
alt.great.
alt.great-lakes
alt.grelb
alt.guinea.pig.conspiracy
alt.guitar.
alt.hacker
alt.hackers.
alt.hackintosh
alt.hangover
alt.happy.
alt.happynet
alt.hash.house.harriers
alt.healing.reiki
alt.health.
alt.help.businesscalc
alt.hemp.
alt.heraldry.sca
alt.herpes.personals
alt.hi.
alt.hindu
alt.history.
alt.holowOrld.rpg
alt.home.
alt.home-theater.
alt.homosexual.
alt.horology
alt.horror.
alt.hotrod
alt.housing.nontrad
alt.how-to
alt.html
alt.human-brain
alt.humor.
alt.hvac
alt.hypertext
alt.hypnosis
alt.i.
alt.i-like-toejam.lets-share-a-slice.but-hold-the-cow-eyes-please
alt.icelandic.waif.bjork.bjork.bjork
alt.illuminati
alt.illustration.technical
alt.ima.
alt.imag.
alt.image.medical
alt.immortal
alt.impeach.clinton
alt.india.progressive
alt.individualism
alt.industrial.
alt.infertility
alt.info-science
alt.inner.circle
alt.internet.
alt.inventors
alt.invest.penny-stocks
alt.irc.
alt.irs.class-action
alt.is.
alt.islam.sufism
alt.japanese.text
alt.jokes.
alt.journalism.
alt.justin.what.are.you.doing.tonight
alt.jyotish
alt.kalbo
alt.karen
alt.kegs
alt.ketchup
alt.kids-talk.
alt.kill.the.whales
alt.lacrosse
alt.lamers.james-koput.net-abuser
alt.landscape.architecture
alt.lang.
alt.language.urdu.poetry
alt.lasers
alt.law-enforcement
alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue
alt.learning-to-lead
alt.lefthanders
alt.legend.king-arthur
alt.lemmings
alt.lesbian.feminist.poetry
alt.letzebuerger
alt.life.
alt.lifestyle.barefoot
alt.literacy.adult
alt.locksmithing
alt.lotto.players
alt.love
alt.lucky.w
alt.lunatics
alt.lycra
alt.mac.
alt.machines.cnc
alt.mag.
alt.magazines.pornographic
alt.magic.
alt.magick.
alt.make.money.fast
alt.malta
alt.management.tech-support
alt.manga
alt.manufacturing.misc
alt.marketplace.funky-stuff.forsale
alt.masonic.
alt.math.iams
alt.mcdonalds
alt.mechwarrior2
alt.med.
alt.medical.sales.jobs.offered
alt.meditation.
alt.mega-ego.yonderboy
alt.memetics
alt.mens-rights
alt.messianic
alt.mexico
alt.military.
alt.mindcontrol
alt.mining.recreational
alt.misanthropy
alt.misc.
alt.missing-adults
alt.missing-kids
alt.mobilehome
alt.models
alt.motd
alt.motherjones
alt.motorcycle.
alt.motorcycles.harley
alt.motss.bisexua-l
alt.mountain-bike
alt.movies.
alt.msdos.
alt.mud.
alt.multimedia.
alt.music.
alt.my.
alt.mythology.
alt.nader.elziq.is.a.loser
alt.native
alt.nature.mushrooms
alt.naughty.pictures
alt.necronomicon
alt.neo-tech
alt.netcom.sucks
alt.netgames.bolo
alt.new-england
alt.newbie
alt.newbies
alt.newgroup.for.fun.fun.fun
alt.news.
alt.news-media
alt.niteclub.
alt.nocem.misc
alt.noise
alt.non.sequitur
alt.nosebeeping
alt.npractitioners
alt.ntn-trivia
alt.nuke.
alt.null
alt.obituaries
alt.occult.kabbalah.golden-dawn
alt.ofc
alt.office.management
alt.online-service.
alt.org.
alt.os.
alt.out-of-body
alt.pagan.
alt.pantyhose
alt.parallel.universes
alt.paranet.
alt.paranormal.
alt.parenting.
alt.parents-teens
alt.party
alt.pave.the.earth
alt.peace.
alt.peace-corps
alt.peeves
alt.penguin-fetish.recovery
alt.periphs.pcmcia
alt.personals.
alt.pets.
alt.ph.
alt.philosophy.
alt.phreaking
alt.pinecone
alt.pissed.federal.employees
alt.pizza.delivery.drivers
alt.planning.
alt.politics.
alt.polyamory
alt.postmodern
alt.power
alt.president.clinton
alt.prisons
alt.privacy.
alt.private.investigator
alt.prophecies.nostradamus [FAQ]
alt.prose.
alt.psst.hoy
alt.psychoactives
alt.psychology.
alt.psychotic.roommates
alt.pub.
alt.publish.newspaper
alt.pud
alt.pulp
alt.punk.
alt.ql.creative
alt.quotations
alt.radio.
alt.raffaella.carra.sucks.sucks.sucks
alt.railroad
alt.random.noise
alt.rap.
alt.rap-gdead
alt.rave
alt.real-estate-agents
alt.realtor.relocation
alt.rec.
alt.recovery.
alt.religion.
alt.relocate
alt.rep.cypress-hill
alt.restaurants
alt.retribution
alt.revenge
alt.revisionism
alt.revolution.
alt.rhode_island
alt.rmfroup
alt.rmgroup
alt.rock-n-roll.
alt.rodney-king
alt.romance.
alt.rpg.
alt.rush-limbaugh
alt.rv
alt.sailing.asa
alt.satanism
alt.satellite.
alt.save.the.earth
alt.sb.programmer
alt.school.homework-help
alt.sci.
alt.scooter
alt.scottish.clans
alt.security.
alt.seduction.fast
alt.sega.genesis
alt.self-esteem
alt.self-improve
alt.sewing
alt.sex.
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
alt.sexy.bald.captains
alt.sf4m
alt.shared-reality.
alt.shenanigans
alt.shesaid
alt.shoe.lesbians
alt.showbiz.gossip
alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek
alt.sigma2.penis
alt.silly.group.names.d
alt.siplist
alt.skate.
alt.skate-board
alt.skincare.
alt.skinheads.
alt.skunks
alt.sl9
alt.slack
alt.smokers.
alt.smouldering.dog.zone
alt.snail-mail
alt.snowmobiles
alt.society.
alt.soft-sys.corel.draw
alt.solar.
alt.solaris.x86
alt.soulmates
alt.sources.
alt.spam
alt.speech.debate
alt.spleen
alt.sport.
alt.sports.
alt.stagecraft
alt.starfleet.
alt.startrek.
alt.steinberg.cubase
alt.stephen.currier
alt.stop.spamming
alt.stories.erotic
alt.students.exchange
alt.stupidity.
alt.sufi
alt.suicide.holiday
alt.super.
alt.supermodels.
alt.support.
alt.surfing.
alt.surrealism
alt.sustainable.agriculture
alt.svens.house.of.12.year-old.lust
alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork
alt.sys.
alt.sysadmin.
alt.taiwan.republic
alt.talk.
alt.talkers
alt.tanya.shalayeva
alt.tarot
alt.tasteless.
alt.teachers.lesson-planning
alt.technology.misc
alt.teens.
alt.telescopes.meade.lx200
alt.tennis
alt.test.
alt.testing.testing
alt.theft.sign-stealing
alt.thinking.hurts
alt.this.is.yet.another.test
alt.thought.southern
alt.timewasers
alt.tinygirls
alt.toolkits.xview
alt.toon-pics
alt.toys.
alt.transgendered
alt.travel.
alt.treasure.hunting
alt.troll
alt.true-crime
alt.tv
alt.ufc
alt.ufo.
alt.unix.wizards
alt.usage.
alt.usenet.
alt.utensils.spork
alt.uu.
alt.vacation.losvegas
alt.vampyres
alt.video.
alt.visa.us
alt.wanking.big.sigs
alt.war.
alt.warez.
alt.wedding
alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die
alt.windows.
alt.windows95
alt.winsock.
alt.wired
alt.wolves.
alt.women.
alt.wonderment.bgjw
alt.worst.of.usenet
alt.www.hotjava
alt.yoga
alt.zen
alt.zen+budo
alt.zima
alt.zines
alt.zorch
Ray Fischer
Joe Fralix <fra...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>In reading this thread, I am getting increasingly concerned about the
>misrepresentation of "pro-life" and the flaming of those of us who
>believe that all life is given by God and that man, in our futile
>attempt to control every aspect of our lives, have ascended to the
>position of deciding on a whim who should live and who should die.
Indeed. If man lived as God intended, we'd all be naked in caves and
dead by the age of 40. If God meant men to fly He'd have given htme
wings. If God had meant men to think and make choices, He'd have
given them minds and choice.
Oh wait, that's right. God _did_ give men and women choice.
How about that.
> It
>is a bioligical fact that life begins at conception,
No it isn't.
> whether you accept
>this fact or not.
It isn't a fact. Sperm are alive before conception.
> Animal rights proponents understand this fact in the
>realms of the non-human animal kingdom through the imposition of fines
>and imprisonment for the killing of a doe and her unborn fawn. What is
>the difference in the pre-mature taking of a human life? I would assume
>that most animal rights activists are also pro-choice.
Any deer that threatens to injure a person is dead. No trial, no appeal.
>Another fact that I find missing in this discussion relates to the
>statistics that prove abortion is simply another form of birth control.
>95% of all abortions are performed for convenience.
Where "convenience" is defined to mean anything that doesn't
immediately kill you.
How many people will die today for the sake of YOUR convenience?
> Less than 3% are
>the result of incest or rape and the remaining 2+% are performed because
>the life of the mother is in danger.
And some 80% are because of contraceptive failure.
Did you notice, by the way, that incest/rape account for about 45,000
abortions each year?
>PS - I know my opinion is in opposition to the root of this thread and I
>will be flamed for expressing it. Too bad! That is the risk I take.
If you're flamed, it's because your opinion is factually incorrect,
ignorant, and hypocritical.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<bePGlFA3...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >Also, how can pro-lifer's even call themselves 'pro-lifer's' when they
> >themselves commit acts of violence and murder against abortion clinics
> >and doctors? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
> >
> >
> Not all of us. In fact, a _very_ small minority.
> --
> Manya F
>
### It is sad but true, I've read too many opinions that condoned violence
and murder against abortion clinics and doctors. Pro-lie are only
emotionally deranged. I cannot explain why on this Earth are so many
unsolved social matters and they are fanatics to control private matters.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Kenneth Gore <kg...@ianet.net> wrote in article
<327645...@ianet.net>...
> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote:
> >
> > > Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
> > > THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
> > >
> > ### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion
is
> > murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful
killing
> > of a person. For these pro-lie a sperm fecundating an egg: there is an
> > instant person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they
have
> > to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
> > (murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not
stupid
> > persons they are liars pure and simple.
>
>
> It's rather noticeable that you are, indeed, struggling with the thought
> of accepting the fact that abortion truely is an act of premeditated
> murder, which is very, very true. Moreover, you should recognize that
> the act of murder is not merely based on some legal premise, judicially,
> but most significantly and more importantly, but a moral concept which
> must always be condemned as a crime against humanity itself. Murder is
> murder is murder no matter how you view or define the act!
>
### I am struggling only with your stupidity. Murder is a term that
pertain to law terminology, therefore in murder definition a fetus is not
a person. Murder = unlawful killing of a person. The only person is the
woman... you know... the person you hate so much. As for "premeditated"
there is nothing to be ashamed of, yes, abortion is a premediatated
removal or induced expulsion of a fetus. Go back to school, more people
over 40 are returning to college.
Michael Reedich
Vasile Aciobanitei wrote:
> ### Tell me a case in history when abortion was banned because of killing
> of a person. If you don't find something as such please sign your post
> "The Big Stupid Mike"
You missed the point. You appeared to be saying that a government can decide
what is murder and what is not. You seemed to be saying that there is no sense
of morality outside of the rulling party in power. I was asking you if you REALLY
believed that if a government says killing is OK, then you have no moral obligation
of your own. This question should be answered by all of us, regardless of our opinion
on abortion. (by the way, you do not know my stand on abortion).
You failed to answer the question, but you didn't fail to throw an insult at yet
another person who is trying to converse with you. Why is that? Don't you want to talk
to people...or are you just trolling?
Mike
mpa...@pacbell.com
Joe Fralix <fra...@nortel.ca> wrote:
FR>In reading this thread, I am getting increasingly concerned about the
FR>misrepresentation of "pro-life" and the flaming of those of us who
FR>believe that all life is given by God and that man, in our futile
I don't know about misrepresenting Pro-Life. As an example you prove
most of what is being said: you are pro-lie, not pro-life. As evidenced
by:
FR>attempt to control every aspect of our lives, have ascended to the
FR>position of deciding on a whim who should live and who should die. It
Abortion is NEVER done on a whim, but don't stop lying about it.
FR>is a bioligical fact that life begins at conception, whether you accept
And a sperm and egg are dead matter? Another lie, you're doing good.
<snip animal rights bs>
FR>Another fact that I find missing in this discussion relates to the
FR>statistics that prove abortion is simply another form of birth control.
FR>95% of all abortions are performed for convenience. Less than 3% are
Same lie as "whim" -- abortions are NOT performed for mere "convenience"
unless you have a vastly different definition of convenience than most
people.
FR>PS - I know my opinion is in opposition to the root of this thread and I
FR>will be flamed for expressing it. Too bad! That is the risk I take.
Flamed? Nah. You simply prove once again that "pro-life" are nothing
more than a bunch of liars pushing God only knows what agenda.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Internet: mpa...@pacbell.com
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Michael Reedich <mree...@epix.net> wrote in article
<3276CB...@epix.net>...
> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote:
>
> > ### I am struggling only with your stupidity. Murder is a term that
> > pertain to law terminology, therefore in murder definition a fetus is
not
> > a person. Murder = unlawful killing of a person.
>
> Wait a minute...are you really saying that killing someone is NOT murder
if
> a government allows it? Is your morality defined so easily?
> Consider History before you make such a statement.
> There were times when many people were not considered persons; Blacks,
Jews,
> Homosexuals etc.
>
> Maybe you were so interested in calling someone else stupid that you
didn't
> think clearly.
>
> Mike
>
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Michael Reedich <mree...@epix.net> wrote in article
<327842...@epix.net>...
> You missed the point. You appeared to be saying that a government can
decide
> what is murder and what is not. You seemed to be saying that there is
no sense
> of morality outside of the rulling party in power. I was asking you if
you REALLY
> believed that if a government says killing is OK, then you have no moral
obligation
> of your own. This question should be answered by all of us, regardless
of our opinion
> on abortion. (by the way, you do not know my stand on abortion).
>
> You failed to answer the question, but you didn't fail to throw an
insult at yet
> another person who is trying to converse with you. Why is that? Don't
you want to talk
> to people...or are you just trolling?
>
> Mike
>
### So you didn't find a case when abortion was banned on the basis that
fetus is a person, but you find cases when persons were not treated as
such, that is far away from the topic. The topic for me was abortion and
you missed the topic. My point was that the murder was, is and will be
unlawful killing of a person and fetus wasn't, isn't and won't be treated
as a person. The government decide if abortion has to be banned or not on
other reasons than murder, so there is no link between abortion and when
you say if government decide what is murder and what is not. And as a
matter of fact if a government decide that another country is an enemy,
then yes, the killing in a war has a basis even if other can consider
that murder.
I did not insult you, I only wanted you to be more informed before post
something. I didn't say that you are a big stupid, I said "If you don't
find.... then..."
Manya F
In article <01bbc701.b73f6320$8ad5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
<val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
> I cannot explain why on this Earth are so many
>unsolved social matters and they are fanatics to control private matters.
>
affects the way in which society values life in general, in the same way
that euthanasia does.
Manya.
--
Manya F
Manya F
In article <01bbc704.1f7b6e00$8ad5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
<val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>> >persons they are liars pure and simple.
>> >
want to control you for the sake of it. Don't flatter yourself.
>> Nontheless it _is_ the killing of a human being.
>
>### Why do you falsify? Where is a human being in abortion? There is only
>one person and that person is the woman.
To wander from topic slightly, no, it is not only the woman. Abortion
has wide-reaching affects for all of society. As I've mentioned, I also
think the child is a person.
>A human
>> being with no fewer rights than you or me.
>### Who gives rights to an z/e/f ?
Who gives rights to you and me????
> I'd also like to challenge
>> the sarcastic tone in your posting when saying that "there is an instant
>> life". If you don't believe that there is, then when exactly do you
>> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
>
>### Unborn and child is antagonism. Unborn = not yet born, Born = brought
>into life, being such by birth.
>>
So the only thing that defines us as living is that we are existing in
an uncontrolled environment? I hope not.
>### The problem with pro-lie are that they cannot conceive what pro-choice
>means.
You're incorrect. I understand what pro-choice means. I don't agree with
it. I think that we have to consider not only the woman (to whom 'pro-
choice' applies) but the child and society, and the effect it will have
on them. People who are 'pro-choice' are only promoting it for the
woman, and in doing so are removing the right to choice from the others
that I have mentioned.
Manya.
--
Manya F
zip
Manya:
> You're incorrect. I understand what pro-choice means. I don't agree with
> it. I think that we have to consider not only the woman (to whom 'pro-
> choice' applies) but the child and society, and the effect it will have
> on them. People who are 'pro-choice' are only promoting it for the
> woman, and in doing so are removing the right to choice from the others
> that I have mentioned.
>
> Manya.
> --
No you do not fully understand what pro-choice means
It is asking that women have the right to choose, whether you believe as
you do or whether you believe differently, women should have the right
to CHOOSE whether or not to have an abortion.
Pro-choice is NOT about denying anyone the right to anything.
It is a matter of keeping legal the procedure known as abortion.
Today a woman can make a personal choice as to what to do with her body.
She can choose to have or not have an abortion. The government has no
say what can be done with a woman's body. If for economic or personal
reasons she chooses to abort she has the choice, if she chooses to keep
a child that is ALSO her choice.
At least the ability to have a choice is there.
Whether you believe conception is the beginning of life or whether 21 is
the beginning of life (In some people I would questione even that) or
you believe there is life in sperm and egg, etc. You can still choose.
To tell me that should I accidently become pregnant and that I could not
choose what to do with my body is not only against my personal beliefs
but none of anyone elses darn business.
Zip
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<b+OG9BAx...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bbc49e.2b99d7c0$33d5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
> <val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >
> >
> >> Dark...@Cold.Soul wrote in article <54ruuc$h...@news2.tds.net>...
> >> THEY THINK IT'S MURDER...
> >>
> >### The biggest lie of a "pro-life" is what is stated above: "abortion
is
> >murder". They are no pro-life they are pro-lie. Murder = unlawful
killing
> >of a person. If they want to define abortion as murder then they have
> >to take "person" definition from a law guide. They take a law term
> >(murder) then define "person" with a biological term. They are not
stupid
> >persons they are liars pure and simple.
> >
> I am pro-life, but passively so. I would like to point out that I don't
> necessesarily believe abortion to be murder, as in the'unlawful killing'
> you talk about. Nontheless it _is_ the killing of a human being.
### Why do you falsify? Where is a human being in abortion? There is only
one person and that person is the woman.
A human
> being with no fewer rights than you or me.
### Who gives rights to an z/e/f ?
I'd also like to challenge
> the sarcastic tone in your posting when saying that "there is an instant
> life". If you don't believe that there is, then when exactly do you
> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
### Unborn and child is antagonism. Unborn = not yet born, Born = brought
into life, being such by birth.
This is where the
> problem lies for pro-abortionists.
I have not yet heard an argument in
> which holes cannot be picked.
> Thanks,
> Manya.
> --
> Manya F
>
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<e0bzkBA4$Qey...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bbc701.b73f6320$8ad5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
> <val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >
> > I cannot explain why on this Earth are so many
> >unsolved social matters and they are fanatics to control private
matters.
> >
> The point I'm trying to make is that this _is_ a social matter. It
> affects the way in which society values life in general, in the same way
> that euthanasia does.
> Manya.
> --
> Manya F
>
### Manya, when a woman become pregnant the society have to help that
woman to pursue her happiness. The PERSON has the right to pursue
happiness, in abortion case there are only ONE PERSON, and that person
cannot be forced by society to make some mad pro-lie happy if the woman is
unhappy with that pregnancy. Pregnancy is a private matter and when
fetuses will demonstrate on street against abortion then fetuses will be a
social matter, until then, if you don't like it abort it! Succes!
Red-Jaguar
In article <32765A...@nortel.ca>, Joe Fralix <fra...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>In reading this thread, I am getting increasingly concerned about the
Nothing new. Courts throughout time have issued death sentences.
Many cultures practiced infanticide & war.
Women throughout time have sought after ways to control thier
fertility.....whether preventing a birth, or seeking a pregancy.
>is a bioligical fact that life begins at conception, whether you accept
>this fact or not. Animal rights proponents understand this fact in the
>realms of the non-human animal kingdom through the imposition of fines
>and imprisonment for the killing of a doe and her unborn fawn. What is
What you seem to be refering to are the laws regulating game animal
populations. These laws exist to keep us from overhunting/over fishing a
food source. (Animal rights activists abhor hunting, & no doubt take a dim
view on laws & regulations designed to manage game)
Up shot of it, these laws are for regulating animal populations.
(by placing restrictions on the main predator... us)
It is illegal to kill the pregnant doe, not because of the intrinsic
'right to life' of the doe.. or the doe's fetus.....
but because if you kill off to many pregnant does, the population can
crash & then there will be NO game animals.
Its purely managing a food source wisely.
We do NOT regulate human populations like we do game animals, or
endangered speices.
Jaguar
>the difference in the pre-mature taking of a human life? I would assume
>that most animal rights activists are also pro-choice.
>
>Another fact that I find missing in this discussion relates to the
>statistics that prove abortion is simply another form of birth control.
>95% of all abortions are performed for convenience. Less than 3% are
>the result of incest or rape and the remaining 2+% are performed because
>the life of the mother is in danger.
>
>PS - I know my opinion is in opposition to the root of this thread and I
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<pFruoFA7...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bbc704.1f7b6e00$8ad5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
> <val...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >> >persons they are liars pure and simple.
> >> >
> What on earth would be my motive for lying? Before you say it, I _don't_
> want to control you for the sake of it. Don't flatter yourself.
### If there is not a motive for lying, then you are lying with no motive.
>
> >> Nontheless it _is_ the killing of a human being.
> >
> >### Why do you falsify? Where is a human being in abortion? There is
only
> >one person and that person is the woman.
> To wander from topic slightly, no, it is not only the woman. Abortion
> has wide-reaching affects for all of society. As I've mentioned, I also
> think the child is a person.
### Are you raving or what? Who said that child is not a person?
>
> >A human
> >> being with no fewer rights than you or me.
> >### Who gives rights to an z/e/f ?
> Who gives rights to you and me????
### So you want to give rights to a z/e/f that is not yours? When z/e/f
will grow on trees then everybody can struggle to have it untill then only
the woman can decide what to do with her z/e/f.
>
>
> > I'd also like to challenge
> >> the sarcastic tone in your posting when saying that "there is an
instant
> >> life". If you don't believe that there is, then when exactly do you
> >> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
### <<Giggling>> When a sperm reach the egg, in that instant there is a
human being <<Finishing giggling>> Wanna play with this human being?
> >
> >### Unborn and child is antagonism. Unborn = not yet born, Born =
brought
> >into life, being such by birth.
> >>
> So the only thing that defines us as living is that we are existing in
> an uncontrolled environment? I hope not.
### What do you like to control? Personal matters?
>
> >### The problem with pro-lie are that they cannot conceive what
pro-choice
> >means.
> You're incorrect. I understand what pro-choice means. I don't agree with
> it. I think that we have to consider not only the woman (to whom 'pro-
> choice' applies) but the child and society, and the effect it will have
> on them. People who are 'pro-choice' are only promoting it for the
> woman, and in doing so are removing the right to choice from the others
> that I have mentioned.
>
### Read what zip say.
> Manya.
> --
> Manya F
>
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
In article <327645...@ianet.net>, Kenneth Gore <kg...@ianet.net> writes:
[Vasile's stuff munched]
> It's rather noticeable that you are, indeed, struggling with the thought
> of accepting the fact that abortion truely is an act of premeditated
> murder, which is very, very true.
Saying it a thousand times does not make it so. Abortion has not been
considered murder even *before* Roe vs. Wade County et al.
Show me a statute before 1973 that stated that abortion was to be treated
the same as murder (with the same penalties), and I might believe you.
> Moreover, you should recognize that
> the act of murder is not merely based on some legal premise, judicially,
> but most significantly and more importantly, but a moral concept which
> must always be condemned as a crime against humanity itself. Murder is
> murder is murder no matter how you view or define the act!
If I were to define "murder" as "the ingestion of something with ketchup
on it", I think you may have a logical problem. :-)
And there are many forms of one person causing the death of another person
in many localities. A small sample:
involuntary manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
simple homicide
homicide with special circumstances
justifiable homicide
In modern law, there are even some localities which attempt to allow for
the district attorney to charge for two murders if the perpetrator kills
an obviously pregnant woman. Since the woman did not consent to him killing
her foetus (or herself!), this is not the same as abortion.
I am not an expert in law (obviously), but I do know that the killing of a
person is not always considered "murder".
And a foetus is not a person. Not yet, anyway.
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<o09U3BA+...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >>
> >### Manya, when a woman become pregnant the society have to help that
> >woman to pursue her happiness.
> What about the happiness of the child?
### You are exasperating! What kind of child are you speaking about? A
child is one that is wanted and brought to life, thus pro-lie want to
force women to have unwanted children. They lie that child is something in
the womb when "child in the womb" is a term used for dummies to understand
that in a belly of a pregnant woman is something that look more like a
baby and not like a chair.
> > The PERSON has the right to pursue
> >happiness, in abortion case there are only ONE PERSON,
> I'm afraid not.
### So what if you are afraid? You afraid of a truth as usually.
> >and that person
> >cannot be forced by society to make some mad pro-lie happy if the woman
is
> >unhappy with that pregnancy.
> Unfortunately this is the case. I'd prefer it if you would restrain from
> being abusive to me in the form of calling me pro-lie.
### The term "pro-life" is a lie when they like to select only the kind
life they want.
I may disagree
> with you, but I'm never impolite. I try to respect and understand your
> opinion, whilst also explaining mine. I would expect the same level of
> maturity from you.
### I am not reffering with the term "pro-lie" especially to you. So
called "pro-life" have to find another self-appellation because they are
not pro life in general but specificaly for fetus and not even for any
fetus but for human fetus.
> > Pregnancy is a private matter and when
> >fetuses will demonstrate on street against abortion then fetuses will
be a
> >social matter, until then, if you don't like it abort it! Succes!
> The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
> are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY. Eventuallythe repurcussions of
> this will stretch further than the unborn child, perhaps affecting you
> and me.
>
### Abortion is a somehow a recent matter and devaluating a human life
started not because ther were abortion. Take for example Cain and Abel,
Cain didn't devaluate his brother's human life because he has seen so many
abortions. To sustain that abortion devaluate human life you have to bring
some real reason. I can say that abortion doesn't devaluate a human life
as long as a wanted child is more valuable than an unwated child. Bringing
an unwanted child in this world you only make a life to be miserable.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<kU6XPEAg...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >> What on earth would be my motive for lying? Before you say it, I
_don't_
> >> want to control you for the sake of it. Don't flatter yourself.
> >
> >### If there is not a motive for lying, then you are lying with no
motive.
> Okay, re read this yourself. Do you really believe it?
### Yep, I believe that the line is for you.
> >> >
> >> >### Why do you falsify? Where is a human being in abortion? There is
> >only
> >> >one person and that person is the woman.
> >> To wander from topic slightly, no, it is not only the woman. Abortion
> >> has wide-reaching affects for all of society. As I've mentioned, I
also
> >> think the child is a person.
### Of course the child is a person but not a z/e/f as you try to
obfuscate.
> >
> >### Are you raving or what? Who said that child is not a person?
> Actually you did. Try reading five lines above this. Yes that's right,
> "There is only one person, and that person is the woman" if I'm not
> mistaken, you wrote that.
### Actually you lie! The topic is abortion, not birth!
>
> >when exactly do you
> >> >> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
> >
> >### <<Giggling>> When a sperm reach the egg, in that instant there is a
> >human being <<Finishing giggling>> Wanna play with this human being?
> Don't be infantile.
Manya.
### Me? Infantile? No way! I am only giving a answer for your tought! You
tell me when non human sperm and non human egg became a human being.
Richard J. Pokorny
In article <327CC0...@life.now>, zip <G...@life.now> wrote:
> Manya F:
>
> > The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
> > are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY. Eventuallythe repurcussions of
> > this will stretch further than the unborn child, perhaps affecting you
> > and me.
>
>
> NO, YOU see it as devaluing human life. Like all your compatriots you
> would like to force your PERSONAL beliefs upon society therefore
> validating your position.
>
> Get it straight, what I choose to do is my business, with my body, with
> my life - it is mine to choose. You CHOOSE to believe what you do, keep
> on believing it BUT don't you DARE force your beliefs on me. What you
> are advocating is your own PERSONAL insights.
>
> Keep them there.
>
> Zip
Well Zippy, when you stop doing the same, then we might. Until then I'll
keep on voicing my opinion loud and clear just as the pro-aborts do - you
hypocrite.
RJP
1-800-96-ADOPT
Richard J. Pokorny
In article <01bbc9db.9137e1c0$29d5bbcd@netscape>, "Vasile Aciobanitei"
<val...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote in article <327CE5...@ns.net>...
> >
>
> > Well, "murder" is a term that is primarily a legal one. However, it
> > does have common useage that goes beyond that. Sometimes being on this
> > newsgroup is murder. :)
>
> ### If "murder" is not used in its meaning then using it for abortion is a
> lie. Better use other terminology to describe abortion. There is a common
> definition of abortion : removal of induced expulsion of a fetus.
>
> >
> > If one cannot do this, then I suppose all abortion rights supporters
> > that don't call an embryo a human being are also liars, since by strict
> > definition, an embryo most definitely is a living creature that is
> > human.
> >
> > --Melanie
> >
>
> ### It is a lie to call an embryo a human being even if embryo is human
> (adj.) and it is not human (noun). You are a quite long time on this ng.
> don't you learn something? Until when pro-lie will keep obfuscating an
> adjective with a noun?
cheeseburger, cheeseburger, pepsi, pepsi
Vasile Aciobanitei
REP
In article <kU6XPEAg...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>, Manya F
<ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[responding to Vasile Aciobanitel, I believe - please do not remove
attribute lines]
> >> What on earth would be my motive for lying? Before you say it, I _don't_
> >> want to control you for the sake of it. Don't flatter yourself.
> >
> >### If there is not a motive for lying, then you are lying with no motive.
> Okay, re read this yourself. Do you really believe it?
> >
> >> >
> >> >### Why do you falsify? Where is a human being in abortion? There is
> >only
> >> >one person and that person is the woman.
> >> To wander from topic slightly, no, it is not only the woman. Abortion
> >> has wide-reaching affects for all of society. As I've mentioned, I also
> >> think the child is a person.
> >
> >### Are you raving or what? Who said that child is not a person?
> Actually you did. Try reading five lines above this. Yes that's right,
> "There is only one person, and that person is the woman" if I'm not
> mistaken, you wrote that.
Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human being
and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that point.
--
"I think of myself as a person who will eat your lunch one day."
- Ralph "Goldilocks" Taite in <4ultck$m...@panix2.panix.com>
Ray Fischer
Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>and that person
>>cannot be forced by society to make some mad pro-lie happy if the woman is
>>unhappy with that pregnancy.
>
>Unfortunately this is the case. I'd prefer it if you would restrain from
>being abusive to me in the form of calling me pro-lie. I may disagree
>with you, but I'm never impolite. I try to respect and understand your
>opinion, whilst also explaining mine. I would expect the same level of
>maturity from you.
Then I suggest that you not insult people by telling them that they
are devaluing human life.
>> Pregnancy is a private matter and when
>>fetuses will demonstrate on street against abortion then fetuses will be a
>>social matter, until then, if you don't like it abort it! Succes!
>
>The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
>are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY.
Bullshit.
> Eventuallythe repurcussions of
>this will stretch further than the unborn child, perhaps affecting you
>and me.
Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
showing no respect for people?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Mask'd Intruder
On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 10:53:54 -0500, zip <G...@life.now> wrote:
:Manya F:
:
:> The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
:> are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY. Eventuallythe repurcussions of
:> this will stretch further than the unborn child, perhaps affecting you
:> and me.
:
:
:NO, YOU see it as devaluing human life. Like all your compatriots you
:would like to force your PERSONAL beliefs upon society therefore
:validating your position.
:
:Get it straight, what I choose to do is my business, with my body, with
:my life - it is mine to choose. You CHOOSE to believe what you do, keep
:on believing it BUT don't you DARE force your beliefs on me. What you
:are advocating is your own PERSONAL insights.
:
:Keep them there.
:
:Zip
Isn't that the same arguement anyone can make against another, it's
just your opinion....
So tell us all Zip, what do you need, what criteria do you have to
meet to obtain an abortion? Outside of the fairly rare need for an
abortion due to medical complications, what is it's usual purpose?
Personally I don't give a rip if you have the right to abort your
irrersponsiblity, I seek 'equality' for men..... Men should also
have the right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood, simply
because it isn't right for their lives. Does this seem as fair to
you as your own right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood? Or
do you believe that for the sake of the sex act itself, men should be
held responsible? It is after all, based solely on your 'choice' as
you see it for your life.... to bare a child or abort. Don't you
think it should be 'equal' for both based on their own lives,
respectively?
"Just cos' you got the Blues don't mean you gotta sing....
Hey! Be yourself and do your thing...." Savoy Brown
amazon
RJP comments:
> Well Zippy, when you stop doing the same, then we might. Until then I'll
> keep on voicing my opinion loud and clear just as the pro-aborts do - you
> hypocrite.
>
> RJP
> 1-800-96-ADOPT
Well Richie,
Excuse me, I do NOT call people murderers for choosing what they do. I
do not belittle their beliefs for feeling as they do. I get angry at
people for telling me my choice is wrong and theirs is right.
There is no right or wrong just PERSONAL decisions.
You obviously did not read my posts - I am for CHOICE get it, CHOICE.
Not, OUR WAY OR NO WAY.
Zip
amazon
Intruder poses:
> Isn't that the same arguement anyone can make against another, it's
> just your opinion....
But I don't accuse people of murder and say the should have no opinion
>
> So tell us all Zip, what do you need, what criteria do you have to
> meet to obtain an abortion?
The POINT is that it should not be any of your business. If one partner
chooses to talk to the other, that's great. But it is a personal matter.
Outside of the fairly rare need for an
> abortion due to medical complications, what is it's usual purpose?
Again, each case is indiviual. If you want to say it is because of any
variety of reasons, go ahead, but each person has their own story.
> Personally I don't give a rip if you have the right to abort your
> irrersponsiblity, I seek 'equality' for men..... Men should also
> have the right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood, simply
> because it isn't right for their lives.
Men do have the ability to abort responsibility - they leave. If a man
hasn't had the forsight to use a condom or discuss birth control the
fate is his. Just as if a woman hasn't thought ahead. Women have to be
there for the birth - duh. Men can just not show up and never be there.
Does this seem as fair to
> you as your own right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood?
Parenthood is something many people need to think about before having
sex. I personally had an abortion because I was young, thought condoms
were 100% (I didn't know better) and an incredible financial burden and
the father was too young and HE DECIDED he wasn't the father so he
walked.
Or
> do you believe that for the sake of the sex act itself, men should be
> held responsible?
Again, both parties need to think and get educated before acting.
It is after all, based solely on your 'choice' as
> you see it for your life.... to bare a child or abort.
It is strange how lightly you seem to take that choice. It is a serious
decision not taken so lightly.
Don't you
> think it should be 'equal' for both based on their own lives,
> respectively?
If the father and mother of the soon to be born child are of a maturity
to talk things out and come to an agreement, sure.
Zip
amazon
Manya responds:
> >Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human being
> >and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that point.
> >
> There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
> --
> Manya F
It is your right to CHOOSE to believe this. You two are arguing over
personal beliefs in this segment of the dialogue, don't you think?
Zip/Amazon
amazon
Manya says:
> I;m sorry, I didn't realise that I was comunicating with someone who
> believes in absolute choice for all.
When regarding rights to choose whether or not a woman is allowed to
decide what is done with her own body.
> You do don't you? Obviously you
> wouldn't mind if someone murdered your mother/father/sister/brother/best
> friend etc. afterall it's totally up to them what they do.
Of course not. (and it is not up to them if they get murdered)
You are being irrational. Your argument is ridiculous. You are basing
this on your personal belief that conception marks the beginning of life
for a human child. That is your PERSONAL belief - that is okey dokey.
You wouldn't
> want people selling drugs to ten year olds to be chased by the police, I
> mean, how unreasonable is it?
And what does selling drugs have to do with reproductive rights for a
woman? Really, this is reaching a bit.
> How dare people try to impose their
> "personal beliefs" on rapists, and try to stop them from raping women.
Excuse me, rape is against the law, abortion is not.
As it stands in this country, women have a right to choose between
having or not having an abortion. Because of this country's
constitution, you can believe what you will and voice your personal
opinion on whatever topic you please. For the fourth or fifth time, you
can believe what you will but I will NOT have the government make a
decision on what is a PERSONAL choice for me. I do not believe that
conception marks the moment a mass of cells is human BUT I can
understand that you do believe this.
Accept the fact that I do not agree or disagree with you I just want you
to realize the Pro-Choice is not necessarily pro-abort - though some
would make it seem so.
Zip/Amazon
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<xrl+xPAa...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human
being
> >and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that
point.
> >
> There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
> --
> Manya F
>
### Yep, there is an uborn. Unborn = not yet born, Born = brought into
life, being such by birth. Children are at birth, so don't use an
antagonism. "Children in the womb" is an expression to understnad that in
a belly of pregnant woman is something that look more like a children (if
it look like) than a chair.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> rich...@mail.idt.net (Richard J. Pokorny) wrote in article
<richpo19-031...@ppp23.fcol.com>...
> In article <327CC0...@life.now>, zip <G...@life.now> wrote:
>
>
> Well Zippy, when you stop doing the same, then we might. Until then I'll
> keep on voicing my opinion loud and clear just as the pro-aborts do -
you
> hypocrite.
>
> RJP
> 1-800-96-ADOPT
>
### Wow Pkorny! you send same msg. two times at an interval of two minutes
hoping to be more credible when naming someone "hypocrite". You failed
graciously!
A pro-choice never force a woman to abort, is that so difficult for you to
understand? If pro-lie stop to lie and voice their opinion that they want
to adopt in order to be seen as good persons or be noticed in some way,
then it will be something different. But for god sake! Stop lying that
z/e/f is a person! Maybe it will be, but it is not!
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<aLY0pQAs...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >> >
> >> >### If there is not a motive for lying, then you are lying with no
> >motive.
> >> Okay, re read this yourself. Do you really believe it?
> >
> >### Yep, I believe that the line is for you.
> Fine, if we're going to be like this, then I could say that I believe
> that you want to kill the unborn child simply because you're evil. I
> don't believe that, nor do I say it. Nontheless I attribute to you
> qualities that I would like you to attribute to me.
### I cannot be evil killing something unborn. Unborn = not yet born, born
= brought into life, being such by birth.
> >
> >
> >### Of course the child is a person but not a z/e/f as you try to
> >obfuscate.
> >
> I think it is.
### I think a person is much, much more than a z/e/f even if it is human.
> >> >
> >> >### Are you raving or what? Who said that child is not a person?
> >
> >> Actually you did. Try reading five lines above this. Yes that's
right,
> >> "There is only one person, and that person is the woman" if I'm not
> >> mistaken, you wrote that.
### The topic is abortion not birth. At birth there are two persons. At
abortion is only one person : pregnant woman.
> >
> >### Actually you lie! The topic is abortion, not birth
> I'm sorry, I don't see how I wandered from topic (no sarcasm).
### When the topic will be birth and not abortion then you are in topic,
but as long as you think z/e/f is a person then you can play with that
person (no sarcasm), I will talk softly and carry a megawatt laser.
> >
> >>
> >> >when exactly do you
> >> >> >> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
> >> >
> >> >### <<Giggling>> When a sperm reach the egg, in that instant there
is a
> >> >human being <<Finishing giggling>> Wanna play with this human being?
> >
> >
> >### Me? Infantile? No way! I am only giving a answer for your tought!
You
> >tell me when non human sperm and non human egg became a human being.
> At the moment of conception.
>
> Manya.
> >
### The human conception had taken place long time ago, you cannot destroy
conception of humans, you can only stop developing of undeveloped form of
human life and that is a choice of developed humans.
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<ybc+tJA9...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> By killing unborn children we are sending the message that killing is
> acceptable. If that's not devaluing human life then I don't know what
> is.
>
### Killing what is unborn has nothing to do with devaluing human life.The
value of life doesn't stand in undeveloped form of human life but in
developed humans.
> >
> >Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
> >showing no respect for people?
> I respect people, and as I have said, if the mother was in danger of
> being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
>
> Manya.
### There is a killing anyway. Killing is a day-by-day activity.
Manya F
Manya F
>
>> >
>> >### If there is not a motive for lying, then you are lying with no
>motive.
>> Okay, re read this yourself. Do you really believe it?
>
>### Yep, I believe that the line is for you.
Fine, if we're going to be like this, then I could say that I believe
that you want to kill the unborn child simply because you're evil. I
don't believe that, nor do I say it. Nontheless I attribute to you
qualities that I would like you to attribute to me.
>
>
>obfuscate.
>
I think it is.
>> >
>
>> Actually you did. Try reading five lines above this. Yes that's right,
>> "There is only one person, and that person is the woman" if I'm not
>> mistaken, you wrote that.
>
I'm sorry, I don't see how I wandered from topic (no sarcasm).
>
>>
>> >> >> believe the unborn child becomes a human being?
>> >
>> >### <<Giggling>> When a sperm reach the egg, in that instant there is a
>> >human being <<Finishing giggling>> Wanna play with this human being?
>
>
>### Me? Infantile? No way! I am only giving a answer for your tought! You
>tell me when non human sperm and non human egg became a human being.
At the moment of conception.
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>### It is a lie to call an embryo a human being even if embryo is human
>(adj.) and it is not human (noun). You are a quite long time on this ng.
>don't you learn something? Until when pro-lie will keep obfuscating an
>adjective with a noun?
>
>
--
Manya F
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<WLf3ZVAw...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>...
### At birth not when aborted, got it?
REP
In article <xrl+xPAa...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>, Manya F
<ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Please do not remove attributions.
REP wrote:
When's conception? Fertilization? Implantation? What's an "unborn child"?
Are blastocysts "unborn children"? Are hydatiform moles?
Kenneth Gore
Honestly, if you can't answer those very simple questions on your own,
then you really don't belong in this newsgroup, although we probably
will tolerate your presence if only for self-indulgence. Moreover, I
think that we have more than amply answered those questions for you many
times over, but, if necessary, we shall answer them again upon a proper
plateau of rational debate, which you have yet to present.
Ray Fischer
Conception isn't a moment, it's a process. The result of that
conception will most likely be an undetected embryo expelled with the
next period. If may also become one, two, three, or more infants by
the time of birth.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Kenneth Gore
Precisely! At the moment(instant) of conception(in vivo or in vitro), a
new human being, person, individual, a member of Homo sapiens, comes
into existence, and, people, even the most advanced level of present-day
scientific research and technology only serves to confirm that fact even
further and more concretely. Don't try to fool yourselves, folks,
because we're ALL human beings, including, specifically, unborn children
developing in the wombs of mothers. Also, please, be cognizant of the
fact that everyone's DNA structure is individually unique and different,
which testifies to the fact that the unborn child is very differentiated
when compared to the mother and father; i.e., the unborn child possesses
a DNA configuration all its(the unborn child's) own, as the soul is,
also, unique unto itself.
Kenneth Gore
Manya F wrote:
>
> >
> >### It is a lie to call an embryo a human being even if embryo is human
> >(adj.) and it is not human (noun). You are a quite long time on this ng.
> >don't you learn something? Until when pro-lie will keep obfuscating an
> >adjective with a noun?
> >
> >
> Then when do you think it becomes a human being?
> --
> Manya F
Not to worry: the person to whom you are replying really needs a
textbook on Freshman English, and, possibly, a dictionary, though I
doubt that either book would improve his disposition regarding the value
of human life(human beings) both unborn and born. Some of these people
rely to much upon dictionary references which have nothing to do with
the definition of human life per se. Suffice it to say that they are
truly learning from this newsgroup, though.
Kenneth Gore
Exactly, again! The moment(instant) of conception may be referred to as
a process in which the two gametes fuse(unite) to form the zygote and
truly define the new existence of a human being which continues its
development toward parturition and the natural remainder of the
individual's life. Thanks again for confirming that fact! However, you
should exercise caution, because, at times, you appear to be obstructing
your own rational thought patterns.
Manya F
In article <01bbc9e1.0bd8c200$29d5bbcd@netscape>, Vasile Aciobanitei
>
>### You are exasperating! What kind of child are you speaking about? A
>child is one that is wanted
ahhh, now I see, a child is only so if it is wanted. Now I understand
why it is perfectly acceptible to treat homeless orphans with no one to
care for them or want them, as you do the unborn child (i.e. kill them).
>and brought to life,
When Exactly are they brought to life? I think we've already discussed
the fact that just being born doesn't constitute being brought to life.
Afterall would you be totally happy aborting an unborn child two days
before it's delivery date?
> thus pro-lie want to
I think you mean pro-life? I certainly don't know anyone who is pro-lie.
It's okay, we all make typing errors.
>force women to have unwanted children. They lie that child is something in
>the womb when "child in the womb" is a term used for dummies to understand
>that in a belly of a pregnant woman is something that look more like a
>baby and not like a chair.
No, lies are when you know what you are saying is incorrect, and believe
it to be so.
>
>> > The PERSON has the right to pursue
>> >happiness, in abortion case there are only ONE PERSON,
>> I'm afraid not.
>
>### So what if you are afraid? You afraid of a truth as usually.
Sorry, would you have preferred me to say, "that's incorrect"? if so,
then there it is.
>
>
>### The term "pro-life" is a lie when they like to select only the kind
>life they want.
How is that exactly? I don't want to select one life or another I value
ALL life.
>
>
> I may disagree
>> with you, but I'm never impolite. I try to respect and understand your
>> opinion, whilst also explaining mine. I would expect the same level of
>> maturity from you.
>
Then please don't call me it. Simple enough?
> So
>called "pro-life" have to find another self-appellation because they are
>not pro life in general
I am.
>but specificaly for fetus and not even for any
>fetus but for human fetus.
I also value the mother's life, I would do everything in my power to
stop her being killed if she was under threat as the unborn child is.
>
>> The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
>> are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY. Eventuallythe repurcussions of
>> this will stretch further than the unborn child, perhaps affecting you
>> and me.
>>
>started not because ther were abortion.
No, but it does escalate the problem.
>Take for example Cain and Abel,
>Cain didn't devaluate his brother's human life because he has seen so many
>abortions. To sustain that abortion devaluate human life you have to bring
>some real reason. I can say that abortion doesn't devaluate a human life
>as long as a wanted child is more valuable than an unwated child.
Oh, this point again, that if we're wanted we're more valuable. So you'd
kill an adult that was unwanted would you? I think not.
> Bringing
>an unwanted child in this world you only make a life to be miserable.
So every child that isn't wanted by it's natural parents is miserable? I
have many adopted friends who all seem quite happy. Maybe it's all a
front, you tell me.
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Bruce Forest
> >
> >Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human being
> >and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that point.
> >
> There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
And does it not matter that 75-80% of those 'unborn children' will abort
spontaneously?
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@mindspring.com/ bfo...@interramp.com
"It's not a pizza till it comes out of the oven."
"No, no..it's a pizza the minute you stick your hands in the dough!!"..Seinfeld
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui
iQCVAgUBMkIIyrTTUY7wnHzhAQH1bwP/QzOGbW1jGiiSaVw1Ci
2MMbW52a36GPzi/9wDPEpBgrYfgtqttgCwFRRiun7VHvJTmsjKzw
6ZH/qpO27dnWvR29fhcQ143WaXQ5esvLc+EvwA/Fz4cSbCH6Jm
gc6lxk2FBL3pvXthLEYzVs8YYXXSC3NDftJvlDovPNAJhuHUK2E==vZri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
amazon
Kenneth speaks:
> Precisely! At the moment(instant) of conception(in vivo or in vitro), a
> new human being, person, individual, a member of Homo sapiens, comes
> into existence, and, people, even the most advanced level of present-day
> scientific research and technology only serves to confirm that fact even
> further and more concretely. Don't try to fool yourselves, folks,
> because we're ALL human beings, including, specifically, unborn children
> developing in the wombs of mothers. Also, please, be cognizant of the
> fact that everyone's DNA structure is individually unique and different,
> which testifies to the fact that the unborn child is very differentiated
> when compared to the mother and father; i.e., the unborn child possesses
> a DNA configuration all its(the unborn child's) own, as the soul is,
> also, unique unto itself.
That's great if it works for you. For me, I happen to think otherwise.
Amazon
REP
In article <327E80...@ianet.net>, kg...@ianet.net wrote:
> REP wrote:
> >
> > In article <xrl+xPAa...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>, Manya F
> > <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Please do not remove attributions.
> >
> > REP wrote:
> >
> > > >Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human being
> > > >and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that point.
> > > >
> > > There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
> >
> > When's conception? Fertilization? Implantation? What's an "unborn child"?
> > Are blastocysts "unborn children"? Are hydatiform moles?
>
> Honestly, if you can't answer those very simple questions on your own,
> then you really don't belong in this newsgroup, although we probably
> will tolerate your presence if only for self-indulgence.
How kind of you, Your Royal Sick-Fuckness.
Now answer the questions, if you can. I doubt it; you have displayed an
almost unimaginable level of stupidity in you reams of drool you insist on
posting.
> Moreover, I
> think that we have more than amply answered those questions for you many
> times over, but, if necessary, we shall answer them again upon a proper
> plateau of rational debate, which you have yet to present.
When have you *ever* answered a question? Or presented a rational argument
for aything, other than for you immediate containment in a mental
institution?
Get help, you sick fuck. Have them remove your head from your ass while
they're at it.
Manya F
In article <327CC0...@life.now>, zip <G...@life.now> writes
>
>
>NO, YOU see it as devaluing human life. Like all your compatriots you
>would like to force your PERSONAL beliefs upon society therefore
>validating your position.
>
wouldn't mind if someone murdered your mother/father/sister/brother/best
want people selling drugs to ten year olds to be chased by the police, I
"personal beliefs" on rapists, and try to stop them from raping women.
written here, but if not, it is surely evident to you that you are
totally without argument on this point.
>Get it straight, what I choose to do is my business, with my body, with
>my life - it is mine to choose. You CHOOSE to believe what you do, keep
>on believing it BUT don't you DARE force your beliefs on me. What you
>are advocating is your own PERSONAL insights.
>
Errr, I think the points made above still stand, or would you care to
disagree?
Manya.
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>>
>>Unfortunately this is the case. I'd prefer it if you would restrain from
>>with you, but I'm never impolite. I try to respect and understand your
>>opinion, whilst also explaining mine. I would expect the same level of
>>maturity from you.
>
>are devaluing human life.
>>The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
>>are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY.
>Bullshit.
By killing unborn children we are sending the message that killing is
acceptable. If that's not devaluing human life then I don't know what
is.
>
>Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
>showing no respect for people?
I respect people, and as I have said, if the mother was in danger of
being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
Manya.
--
Manya F
michelle tweed
I totally agree with what the person who said that abortion is
killing, no matter how you look at it, also, i like when you put in
the fact that animal activists definetly belive in pro-life, well
anyways i really agree with what you have said.
michelle tweed
hello
Ray Fischer
Kenneth Gore <kg...@ianet.net> wrote:
>> > There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
>>
>> When's conception? Fertilization? Implantation? What's an "unborn child"?
>> Are blastocysts "unborn children"? Are hydatiform moles?
>
>Honestly, if you can't answer those very simple questions on your own,
>then you really don't belong in this newsgroup,
That hasn't stopped you so far.
> although we probably
>will tolerate your presence if only for self-indulgence.
Take your phoney "tolerance" and shove it up your ass. See
how much I care. :-)
> Moreover, I
>think that we have more than amply answered those questions for you many
>times over, but, if necessary, we shall answer them again upon a proper
>plateau of rational debate, which you have yet to present.
Another chickenshit evasion from someone who does nothing but.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Ray Fischer
Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Then I suggest that you not insult people by telling them that they
>>are devaluing human life.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>>The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
>>>are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY.
>
>>Bullshit.
>
>By killing unborn children we are sending the message that killing is
>acceptable.
Bullshit.
> If that's not devaluing human life then I don't know what
>is.
How about this: You stand by while 30,000 people die of hunger each
and every day, most of them children.
>>Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
>>showing no respect for people?
>
>I respect people,
No you don't. You treat pregnant women as irresponsible murderers
unable to choose what's best for them.
> and as I have said, if the mother was in danger of
>being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
Sure you would. I can tell how far you go to save people's lives.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Ray Fischer
Kenneth Gore <kg...@ianet.net> wrote:
>> >There is an unborn child from the moment of conception.
>>
>> Conception isn't a moment, it's a process. The result of that
>> conception will most likely be an undetected embryo expelled with the
>> next period. If may also become one, two, three, or more infants by
>> the time of birth.
>
>Exactly, again! The moment(instant) of conception
Yo! Dumbshit! It's NOT A MOMENT!
Sheeeeit. Pull your head out of your ass for a change.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Dark...@cold.soul
amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Intruder poses:
>> Isn't that the same arguement anyone can make against another, it's
>> just your opinion....
>But I don't accuse people of murder and say the should have no opinion
>>
>> So tell us all Zip, what do you need, what criteria do you have to
>> meet to obtain an abortion?
>The POINT is that it should not be any of your business. If one partner
>chooses to talk to the other, that's great. But it is a personal matter.
> Outside of the fairly rare need for an
>> abortion due to medical complications, what is it's usual purpose?
>Again, each case is indiviual. If you want to say it is because of any
>variety of reasons, go ahead, but each person has their own story.
>> Personally I don't give a rip if you have the right to abort your
>> irrersponsiblity, I seek 'equality' for men..... Men should also
>> have the right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood, simply
>> because it isn't right for their lives.
>Men do have the ability to abort responsibility - they leave. If a man
>hasn't had the forsight to use a condom or discuss birth control the
>fate is his. Just as if a woman hasn't thought ahead. Women have to be
>there for the birth - duh. Men can just not show up and never be there.
> Does this seem as fair to
>> you as your own right to abort the responsiblity of parenthood?
>Parenthood is something many people need to think about before having
>sex. I personally had an abortion because I was young, thought condoms
>were 100% (I didn't know better) and an incredible financial burden and
>the father was too young and HE DECIDED he wasn't the father so he
>walked.
> Or
>> do you believe that for the sake of the sex act itself, men should be
>> held responsible?
>Again, both parties need to think and get educated before acting.
> It is after all, based solely on your 'choice' as
>> you see it for your life.... to bare a child or abort.
>It is strange how lightly you seem to take that choice. It is a serious
>decision not taken so lightly.
> Don't you
>> think it should be 'equal' for both based on their own lives,
>> respectively?
>If the father and mother of the soon to be born child are of a maturity
>to talk things out and come to an agreement, sure.
>Zip
After reading this post, my original post on abortion still makes
great sense to me.
Allow the mother to make the unilateral decision during wombtime, once
the baby is outside Mom, give Dad three months to decide on allowing
the baby to live (and accepting responsibility for it, entering what
would then NOT be involuntary servitude - as he'd had the same options
Mom did) or put the child to sleep, thus aborting his obligation.
Both sides get choice this way, No One can be forced in
responsibilities they don't want, and everyone (pretty much) is happy.
Dark Rider
amazon
Dark Rider says:
> Allow the mother to make the unilateral decision during wombtime, once
> the baby is outside Mom, give Dad three months to decide on allowing
> the baby to live (and accepting responsibility for it, entering what
> would then NOT be involuntary servitude - as he'd had the same options
> Mom did) or put the child to sleep, thus aborting his obligation.
You need to rethink your sanity. I really hope you are trolling and you
do not truly believe this. It all comes down to your personal beliefs
about what the mass of cells in the womb is considered.
Even *I* would have to say that once the child is born, it is here to
stay.
If this is your warped way of being Pro-Life then you also must be one
of those people who stand outside a clinic and offer patients coffee and
show them 3rd tri-mester abortion pictures.
>
> Both sides get choice this way, No One can be forced in
> responsibilities they don't want, and everyone (pretty much) is happy.
>
> Dark Rider
Amazon
Cheryl Morris
Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> In article <xrl+xPAa...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk>, Manya F
> <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Vasile was referring to abortion, which does only involve one human being
> > >and one human zygote, embryo or fetus. There is no "child" at that point.
> > >
>
> spontaneously?
>
Someday medical science might have a way to correct this. Right now,
medical science
does have a way to stop those abortions which are not spontaneous.
Before the mid-50s, medical science had no way to stop polio and it has
not been until recently that there has been talk that polio may soon be
completely conquered. Just because many people at one time could get
polio did not mean that physicians went out and deliberately caused
people to get polio. You see, I believe, that there are two patients
involved in a pregnancy, and I also believe that the role of those
involved in the medical profession should be saving lives, not stopping
them. This is why I oppose abortion except in cases where the mother
could die.
Cheryl
Sarah Terzo
a fetus is not a mass of cells by any means. By three weeks he
or she has a heartbeat. By eight weeks, all body systems are
present and she has fingers, feet and toes. To say that a
fetus is a mass of cells at this age is like saying that an
adult is a mass of cells- both equally techincally accurate but
misleading.
If anyone is interested in seeing first hand accounts of
exactly what is being aborted, take a look at
http://www.trenton.edu/~terzo/abortionquotes.html
sarah terzo
amazon
Sarah Terzo:
> a fetus is not a mass of cells by any means. By three weeks he
> or she has a heartbeat. By eight weeks, all body systems are
> present and she has fingers, feet and toes. To say that a
> fetus is a mass of cells at this age is like saying that an
> adult is a mass of cells- both equally techincally accurate but
> misleading.
According to your beliefs, not mine.
>
> If anyone is interested in seeing first hand accounts of
> exactly what is being aborted, take a look at
> http://www.trenton.edu/~terzo/abortionquotes.html
This is a bunch of propaganda quotes, twisted and turned, taken out of
context. How do I know? Ms. Terzo sent them unsolicited to my personal
and business e-mail. She also sent it to 4 other people I know.
>
> sarah terzo
Finally figured out it was illegal - good.
Amazon
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote in article
<327F73...@cannet.com>...
>
> > And does it not matter that 75-80% of those 'unborn children' will
abort
> > spontaneously?
> >
>
> Someday medical science might have a way to correct this. Right now,
> medical science
> does have a way to stop those abortions which are not spontaneous.
### That will be not medical science, that will be the bigger stupidity in
the world to keep alive millions of unwanted "unborn children" that will
abort spontaneously on a natural way. Anyway, medical science have done
unnatural things like fertilization, but when medical science says that
you have to abort four fetuses for four chilren to survive, who want to
know about medical science? Recently , medical science said that a woman
had to have an abortion to prevent a spontaneous abortion. Did the woman
give a damn? She opted for spontaneous abortion, that is a natural way,
not unnatural way like fertilization!
Ray Fischer
Sarah Terzo <te...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>a fetus is not a mass of cells by any means. By three weeks he
>or she has a heartbeat.
"He or she" is correct, since sex hasn't been yet determined.
> By eight weeks, all body systems are
>present and she has fingers, feet and toes.
Utter bullshit. If "all body systems are present", then the fetus
would have no need for a woman's body. In fact, the fetus does not
have enough to survive for another several months.
> To say that a
>fetus is a mass of cells at this age is like saying that an
>adult is a mass of cells- both equally techincally accurate but
>misleading.
While your claims are not even technically accurate.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Vasile Aciobanitei
> amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<327EB8...@mindspring.com>...
> Kenneth speaks:
>
> > Precisely! At the moment(instant) of conception(in vivo or in vitro),
Blah, blah, blah and again balaaaaah and blah....
### Come on Amazon! You did not understand that there is a waste of
precious time to answer to one like Kenneth Gore, even if you wrote only
one line?
Vasile Aciobanitei
> Sarah Terzo <te...@tcnj.edu> wrote in article <55o5sv$62n@simba>...
> a fetus is not a mass of cells by any means. By three weeks he
> or she has a heartbeat.
### Three weeks... heartbeat... when you don't know even if it is she or
he. Come on Sarah, or you are over 70 years or you did not finish the
school. I could not imagine how look that stupid person that say that :"By
three weeks he or she has a heartbeat".
By eight weeks, all body systems are
> present and she has fingers, feet and toes.
### And it eats, shits and coos.
To say that a
> fetus is a mass of cells at this age is like saying that an
> adult is a mass of cells- both equally techincally accurate but
> misleading.
### I'd tell you more, but you might blush.
>
> If anyone is interested in seeing first hand accounts of
> exactly what is being aborted, take a look at
> http://www.trenton.edu/~terzo/abortionquotes.html
>
> sarah terzo
>
>
>
>
Manya F
>
>>
>>>>The erason that it is a social matter is that in condoning abortion we
>>>>are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY.
>>
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>>By killing unborn children we are sending the message that killing is
>>acceptable.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>> If that's not devaluing human life then I don't know what
>>is.
>
>How about this: You stand by while 30,000 people die of hunger each
>and every day, most of them children.
But the difference is that I might be able to do something about this.
There is nothing I can do to help those children.
>
>>I respect people,
>
>No you don't. You treat pregnant women as irresponsible murderers
>unable to choose what's best for them.
I never said they were irresponsible, nor murderers. I don't believe
that they are. I do, however believe that they make decisions which
sometimes harm others, and perhaps through discussing others opinions on
this they might realise it. I don't deny that women who choose abortion
must think carefully about it, and be going through a very difficult
time in their lives, and I think that we should do all that we can to
help them BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.
Secondly, you say "what's best for them". My argument is that they also
need to consider what's best for the unborn child.
>
>> and as I have said, if the mother was in danger of
>>being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
>
>Sure you would. I can tell how far you go to save people's lives.
OH? that's quite impressive, I certainly can't tell much about you that
you haven't told me. Can you read my mind?
If you know, why don't you TELL me how far I go to save peoples lives
and see if a)you're right or b)I can justify myself.
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>>
>
>### Killing what is unborn has nothing to do with devaluing human life.The
>value of life doesn't stand in undeveloped form of human life but in
>developed humans.
>
I see, so you think the more developed a human is, the more right they
have to life?
>> >
>> >Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
>> >showing no respect for people?
>> being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
>>
>
>
>### There is a killing anyway. Killing is a day-by-day activity.
Yep, and if there was anything that I could use my personal strengths to
do to prevent this, I would. As I've already said.
>
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
In article <327EB8...@mindspring.com>, amazon <ama...@mindspring.com>
writes
>Kenneth speaks:
>
>> Precisely! At the moment(instant) of conception(in vivo or in vitro), a
>> new human being, person, individual, a member of Homo sapiens, comes
>> into existence, and, people, even the most advanced level of present-day
>> scientific research and technology only serves to confirm that fact even
>> further and more concretely. Don't try to fool yourselves, folks,
>> because we're ALL human beings, including, specifically, unborn children
>> developing in the wombs of mothers. Also, please, be cognizant of the
>> fact that everyone's DNA structure is individually unique and different,
>> which testifies to the fact that the unborn child is very differentiated
>> when compared to the mother and father; i.e., the unborn child possesses
>> a DNA configuration all its(the unborn child's) own, as the soul is,
>> also, unique unto itself.
>
>
>
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>
>Well Richie,
>
>
>There is no right or wrong just PERSONAL decisions.
So rape isn't wrong? just that person's decision?
>
Manya.
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>>
>>Exactly, again! The moment(instant) of conception
>
>Yo! Dumbshit! It's NOT A MOMENT!
sperm meet. Sorry if this was ambiguous.
Manya.
>
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>
>And does it not matter that 75-80% of those 'unborn children' will abort
>spontaneously?
not mean that their life is less worthwhile. Take stuntmen for example.
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>
>That's great if it works for you. For me, I happen to think otherwise.
>
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>> >
>> Then when do you think it becomes a human being?
>> --
>> Manya F
>>
>### At birth not when aborted, got it?
So you think the only thing that defines us as humans (as I've said
before) is that we are existing in an uncontrolled physical environment
(i.e. the womb is a controlled physical environment)?
Manya.
--
Manya F
Manya F
>
>### I cannot be evil killing something unborn. Unborn = not yet born, born
>= brought into life, being such by birth.
The unborn child is still a human being.
>
>
>
>### I think a person is much, much more than a z/e/f even if it is human.
now define what qualities make a person human then.
>
>
>> >
>> >### Actually you lie! The topic is abortion, not birth
>> I'm sorry, I don't see how I wandered from topic (no sarcasm).
Sorry again, I lost the two lines above this which I've just read.
Ovbiously I think that there are two people from conception.
>
>### When the topic will be birth and not abortion then you are in topic,
>but as long as you think z/e/f is a person then you can play with that
>person (no sarcasm), I will talk softly and carry a megawatt laser.
See above.
>
>
>> >
>### The human conception had taken place long time ago, you cannot destroy
>conception of humans, you can only stop developing of undeveloped form of
>human life and that is a choice of developed humans.
Here again you are implying that right to life increases as development
does. Does that mean that a baby has fewer rights than an adult?
Manya.
>
--
Manya F
TJ "Spark" Miller jr.
> >>are devaluing human life.
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> >>>are devaluing human life, AS A SOCIETY.
Among other things.
> >
> >>Bullshit.
Note to Manya: Ray also approves of Kevorkian's actions and beliefs, if
that puts his appraised value on human life in perspective for you.
> >
> >By killing unborn children we are sending the message that killing is
> >acceptable.
>
> Bullshit.
A fetus is a live human, and ending it's life is killing. Where's the
supposed bullshit?
>
> > If that's not devaluing human life then I don't know what
> >is.
>
> How about this: You stand by while 30,000 people die of hunger each
> and every day, most of them children.
Did their mothers kill them, and were there other options availiable to
save the child's life?
No on both counts. You confuse a tragic condition that affects all
within a given region with a callous and egocentric ending of a human
life.
>
> >>Do you really think that you can show respect for "human life" while
> >>showing no respect for people?
> >
> >I respect people,
>
> No you don't.
You do not Ray; Manya I have not read enough of to tell with certainty
one way or the other.
> You treat pregnant women as irresponsible murderers
> unable to choose what's best for them.
If they kill their unborn for no other reason than "I'm not ready" or "I
don't want a baby", then yes, there is at least one irresponsible
murderer present, and the father bears an equal burden, unless the
abortion is done without his knowledge.
>
> > and as I have said, if the mother was in danger of
> >being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
>
> Sure you would. I can tell how far you go to save people's lives.
Further than your "let's kill 'em before they become a bother" attitude.
--
Careful what you wish; careful what you say,
Careful what you wish; you may regret it,
Careful what you wish; you just might get it.
-from "King Nothing"
Ray Fischer
Manya F <ma...@mcbrill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Which sperm? The egg "meets" dozens of sperm. Only one penetrates
the egg and starts fertilization.
You're looking for simple certainty in an area where it doesn't exist.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Kenneth Gore
Manya F wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >
> >### Killing what is unborn has nothing to do with devaluing human life.The
> >value of life doesn't stand in undeveloped form of human life but in
> >developed humans.
> >
> I see, so you think the more developed a human is, the more right they
> have to life?
> >> >
> >> >showing no respect for people?
> >> being killed, I would go to these lengths to help her.
> >>
> >
> >
> >### There is a killing anyway. Killing is a day-by-day activity.
> Yep, and if there was anything that I could use my personal strengths to
> do to prevent this, I would. As I've already said.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Manya F
We're currently working to ban all this brutal carnage and slaughter of
unborn children(human beings), and we are continuing to gain support in
that noble and life saving effort as more and more evidence of
mutilation and butchery becomes available vis-a-vis the abortion
clinics(murder factories). As you probably know, it took quite some
time for the world to actually realize that innocent people of many
nationalities, not merely Jewish, were being systematically exterminated
via gas chambers and death camps prior to and during WWII. The
situation is very similar today when one compares that horrible
event(Holocaust) with the current acceptance by the abortionists and
pro-choicers that exterminating undesirable, innocent, unborn
children(human beings) in the wombs of mothers is to be taken as a
casual and acceptable routine practice of trashing the undesirables,
i.e., unborn children developing in the wombs of mothers because the
mothers didn't give the unborn children "permission" to develop normally
in the wombs of these mothers. Folks, you don't give permission; you
accept the responsibility.
amazon
> And when do you think a new life is created? A human being?
> Manya.
> >
When the organism within the womb is ready to operate seperate of it
host environment.
Amazon
Kenneth Gore
Sarah Terzo wrote:
>
> a fetus is not a mass of cells by any means. By three weeks he
> present and she has fingers, feet and toes. To say that a
> fetus is a mass of cells at this age is like saying that an
> adult is a mass of cells- both equally techincally accurate but
> misleading.
>
> exactly what is being aborted, take a look at
> http://www.trenton.edu/~terzo/abortionquotes.html
>
> sarah terzo
Yes, indeed, I think that we should all scan the information available
through that site, then, possibly, some of these people shall come to
recognize the truth that all abortions respresent; i.e., that all
abortions are bona fide acts of premeditated murder most foul, no matter
how you view these acts.
amazon
Manya responds:
> >
> >> You do don't you? Obviously you
> >> wouldn't mind if someone murdered your mother/father/sister/brother/best
> >> friend etc. afterall it's totally up to them what they do.
> >
> >Of course not. (and it is not up to them if they get murdered)
> I was referring to the murderer. And as I recall, you _do_ believe in
> freedom of choice for all, in fact you said earlier that,
If you were on some other thread than what I was responding to, than let
me know. As far as I knew we were discussing reproductive rights and
only that. I was not under the impression that I had to reemphasise the
obvious.
> "Get it straight, what I choose to do is my business, with my body, with
> my life - it is mine to choose."
> If here you were only referring to abortion, I'd like to know what makes
> it so different from everything else that you don't mind others imposing
> their opinions (examples above and below).
Crimes committed in society can be and are committed by both sexes -
murder, raper, drug selling. Abortion can only occur to women. Women are
the ones who get pregnant, whether on purpose or by accident or by
criminal act, and it is they who should, and do, decide what to do with
what is occurring in their bodies. When involving only a segment of
society, such as abortion, that is what makes it different than making a
law that effects all of society. Though you may argue that abortion
rights effect BOTH men and women, it is the woman who in the end makes
the decision - for right or wrong it is her choice.
>
> >You are being irrational. Your argument is ridiculous. You are basing
> >this on your personal belief that conception marks the beginning of life
> >for a human child. That is your PERSONAL belief - that is okey dokey.
>
> >
> > You wouldn't
> >> want people selling drugs to ten year olds to be chased by the police, I
> >> mean, how unreasonable is it?
> >
> >And what does selling drugs have to do with reproductive rights for a
> >woman? Really, this is reaching a bit.
> No, as I mentioned, this is addressing the right to total personal
> choice that you seem to believe in.
See above.
> >
> >> How dare people try to impose their
> >> "personal beliefs" on rapists, and try to stop them from raping women.
> >
> >Excuse me, rape is against the law, abortion is not.
> Oh, so even you can only explain this by implying that the only
> difference between rape and abortion is that one is against the law
> (before everyone gets het up, I'm not suggesting that. Nontheless, it
> was the only reason that you could come up with why other peoples
> opinions should be imposed in the case of rape, but not abortion).
Frankly, I was tired of arguing semantics by this point. See above
regarding rapists.
> >
> >As it stands in this country,
> BTW, I think you're talking about America (excuse me if I'm wrong). I'm
> English, which doesn't really have much concequence law-wise, though I'm
> not totally sure of the American laws.
> > women have a right to choose between
> >having or not having an abortion. Because of this country's
> >constitution, you can believe what you will and voice your personal
> >opinion on whatever topic you please. For the fourth or fifth time, you
> >can believe what you will but I will NOT have the government make a
> >decision on what is a PERSONAL choice for me.
> Why is this personal choice so different from the personal choice to
> (for example) kill someone, which you don't seem to mind the government
> interferring in?
See above and again, you are implying that abortion is murder and,
again, that is your opinion not mine.
> >I do not believe that
> >conception marks the moment a mass of cells is human BUT I can
> >understand that you do believe this.
> If you understand that I see this as murder, can't you see why I'm
> trying to stop it?
Go ahead and keep trying BUT what you are doing, if you were in this
country, would be trying to keep women from having the ability to choose
between whether they want to have an abortion or not to. For people who
do not believe in abortion than they don't have to but why should that
choice be denied or made too difficult to obtain for those who would
want an abortion?
> >
> >Accept the fact that I do not agree or disagree with you I just want you
> >to realize the Pro-Choice is not necessarily pro-abort - though some
> >would make it seem so.
> Thank you, yes, you have made me realise this.
>
> Manya.
>
> --
> Manya F