Pro-life Urban Legends
youngo...@aol.com
An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and develops a
life of its own, even though it really isn't true. There are a number of
them that pop up from time to time on one side of the abortion debate or the
other - and sometimes both. Here's the real deal about a number of false
statements:
Abortion is necessary in cases of rape or incest
Rape and incest are crimes, and those who commit them should be punished.
But why do even some pro-life people say a death sentence should be imposed
on the culprit's child? Any child in the womb, regardless of how life began,
is the most innocent of human beings. It is simply unthinkable to condemn
this innocent person to death. Yes, mothers who became pregnant through rape
need a lot of care and attention. Killing the child doesn't solve their
problem. It only makes it worse. The baby may be "that monster's child," but
he is also the mother's child. And God's.
Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
"quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
Each human being has dignity. The idea of a wholesale attack on the disabled
in the womb is chilling, denying the right to life to an entire class of
people.
Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life
Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true; that there is never a
case in which it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother. There are
ways of saving both patients. Proper treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is
not considered a "procured abortion." Although the baby is unlikely to
survive the treatment, there is no intent to take the child's life.
Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
justify killing the child.
Abortion is safer than childbirth
That's certainly not the case for the baby. And for the mother, there can
indeed be complications from abortion, including death. Many
abortion-related deaths are not reported as such, however, as death
certificates will list infection or uncontrolled bleeding as the principal
cause of death in such cases. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving
birth.
Pro-lifers are anti-woman
Pro-lifers are not against women; they're against women killing their
babies. This is simply the opposition's rhetoric. Pro-lifers maintain an
incredible national network of pregnancy care centers to help women who want
to consider abortion for financial or social reasons. These centers provide
counseling, and in many cases medical care, shelter, food and clothing for
both mother and child.
Pro-lifers are violent people
Unfortunately, a small handful of people have taken the law into their own
hands. All reputable pro-life groups, including American Life League,
unequivocally reject violence as a means of achieving the goal of
eliminating abortion. Pro-life people have also been the victims of
violence, but such events are rarely reported by the mainstream media.
The bible permits birth control
The story of Onan would seem to refute that. While God gave men and women
free will, the consequences of poor choices run through the Bible, beginning
with Adam and Eve. In short, God told Onan to go forth and multiply, but he
practiced birth control. The penalty for Onan's disobedience was death. The
overall message of Scripture is "be fruitful and multiply," which is why the
Catholic Church declares that artificial birth control is "intrinsically
evil," and why every Christian community agreed until the 1930s.
The Catholic Church once approved abortion
This one's easy. No, the Catholic Church never did any such thing, though
the misstatement is repeated frequently in anti-Catholic tracts. The
writings of the early Church fathers clearly indicate that abortion is a
most serious evil. There may be writings of individual Christians that
differ with that stance, but these are not the official teachings of the
Church.
Thomas Aquinas said early abortion was not murder
No he didn't. There has been debate through the years about the point at
which the soul enters the body. Back in Aquinas' day, many thought that the
child came alive at the point of "quickening," when the mother could first
feel the baby's movements. One theory held that this happened around the
40th day of pregnancy. We now know that the child is active much earlier,
though the mother cannot detect this. And science shows us that the child is
a unique human being with his own specific set of DNA from the moment of
fertilization.
--
----------
J Young
youngo...@aol.com
Uncle Vic
<youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6_udnT5Z0ufJc6zZ...@giganews.com...
> http://www.all.org/issues_urbanlegends.php
>
>
>
>
> An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and develops
a
> life of its own, even though it really isn't true. There are a number of
> them that pop up from time to time on one side of the abortion debate or
the
> other - and sometimes both. Here's the real deal about a number of false
> statements:
It's not necessary. The mother will live with the same rate of mortality as
those attempting to give birth to any type of baby. "Desired" is the proper
word here. Abortion is "desired" in cases of rape or incest. If you were a
woman would you want to have your attacker's baby, to nurture and care for,
to help with its homework, to teach it right from wrong, to be the
grandmother of its own children? In the case of incest, how would you even
define "grandmother"?
Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious people
think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a soul
at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go on.
Prove it, moron.
Uncle Vic
No One
> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>
> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
> Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life
>
> Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true; that there is never a
> case in which it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother. There are
> ways of saving both patients.
What do you do when a woman is diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and
the options are chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical removal of the
uterus, all of which will kill off the fetus? Oh, and if you postpone
the treatment, the cancer will crush the fetus anyway.
> Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
>
> This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
> Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
> offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
> lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
> justify killing the child.
What would you recommend in the case of a woman 2 months pregnant who
gets into a very bad traffic accident and who will have to spend 6
months in the hospital due to the injuries (if she survives at all),
and where the pregnancy would result in enough of an additional strain
that she would simply not survive without an abortion? Oh, and
supposed the probability of a miscarriage is 90% given her
injuries. Should she wait for the inevitable or should the doctors
remove the fetus if that would substantially increase her chances of
survival?
> Abortion is safer than childbirth
>
> That's certainly not the case for the baby. And for the mother, there can
> indeed be complications from abortion, including death. Many
> abortion-related deaths are not reported as such, however, as death
> certificates will list infection or uncontrolled bleeding as the principal
> cause of death in such cases. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving
> birth.
Care to document that statement?
towelie
> <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>>
>> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it
>> wasn't prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The
>> arguments about "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die
>> anyway" are meaningless.
>
> What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
> literally, not figuratively?
They grow up to be right-wing morons like Big Gay Jay.
§***Gnostic Archon
Why do you abortion assholes support racism, fascism and war?
Simple. You are stupid.
--sexkitten--
> http://www.all.org/issues_urbanlegends.php
>
>
>
>
> An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and develops a
> life of its own, even though it really isn't true. There are a number of
> them that pop up from time to time on one side of the abortion debate or the
> other - and sometimes both. Here's the real deal about a number of false
> statements:
> Abortion is necessary in cases of rape or incest
>
> Rape and incest are crimes, and those who commit them should be punished.
And their victims should not.
<snip>
>
> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>
> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
> prepared to your liking.
No, it sure isn't.
The child is a human being. The arguments about
> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
...because it's so much fun to make the pregnant girl give birth to a
deformed, dying monstrosity.
<snip>
> Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life
>
> Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true;
Every one of them on the RTFL payroll. Many, many, many, many more will
tell you it is.
<snip>
>
> Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
>
> This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
> Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
> offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
> lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
> justify killing the child.
Lie.
> Abortion is safer than childbirth
>
> That's certainly not the case for the baby.
It's certainly the case for the woman. And when did you get a baby
pregnant, Jon?
>
> Pro-lifers are anti-woman
>
> Pro-lifers are not against women;
...in fact, they loathe them.
>
> Pro-lifers are violent people
>
> Unfortunately,
Indeed.
<snip>
>
> The bible permits birth control
>
> The story of Onan would seem to refute that.
No, it doesn't.
<snip>
>
> The Catholic Church once approved abortion
>
> This one's easy. No, the Catholic Church never did any such thing,
Yes, it did.
though
> the misstatement is repeated frequently in anti-Catholic tracts. The
> writings of the early Church fathers clearly indicate that abortion is a
> most serious evil.
No, they didn't.
There may be writings of individual Christians that
> differ with that stance, but these are not the official teachings of the
> Church.
>
> Thomas Aquinas said early abortion was not murder
>
> No he didn't.
Yes, he did.
Well, that was loads of fun. Got anything else?
--
--sexkitten--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
JimD
Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
a different blood type. I don't care what you call them, Abortion
is murder.
JimD
> <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>>
>> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
>> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
>> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
>
> What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
> literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
> cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
> people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
> lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
That's what they said about my youngest daughter before she was born.
The doctors swore she would not live more than 1 month. The insurance
company wanted to pay for an abortion to save money in the long run but
I said no. My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a
whip. By the way she loves Jesus too.
>
>> Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life
>>
>> Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true; that there is never a
>> case in which it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother. There are
>> ways of saving both patients.
>
> What do you do when a woman is diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and
> the options are chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical removal of the
> uterus, all of which will kill off the fetus? Oh, and if you postpone
> the treatment, the cancer will crush the fetus anyway.
You treat the mother for her cancer. If the unborn baby dies as a result
of the mothers treatments then you have a funeral for the unborn baby.
Duh!!!
>
>> Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
>>
>> This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
>> Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
>> offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
>> lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
>> justify killing the child.
>
> What would you recommend in the case of a woman 2 months pregnant who
> gets into a very bad traffic accident and who will have to spend 6
> months in the hospital due to the injuries (if she survives at all),
> and where the pregnancy would result in enough of an additional strain
> that she would simply not survive without an abortion? Oh, and
> supposed the probability of a miscarriage is 90% given her
> injuries. Should she wait for the inevitable or should the doctors
> remove the fetus if that would substantially increase her chances of
> survival?
If it's that bad it's more like 99% chance of a miscarriage. She should
wait for the miscarriage. Miscarriage is natural, abortion is not and
would cause more trauma both physically and mentally.
>
>> Abortion is safer than childbirth
>>
>> That's certainly not the case for the baby. And for the mother, there can
>> indeed be complications from abortion, including death. Many
>> abortion-related deaths are not reported as such, however, as death
>> certificates will list infection or uncontrolled bleeding as the principal
>> cause of death in such cases. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving
>> birth.
>
> Care to document that statement?
Can you refute it?????????????
Dysperdis
"JimD" <ji...@moveon.com> wrote in message
news:M6OdnQAb1eLOjq_Z...@comcast.com...
So do cows. That doesn't stop us from making them into hamburgers.
> emotions, minds that think,
Care to prove that they can think in utero? Because from what I remember of
biology class, their brains aren't developed enough to think until after
elective abortions are illegal.
>their own DNA
So does cancer.
>and sometimes a different blood type.
>I don't care what you call them, Abortion is murder.
Murder is a legal term refering to the *unlawful* killing of a *born
person*, usually with *malicious intent*. Abortion is the removal of an
unborn fetus from the uterus with the purpose of ending a pregnancy, which
results in the death of the fetus, although that is not the purpose of the
proceedure.
--
I'm here, I'm Queer, Now Gimme a Beer.
t(^_^t)
-Sean, the bio-girl genderfuck lesbian
§***Gnostic Archon
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144129...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> youngo...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.all.org/issues_urbanlegends.php
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and
>> develops a
>> life of its own, even though it really isn't true. There are a number of
>> them that pop up from time to time on one side of the abortion debate or
>> the
>> other - and sometimes both. Here's the real deal about a number of false
>> statements:
>> Abortion is necessary in cases of rape or incest
>>
>> Rape and incest are crimes, and those who commit them should be punished.
>
> And their victims should not.
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>>
>> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it
>> wasn't
>> prepared to your liking.
>
> No, it sure isn't.
>
> The child is a human being. The arguments about
>> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
>
> ...because it's so much fun to make the pregnant girl give birth to a
> deformed, dying monstrosity.
> <snip>
Just imagine if Ma Bush would have lived in a time when abortion was
available.
Uncle Vic
after about six weeks
> emotions,
difficult to tell, 21-22 weeks, maybe
> minds that think,
Judging by this post, some minds are never capable of this
> their own DNA
Eggs and sperm cells contain DNA before fertilization even happens,
> and sometimes
> a different blood type.
Er, yeah ok, so what?
> I don't care what you call them, Abortion
> is murder.
I think you are acting on what you've heard from biased friendly sources, ie
church sermons, the break room at work, weekend golf matches, box socials,
whatever. Have you researched it on your own to form your own opinion?
Somehow I think the answer is a resounding *no*.
Uncle Vic
Uncle Vic
> No One wrote:
> > <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
> >>
> >> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it
wasn't
> >> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments
about
> >> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are
meaningless.
> >
> > What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
> > literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
> > cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
> > people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
> > lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
>
> That's what they said about my youngest daughter before she was born.
> The doctors swore she would not live more than 1 month. The insurance
> company wanted to pay for an abortion to save money in the long run but
> I said no. My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a
> whip.
Congratulations, you beat the odds. Science does not pretend to know it
all, which is why many insurance decisions require a second opinion.
> By the way she loves Jesus too.
Strange you would mention that in response to a post about fetuses born
without brains...
Uncle Vic
Boy Toy
wrote in message <tqKdnQI5NI-zu6_Z...@comcast.com>
At the age of eight (or eighty if one belongs to a brainwashing
religious cult,) people believe what they are told to believe.
>Uncle Vic
>
Mark K. Bilbo
<6_udnT5Z0ufJc6zZ...@giganews.com>...
> An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and develops
> a life of its own, even though it really isn't true.
Like this one story about a Jewish rabbi that was executed...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Robibnikoff
>
> Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
> beating harts,
Really? They have deer? How interesting.
> emotions,
Cite?
>minds that think,
Cite?
their own DNA and sometimes
> a different blood type. I don't care what you call them, Abortion is
> murder.
In your opinion.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
Robibnikoff
> of the mothers treatments then you have a funeral for the unborn baby.
> Duh!!!
Since when is a funeral a requirement?
>>> Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
>>>
>>> This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
>>> Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
>>> offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
>>> lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
>>> justify killing the child.
>>
>> What would you recommend in the case of a woman 2 months pregnant who
>> gets into a very bad traffic accident and who will have to spend 6
>> months in the hospital due to the injuries (if she survives at all),
>> and where the pregnancy would result in enough of an additional strain
>> that she would simply not survive without an abortion? Oh, and
>> supposed the probability of a miscarriage is 90% given her
>> injuries. Should she wait for the inevitable or should the doctors
>> remove the fetus if that would substantially increase her chances of
>> survival?
> If it's that bad it's more like 99% chance of a miscarriage. She should
> wait for the miscarriage. Miscarriage is natural, abortion is not and
> would cause more trauma both physically and mentally.
LOL! Spoken like a man! How would you know? Have you ever had an
abortion? Ever had a miscarriage? How can you judge?
Ray Fischer
>Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious people
>> think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a soul
>> at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go on.
>> Prove it, moron.
>>
>Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
>beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
Pro-lie propaganda.
At the time 99% of abortions are done a fetus does not feel, think,
or care what happens to it. It has no awareness, no possibility of
consciousness.
Unlike the woman you so callously ignore.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>No One wrote:
>> What would you recommend in the case of a woman 2 months pregnant who
>> gets into a very bad traffic accident and who will have to spend 6
>> months in the hospital due to the injuries (if she survives at all),
>> and where the pregnancy would result in enough of an additional strain
>> that she would simply not survive without an abortion? Oh, and
>> supposed the probability of a miscarriage is 90% given her
>> injuries. Should she wait for the inevitable or should the doctors
>> remove the fetus if that would substantially increase her chances of
>> survival?
>If it's that bad it's more like 99% chance of a miscarriage. She should
> wait for the miscarriage. Miscarriage is natural, abortion is not and
>would cause more trauma both physically and mentally.
Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says
New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)
Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.
The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.
The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.
The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.
Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..
In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.
"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.
Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.
The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
kathryn
> No One wrote:
>> <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>>>
>>> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it
>>> wasn't
>>> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
>>> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
>>
>> What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
>> literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
>> cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
>> people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
>> lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
>
> That's what they said about my youngest daughter before she was born.
> The doctors swore she would not live more than 1 month. The insurance
> company wanted to pay for an abortion to save money in the long run but I
> said no. My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a whip.
> By the way she loves Jesus too.
>>
Yeah it was jesus not medical science!
Dennis Kemmerer
news:7v45321g0bhci4jk5...@4ax.com...
Hopefully his daughter is intelligent enough to eventually recognize her
dad's superstitious voodoo and brainwashing for what it is.
Dysperdis
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4432a690$0$58088$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> JimD <ji...@moveon.com> wrote:
>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>
>>> Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious people
>>> think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a
>>> soul
>>> at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go
>>> on.
>>> Prove it, moron.
>>>
>>Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
>>beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
>
> Pro-lie propaganda.
>
> At the time 99% of abortions are done a fetus does not feel, think,
> or care what happens to it. It has no awareness, no possibility of
> consciousness.
And, may I add that the other 1% consists almost entirely of abortions that
are preformed because the mother is at risk of severe, permanent disability
or death and/or the fetus is already dead.
Dionisio
> My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a whip. By
> the way she loves Jesus too.
Cool. Necrophilia.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Christopher A. Lee
<moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>JimD wrote:
>
>> My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a whip. By
>> the way she loves Jesus too.
>
>
>Cool. Necrophilia.
Dead boring.
No One
> No One wrote:
> > <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
> >>
> >> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
> >> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
> >> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
> > What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
> > literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
> > cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
> > people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
> > lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
>
> That's what they said about my youngest daughter before she was born.
> The doctors swore she would not live more than 1 month. The insurance
> company wanted to pay for an abortion to save money in the long run
> but I said no. My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart
> as a whip. By the way she loves Jesus too.
No it isn't what they said about your youngest daughter (if you mean
they said she had the condition I described). Some fetuses quite
literally have no brain (only part of a brain, actually) and will
expire within a few minutes of when the umbilical cord is cut, and
this is a condition that can be reliably diagnosed.
See <http://www3.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/hsbioethics/units/unit1_3.html>
for the dumped down description, and <http://www.answers.com/topic/anencephaly>
for a more detailed (and graphic one).
The condition has the technical name: anencephaly, and it is always
fatal. What do you expect when most of the brain and maybe the skull
and scalp are missing? Fortunately, the condition is very rare.
> > What do you do when a woman is diagnosed with cancer of the uterus
> > and
> > the options are chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical removal of the
> > uterus, all of which will kill off the fetus? Oh, and if you postpone
> > the treatment, the cancer will crush the fetus anyway.
>
> You treat the mother for her cancer. If the unborn baby dies as a
> result of the mothers treatments then you have a funeral for the
> unborn baby.
> Duh!!!
Oh, aborting the fetus via radiation or chemotherapy is cool but a
regular abortion ist verboten.
> > What would you recommend in the case of a woman 2 months pregnant who
> > gets into a very bad traffic accident and who will have to spend 6
> > months in the hospital due to the injuries (if she survives at all),
> > and where the pregnancy would result in enough of an additional strain
> > that she would simply not survive without an abortion? Oh, and
> > supposed the probability of a miscarriage is 90% given her
> > injuries. Should she wait for the inevitable or should the doctors
> > remove the fetus if that would substantially increase her chances of
> > survival?
> If it's that bad it's more like 99% chance of a miscarriage. She
> should wait for the miscarriage. Miscarriage is natural, abortion is
> not and would cause more trauma both physically and mentally.
And if waiting for the miscarriage will substantially increase the
risk of the mother dying?
> >
> >> Abortion is safer than childbirth
> >>
> >> That's certainly not the case for the baby. And for the mother, there can
> >> indeed be complications from abortion, including death. Many
> >> abortion-related deaths are not reported as such, however, as death
> >> certificates will list infection or uncontrolled bleeding as the principal
> >> cause of death in such cases. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving
> >> birth.
> > Care to document that statement?
>
> Can you refute it?????????????
People who make statements are normally expected to justify them.
Didn't anyone tell you that?
Dutch
> I think you are acting on what you've heard from biased friendly sources,
> ie
> church sermons, the break room at work, weekend golf matches, box socials,
> whatever. Have you researched it on your own to form your own opinion?
> Somehow I think the answer is a resounding *no*.
Pro-choice is the trendy position every guy loves to trot out to prove how
hip, current and liberal-minded he is. It's only sheer coincidence that
liberalized abortion is a handy-dandy last gasp birth control method for
that fuck you just couldn't resist.
Dutch
news:yzBYf.219304$sa3.216002@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4432a690$0$58088$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> JimD <ji...@moveon.com> wrote:
>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>>>> Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious
>>>> people
>>>> think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a
>>>> soul
>>>> at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go
>>>> on.
>>>> Prove it, moron.
>>>>
>>>Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
>>>beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
>>
>> Pro-lie propaganda.
>>
>> At the time 99% of abortions are done a fetus does not feel, think,
>> or care what happens to it. It has no awareness, no possibility of
>> consciousness.
No "possibility" of consciousness, not ever? That's a typical Fischer Big
Lie.
> And, may I add that the other 1% consists almost entirely of abortions
> that are preformed because the mother is at risk of severe, permanent
> disability or death and/or the fetus is already dead.
> --
> I'm here, I'm Queer, Now Gimme a Beer.
> t(^_^t)
> -Sean, the bio-girl genderfuck lesbian
Watching the pro-choice goons is like watching a pack of hyenas.
JimD
> JimD wrote:
>
>> My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart as a whip. By
>> the way she loves Jesus too.
>
>
> Cool. Necrophilia.
>
>
JimD
> JimD <ji...@moveon.com> writes:
>
>> No One wrote:
>>> <youngo...@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
>>>>
>>>> This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
>>>> prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
>>>> "quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
>>> What happens when the fetus doesn't have a brain, and I mean
>>> literally, not figuratively? This happens in a small fraction of
>>> cases. Even the anti-abortion Catholic Church does not demand that
>>> people who are brain dead be kept on life support, yet the "right to
>>> lifers" make that demand for fetuses in a similar state.
>> That's what they said about my youngest daughter before she was born.
>> The doctors swore she would not live more than 1 month. The insurance
>> company wanted to pay for an abortion to save money in the long run
>> but I said no. My daughter is eight now, perfectly healthy and smart
>> as a whip. By the way she loves Jesus too.
>
> No it isn't what they said about your youngest daughter (if you mean
> they said she had the condition I described). Some fetuses quite
> literally have no brain (only part of a brain, actually) and will
> expire within a few minutes of when the umbilical cord is cut, and
> this is a condition that can be reliably diagnosed.
diagnosed"
trying to justify your moral laps, or your so fucking BUTT UGLY that
know one will have sex with you without the use of dog biscuits.
JimD
> JimD <ji...@moveon.com> wrote:
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>
>>> Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious people
>>> think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a soul
>>> at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go on.
>>> Prove it, moron.
>>>
>> Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
>> beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
>
> Pro-lie propaganda.
>
> At the time 99% of abortions are done a fetus does not feel, think,
> or care what happens to it. It has no awareness, no possibility of
> consciousness.
Does that mean it's ok to kill a passed out drunk??????????????
No One
> No One wrote:
> > JimD <ji...@moveon.com> writes:
> >
> > No it isn't what they said about your youngest daughter (if you mean
> > they said she had the condition I described). Some fetuses quite
> > literally have no brain (only part of a brain, actually) and will
> > expire within a few minutes of when the umbilical cord is cut, and
> > this is a condition that can be reliably diagnosed.
> Yeah know, Thats what they said about my daughter's condition
> "reliably diagnosed"
Having half the brain missing and possibly the scalp and scull as
well would seem to be pretty obviously a fatal condition. Would you
like to volunteer for an experiment if you really doubt this? :-)
> > See
> > <http://www3.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/hsbioethics/units/unit1_3.html>
> > for the dumped down description, and <http://www.answers.com/topic/anencephaly>
> > for a more detailed (and graphic one).
> > The condition has the technical name: anencephaly, and it is always
> > fatal. What do you expect when most of the brain and maybe the skull
> > and scalp are missing? Fortunately, the condition is very rare.
(And note that he had no reply to that one!)
<snip>
> >>> Care to document that statement?
> >> Can you refute it?????????????
> > People who make statements are normally expected to justify them.
> > Didn't anyone tell you that?
> Ok You had or were involved in an abortion, and now you desperately
> are trying to justify your moral laps, or your so fucking BUTT UGLY
> that know one will have sex with you without the use of dog biscuits.
Nope, guess again. Never got anyone pregnant, never even had an STD,
am in great physical shape, but unlike you I can think. Those of us
who work in technically challenging fields are used to thinking about
all the special cases that you have to cover.
Your inability to hold a civil discussion, however, shows just how
weak your "position" is.
Boy Toy
message <UuadnTj9c78LPqnZ...@comcast.com>
Then she could not have been a true anencephalic monster (as infants
born without a brain are called,) since they never survive without
life support (I believe the current record for keeping an anencephalic
monster alive on life support is two years, but you can google it
yourself.)
More likely is that you misunderstood their diagnosis, or they
simplified it too much to accommodate your limited intellect.
I don't believe your daughter was diagnosed as an encephalic monster
and still grew up normally. It was something else and you just won't
admit it or don't understand it. Maybe I should ask you to back that
up, or does that only apply to other people?
>Ok You had or were involved in an abortion, and now you desperately are
>trying to justify your moral laps, or your so fucking BUTT UGLY that
>know one will have sex with you without the use of dog biscuits.
Oh, so now we see you in all your righteous religious glory (aka, an
ad hominem attack.) No wonder the doctors were unable to communicate
a proper diagnosis to you.
Robibnikoff
> Ok You had or were involved in an abortion, and now you desperately are
> trying to justify your moral laps, or your so fucking BUTT UGLY that know
> one will have sex with you without the use of dog biscuits.
Wow - Who pissed in your Cheerios, dickwad?
Ray Fischer
>> I think you are acting on what you've heard from biased friendly sources,
>> ie
>> church sermons, the break room at work, weekend golf matches, box socials,
>> whatever. Have you researched it on your own to form your own opinion?
>> Somehow I think the answer is a resounding *no*.
>
>Pro-choice is the trendy position every guy loves to trot out to prove how
>hip, current and liberal-minded he is.
If liberty is "hip, current and liberal-minded" then count me in,
along with the founders of the United States.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Dysperdis" <dysp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:yzBYf.219304$sa3.216002@pd7tw1no...
>>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4432a690$0$58088$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> JimD <ji...@moveon.com> wrote:
>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Babies are not babies until they are born. Only stupid religious
>>>>> people
>>>>> think life begins at conception, because they think their god assigns a
>>>>> soul
>>>>> at this point. If this is so, you will have no trouble proving it. Go
>>>>> on.
>>>>> Prove it, moron.
>>>>>
>>>>Baby or fetus, it doesn't matter what you call them, they still have
>>>>beating harts, emotions, minds that think, their own DNA and sometimes
>>>
>>> Pro-lie propaganda.
>>>
>>> At the time 99% of abortions are done a fetus does not feel, think,
>>> or care what happens to it. It has no awareness, no possibility of
>>> consciousness.
>
>No "possibility" of consciousness, not ever? That's a typical Fischer Big
>Lie.
Notice that the pro-liar offers nothing to refute my statement.
All he has is his religion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
stoney
alt.atheism
That's why I effectively told him to go fuck himself on this as he's a
frustrated would be slaver AND IT'S NONE OF HIS FUCKING BUSINESS!.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
stoney
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>"JimD" <ji...@moveon.com> wrote in message
>snip
>> Ok You had or were involved in an abortion, and now you desperately are
>> trying to justify your moral laps, or your so fucking BUTT UGLY that know
>> one will have sex with you without the use of dog biscuits.
>
>Wow - Who pissed in your Cheerios, dickwad?
He's simply a sphincter.
Dolf Boek
echelons of Roman imperial religious/political life--it didn't stop the Jews
betraying the autonomous, sovereign, common law and constitutional
religious/political rights of the State of Israel by handing Jesus (YHVS)
over to the Romans: "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not
profitable; all things are lawful to me, but I-I will not be under authority
by any; the meats are for the belly, and the belly for the meats.
And God both this and these shall make useless; and the body is not for
whoredom, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body; and God both the Lord
did raise, and us will raise up through His power. Have ye not known that
your bodies are members of Christ? having taken, then, the members of the
Christ, shall I make them members of an harlot? let it be not! have ye not
known that he who is joined to the harlot is one body? 'for they shall
be-saith He-the two for one flesh.' And he who is joined to the Lord is one
spirit; flee the whoredom; every sin-whatever a man may commit-is without
the body, and he who is committing whoredom, against his own body doth sin."
[1 Corinthians 6:12-18]
We will continue to say no to all attempts at assimilation by those who
feign belief as symbolic theology and philosophy of religion drawn from
Pythagorean onomantick hymeneal mysticism--a denial of the hyponomic
character of the hypostatis (eg: The Great Controversy of the Ages; 12 x 6J
= 70J + 3(3²+1)/2 = 457 BCE + 70 weeks = 33 CE) and the personality of
Jesus (YHVS) Christ (The Desire of Ages).
And your denial of the autonomous, sovereign, common law and legislative
basis to the State of Israel.
Geza Vermes, a professor emeritus of Jewish studies says of this exalting
indulgences as repugnant immorality as the self-infatuation shown over the
present discourse by scholars on the 'Gospel of Judas', that "the precise
sum of 30 pieces of silver appears only in Matthew who, as customary, draws
on the Old Testament, here on two prophecies [Zechariah 11:13] and [Jeremiah
32:7-9] {ie. involving Hanameel: the grace that comes from God; gift of God;
Shallum: perfect; agreeable; Anatoth: answers or songs; afflictions;
Benjamin: son of the right hand} wholly irrelevant to the story of Jesus."
[Copyright and Courtesy 2006 The Australian newspaper 15-16 April 2006, p
23]
In this circumstance the promulgation of myths {eg: a pivot upon 30 pieces
of silver as [#43, #43, #9, #30 - Government without Coercion/ Be Chary of
War, #30, #34, #3, #2, #59] as the daemon Solomon - peaceable; perfect; one
who recompenses associated to 8 - 12 September shown below right} essential
to the continuance of symbolic theology and philosophy of religion are
promulgated as the denial of the hyponomic {ie. under law; subject to law}
character of the hypostatis and the personality of Jesus Christ who was
'paradidomai' handed over/betrayed, the 'sin' here is Pythagorean onomantick
hymeneal mysticism as a regime of religious/political governance--as
blasphemy against the name of God [Romans 2:24] and denial of the Jewish
State's Torah based {ie.
Telos ('achariyth) = Arch (re'shiyth) + c² whereby 22/7 as 3W1D ... [7 x 24
x 13 x 49 = 6J or 365.2425 x 293 years] ... 6,000 as 122J3W1D + 9(9²+1)/2 as
#369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17 September 2001
This hypothetical notion as hyparktikos {ie. really or substantially} deals
with a dynamic contention of opposites expressed between the Roman Imperial
religious/political conception of hyponomos (under law; subject to law) and
its association to the hyponomic character of the hypostatis (eg: 12 x 6J =
70J + 3(3²+1)/2 = 457 BCE + 70 weeks = 33 CE) and the personality of Jesus
(YHVS) Christ.
And this is represented by the Tetragrammation ordering of the letters as
YHV associated with this Hyponomic Principle A-U-M {#341} as cabal {ie. the
secret schemes of a small group of plotters; an intrigue of forced
assimilation [Acts 4:23-27]} which conveys the Thesis {ie. Yod (#10) = A}
and Synthesis {ie. Vav (#6) = M} being as opposites, representing tension
and equilibrium. Where the Antithesis {ie. He (#5) = U} is then the midpoint
connecting the two. The fourth letter of the Tetragrammation, the He (#5),
is also [as Progression,] a point of [outer] tension."
} autonomous, sovereign, common law (viz. the traditional DAOIST/TORAH
(Pythagorean) A-U-M worldview of the religious/political Mysteries
associated to both the Tetragrammation of Number (Sephirot)) and legislative
right.
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/ninjaninnies.html>
<youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6_udnT5Z0ufJc6zZ...@giganews.com...
http://www.all.org/issues_urbanlegends.php
An urban legend is one of those stories that makes the rounds and develops a
life of its own, even though it really isn't true. There are a number of
them that pop up from time to time on one side of the abortion debate or the
other - and sometimes both. Here's the real deal about a number of false
statements:
Abortion is necessary in cases of rape or incest
Rape and incest are crimes, and those who commit them should be punished.
But why do even some pro-life people say a death sentence should be imposed
on the culprit's child? Any child in the womb, regardless of how life began,
is the most innocent of human beings. It is simply unthinkable to condemn
this innocent person to death. Yes, mothers who became pregnant through rape
need a lot of care and attention. Killing the child doesn't solve their
problem. It only makes it worse. The baby may be "that monster's child," but
he is also the mother's child. And God's.
Abortion is necessary in cases of fetal deformity
This isn't like sending your meal back at the restaurant because it wasn't
prepared to your liking. The child is a human being. The arguments about
"quality of life" or "the baby was going to die anyway" are meaningless.
Each human being has dignity. The idea of a wholesale attack on the disabled
in the womb is chilling, denying the right to life to an entire class of
people.
Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life
Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true; that there is never a
case in which it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother. There are
ways of saving both patients. Proper treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is
not considered a "procured abortion." Although the baby is unlikely to
survive the treatment, there is no intent to take the child's life.
Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health
This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the
Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It
offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by
lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would
justify killing the child.
Abortion is safer than childbirth
That's certainly not the case for the baby. And for the mother, there can
indeed be complications from abortion, including death. Many
abortion-related deaths are not reported as such, however, as death
certificates will list infection or uncontrolled bleeding as the principal
cause of death in such cases. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving
birth.
Pro-lifers are anti-woman
Pro-lifers are not against women; they're against women killing their
babies. This is simply the opposition's rhetoric. Pro-lifers maintain an
incredible national network of pregnancy care centers to help women who want
to consider abortion for financial or social reasons. These centers provide
counseling, and in many cases medical care, shelter, food and clothing for
both mother and child.
Pro-lifers are violent people
Unfortunately, a small handful of people have taken the law into their own
hands. All reputable pro-life groups, including American Life League,
unequivocally reject violence as a means of achieving the goal of
eliminating abortion. Pro-life people have also been the victims of
violence, but such events are rarely reported by the mainstream media.
The bible permits birth control
The story of Onan would seem to refute that. While God gave men and women
free will, the consequences of poor choices run through the Bible, beginning
with Adam and Eve. In short, God told Onan to go forth and multiply, but he
practiced birth control. The penalty for Onan's disobedience was death. The
overall message of Scripture is "be fruitful and multiply," which is why the
Catholic Church declares that artificial birth control is "intrinsically
evil," and why every Christian community agreed until the 1930s.
The Catholic Church once approved abortion
This one's easy. No, the Catholic Church never did any such thing, though
the misstatement is repeated frequently in anti-Catholic tracts. The
writings of the early Church fathers clearly indicate that abortion is a
most serious evil. There may be writings of individual Christians that
differ with that stance, but these are not the official teachings of the
Church.
Thomas Aquinas said early abortion was not murder
No he didn't. There has been debate through the years about the point at
which the soul enters the body. Back in Aquinas' day, many thought that the
child came alive at the point of "quickening," when the mother could first
feel the baby's movements. One theory held that this happened around the
40th day of pregnancy. We now know that the child is active much earlier,
though the mother cannot detect this. And science shows us that the child is
a unique human being with his own specific set of DNA from the moment of
fertilization.
--
----------
J Young
youngo...@aol.com