Pro-Lifers Ignore Embryo Deaths!

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Leo Mauler

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
protesting at fertility clinics.

I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!

Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
"person"???

Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of her
own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?

So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
"persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get national
media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos, instead
of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!

--
Never do this at home. Look how it killed this .sig
_/\ __/\ __/\ ______________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ webgiantatrocketmaledotcom (guess)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
[How Am I Posting? If you think this post is spam, E-mail me.]

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

They did protest this in merry old england a few months ago.

Even the Pope and the catholics weighed into it.

They were going to destroy a couple hundred fertalized eggs that were left
unclaimed or abandonded by the owners for various reasons. And I think
the law over there is that frozen human eggs are not to be stored for
longer then 4 years - they get bad, they rot, slowly "die", even under
ice.

I say they are already deadmeat - and in time maybe God will make em come
alive with the breath of life - but humans dont make life. At best they
just abuse their creativity and make death - which is an upsidedown birth.

Oh, the eggs were destroyed.

Dispite the protesting.

SumBuddie


In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler

Pat Winstanley

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
<webg...@rocketmale.com> writes

>Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>protesting at fertility clinics.
>
>I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
>killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>
>Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
>include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
>embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
>"person"???
>
>Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of her
>own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
>anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>
>So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
>protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
>"persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get national
>media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
>so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos, instead
>of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!
>

Be fair, Leo... there was quite an outcry when thousands of frozen
embryos were destroyed in Britain a couple of years ago, and many pro-
life women did say that they would take and gestate... a tiny fraction
of... those embryos sooner than see them destroyed. As it happens the
clinics holding the embryos were forced by British law to destroy them,
but that's another matter altogether.

Try this:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/0809-96/1/1.html

Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

kendra

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine wall..
before it constitutes.. a life..

Leo Mauler <webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote in article
<34B48C...@rocketmale.com>...


> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> protesting at fertility clinics.
>
> I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
> killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>
> Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
> include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
> embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
> "person"???
>
> Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of her
> own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
> anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>
> So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
> protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
> "persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get national
> media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
> so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos, instead
> of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!
>

kendra

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

from my understanding.. and I am not positive of this until I do some
research.. but.. I believe that the reason the Catholic Church has a
problem with this.. is because.. it isn't a natural way for pregnancy to
occur.. and so.. to them.. wouldn't follow in Gods plan..

Alan B. Mac Farlane <abm...@sonic.net> wrote in article
<abmacf-0801...@d44.pm.sonic.net>...


> They did protest this in merry old england a few months ago.
>
> Even the Pope and the catholics weighed into it.
>
> They were going to destroy a couple hundred fertalized eggs that were
left
> unclaimed or abandonded by the owners for various reasons. And I think
> the law over there is that frozen human eggs are not to be stored for
> longer then 4 years - they get bad, they rot, slowly "die", even under
> ice.
>
> I say they are already deadmeat - and in time maybe God will make em come
> alive with the breath of life - but humans dont make life. At best they
> just abuse their creativity and make death - which is an upsidedown
birth.
>
> Oh, the eggs were destroyed.
>
> Dispite the protesting.
>
> SumBuddie
>
>
>
>
>
>

> In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler

David Vorous

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Leo Mauler wrote:
>
> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> protesting at fertility clinics.

The answer is simple; they haven't been told to protest there. Like all
good sheep, the so-called pro-lifers just do what they are told.
--
David J. Vorous
da...@snakebite.com
http://users.aimnet.com/~dvorous/home.html

Paul J. Prinzivalli

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Leo Mauler wrote in message <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>...


>Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>protesting at fertility clinics.
>

>I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
>killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>
>Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
>include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
>embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
>"person"???
>

You must be aware, Leo, that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to
fertility clinics.

[snipped useless blathering]

Paul J. Prinzivalli

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

kendra wrote in message <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>...


>Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine wall..
>before it constitutes.. a life..
>

I don't agree, kendra. Fertilization is the key for the beginning of a new
life. Implantation is another bright spot, since it means that the
connection between the new organism and its mother has begun, in a
viviparous species.

snip

Sunshine

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, ken...@MCIONE.com
says...

>
>Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine
wall..
>before it constitutes.. a life..

The Pope claims that life begins at the moment of fertilization, when
the egg and the sperm unite. Those who argue that life begins when the
fertilized egg implants itself in the wall of a woman's uterus do so
for nothing more than the convience of haivng access to contraception.
In short, anyone who support the IUD and the pill are nothing more than
pro-abort BABYKILLERS.

Sunny

>
>Leo Mauler <webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote in article

><34B48C...@rocketmale.com>...
>> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>> protesting at fertility clinics.
>>
>> I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos
being
>> killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>>
>> Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
>> include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any
given
>> embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
>> "person"???
>>

>> Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of
her
>> own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for
the
>> anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>>
>> So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics
and
>> protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
>> "persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get
national
>> media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually
see
>> so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos,
instead
>> of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!
>>
>> --
>> Never do this at home. Look how it killed this .sig
>> _/\ __/\ __/\ ______________________________________________
>> \/ \/ \/ webgiantatrocketmaledotcom (guess)
>> DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
>> [How Am I Posting? If you think this post is spam, E-mail me.]
>>

--
Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women)
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html
remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or
just enter suns...@pinn.net


Sunshine

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, webg...@rocketmale.com
says...

>
>Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>protesting at fertility clinics.
>
>I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos
being
>killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>
>Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
>include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
>embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
>"person"???
>
>Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of
her
>own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
>anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>
>So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
>protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
>"persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get
national
>media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
>so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos,
instead
>of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!
>

Indeed, if the Pope really believed that those frozen embyros deserved
a chance at life, why didn't he order his nuns to gestate them?

Perhaps he was afraid of another virgin birth. Just think of that -
between IVF and C-sections, modern science has made it possible for
women to give birth and remain a Virgin.

Sunny

Riyaz

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Leo Mauler wrote:

> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> protesting at fertility clinics.
>

> <snip>

> Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of her
> own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
> anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>
> So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
> protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
> "persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get national
> media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
> so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos, instead
> of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!

I think the simple reason for this is that Pro-Lifers don't go the full
distance when rationalizing. If they really believed in their stand and
they followed their own arguments to the end, then they should be making a
big fuss about the issue. But, they don't. This is what happens when one
follows any creed blindly; blind faith begins to substitute reason and in
the end up acting in an irrational manner. I don't believe that every
Pro-Lifer does what he/she does only because they take joy in making other
women's lives difficult. Many of them probably mean the best, but their
arguments and their actions are less than convincing because they use
half-way logic.

Riyaz

Galen Hekhuis

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Riyaz <isc5...@leonis.nus.edu.sg> wrote:

>I think the simple reason for this is that Pro-Lifers don't go the full
>distance when rationalizing. If they really believed in their stand and
>they followed their own arguments to the end, then they should be making a
>big fuss about the issue. But, they don't. This is what happens when one
>follows any creed blindly; blind faith begins to substitute reason and in
>the end up acting in an irrational manner. I don't believe that every
>Pro-Lifer does what he/she does only because they take joy in making other
>women's lives difficult. Many of them probably mean the best, but their
>arguments and their actions are less than convincing because they use
>half-way logic.

I used to think that there were some well-meaning people involved in the
"pro-life" movement, but then I tried to think it through. Either these
people have to be incredibly dumb or they have to be malicious. The whole
movement is devoid of heroes or even actions to emulate. When "pro-lifers"
speak they are either trying to exhort others to action or disavowing the
activities of others. Kinda makes you wonder who would seek out such groups.

It's been how many years since Roe vs. Wade? And "pro-lifers" have
accomplished what? Therein is an indication of how seriously "pro-lifers"
consider this issue.

Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR ghek...@gte.net
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Dr. Ellen Wedum

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
<webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:

' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
' protesting at fertility clinics.

'
' I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being


' killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
'
' Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
' include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
' embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
' "person"???

'
WOW! Let's call our congressmems! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS
HORRIBLE ATROCITY!!
..... The anti choicers also shed no tears for the over 60% of fertilized
eggs that fail to implant and are spontaneously aborted in the first two
weeks after conception. Where are the Tampax Police when you need them?

E "The use of the human brain is natural,
L Be it EVER so hard
L To make some people do it!"
E
N -- Katherine Houton Hepburn

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Sunshine wrote:

> In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, ken...@MCIONE.com
> says...
> >
> >Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine
> wall..
> >before it constitutes.. a life..
>
> The Pope claims that life begins at the moment of fertilization, when
> the egg and the sperm unite. Those who argue that life begins when the
> fertilized egg implants itself in the wall of a woman's uterus do so
> for nothing more than the convience of haivng access to contraception.
> In short, anyone who support the IUD and the pill are nothing more than
> pro-abort BABYKILLERS.

<snip>

Now, Sunshine, if I didn't know better, I'd say, from *this* post, that you
a pro-lifer who has spent *way* too much time talking to the so-called
"reverend" Spitz! :--)

Oze


Oze McCallum

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Riyaz wrote:

<snip>


> I think the simple reason for this is that Pro-Lifers don't go the full
> distance when rationalizing. If they really believed in their stand and
> they followed their own arguments to the end, then they should be making a
> big fuss about the issue. But, they don't. This is what happens when one
> follows any creed blindly; blind faith begins to substitute reason and in
> the end up acting in an irrational manner. I don't believe that every
> Pro-Lifer does what he/she does only because they take joy in making other
> women's lives difficult. Many of them probably mean the best, but their
> arguments and their actions are less than convincing because they use
> half-way logic.
>

> Riyaz

So, using this line of reasoning, do you believe the only *true* pro-lifers
are those that call for killing abortion providers?

What, in your opinion, is the "full distance" for a pro-lifer to go?

Oze

kendra

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

I stand corrected Paul :}


Paul J. Prinzivalli <pjpr...@msn.com> wrote in article
<OYQBm#PH9GA.141@upnetnews04>...


>
> kendra wrote in message <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>...

> >Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine
wall..
> >before it constitutes.. a life..
> >
>

james g. keegan jr.

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 04:20:43 GMT, ghek...@gte.net (Galen Hekhuis)
wrote:
[...]
: I used to think that there were some well-meaning people involved in


the
: "pro-life" movement, but then I tried to think it through. Either
these
: people have to be incredibly dumb or they have to be malicious. The
whole
: movement is devoid of heroes or even actions to emulate. When
"pro-lifers"
: speak they are either trying to exhort others to action or
disavowing the
: activities of others. Kinda makes you wonder who would seek out
such groups.
:
: It's been how many years since Roe vs. Wade? And "pro-lifers" have
: accomplished what? Therein is an indication of how seriously
"pro-lifers"
: consider this issue.

very nicely said, galen.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBNLaH7FG4z1jo8qIiEQK0vgCfW2rEx1vJ4NQiAu6w95OOh5HqwY4AoJ5P
a7FM6TzyRirAb8RLDTPuJpgI
=sclL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Pat Winstanley

unread,
Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98
to

In article <abmacf-0801...@d44.pm.sonic.net>, "Alan B. Mac
Farlane" <abm...@sonic.net> writes

>They did protest this in merry old england a few months ago.
>
>Even the Pope and the catholics weighed into it.
>
>They were going to destroy a couple hundred fertalized eggs that were left
>unclaimed or abandonded by the owners for various reasons. And I think
>the law over there is that frozen human eggs are not to be stored for
>longer then 4 years - they get bad, they rot, slowly "die", even under
>ice.
>

Sort of. It was several thousand, and the law said they had to be
destroyed unless the "parents" signed a piece of paper to allow further
storage. The ones that were destroyed were the ones where the "parents"
either agreed to the destruction or couldn't be traced.

(Does anyone have a record of the details - I tried to trace an account
[old news story or whatever] on the web but found nothing)?

>I say they are already deadmeat - and in time maybe God will make em come
>alive with the breath of life - but humans dont make life. At best they
>just abuse their creativity and make death - which is an upsidedown birth.
>
>Oh, the eggs were destroyed.
>
>Dispite the protesting.
>
>SumBuddie
>
>
>
>
>
>

>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>> protesting at fertility clinics.
>>
>> I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
>> killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
>>
>> Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
>> include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
>> embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
>> "person"???
>>

>> Is it only fun if you are preventing a woman from taking control of her
>> own life? Does it require that you scream at a woman in order for the
>> anti-embryo-death protests to be any fun?
>>
>> So, when are you folks going to run down to the fertility clinics and
>> protest the mass deaths of all the embryos that you consider to be
>> "persons"??? When's the first protest? Better make sure you get national
>> media's attention, this'd be the first time in history we actually see
>> so-called pro-life protestors protesting the deaths of embryos, instead
>> of protesting the ability of women to control their own lives!
>>

>> --
>> Never do this at home. Look how it killed this .sig
>> _/\ __/\ __/\ ______________________________________________
>> \/ \/ \/ webgiantatrocketmaledotcom (guess)
>> DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
>> [How Am I Posting? If you think this post is spam, E-mail me.]

Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Jim Garlits

unread,
Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98
to

Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...


>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
>
>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>' protesting at fertility clinics.
>

The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought about it
before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural order.
This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.

Jim G.


Sunshine

unread,
Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98
to

In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...

Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?

Sunny

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:

">"In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...
">">
">">
">">Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...
">">>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
">">><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
">">>
">">>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
">">>' protesting at fertility clinics.
">">>
">">The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought
">"about it
">">before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
">">pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural
">"order.
">">This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.
">">
">">Jim G.
">">
">">
">"
">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
">"
">"Sunny

Hey, THIS is a GREAT IDEA. The more the anti-choicers spread
themselves thin, attacking more and more highly-respected and
publicly-accepted institutions, the SOONER society will recognize them for
the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
(You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
well-being of already-born people.)

-- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
and use only the info provided in the SIG.
Thanks!

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <34B53A...@snakebite.com>, da...@snakebite.com wrote:

">"Leo Mauler wrote:
">">
">"> Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
">"> protesting at fertility clinics.
">"

">"The answer is simple; they haven't been told to protest there. Like all
">"good sheep, the so-called pro-lifers just do what they are told.
">"--
">"David J. Vorous
">"da...@snakebite.com
">"http://users.aimnet.com/~dvorous/home.html

Actually, most of them are LEMMINGS of the RRR Cult, following the
cult leaders' dictates in the manner of Pavlov's dogs.

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, "kendra"
<ken...@MCIONE.com> wrote:

">"Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine wall..
">"before it constitutes.. a life..

I just LOVE it every time I hear this. Anti-choicers claiming on the
one hand that, boy, when that sperm meets that egg, that's IT! That's a
human life, and we have to DEFEND that thing! And then Kendra comes along
and says that MOST anti-choicers DON'T believe that, and qualify it by
implantation being necessary first. Get REAL, Antis. IF you REALLY
believe that once an egg is fertilized, then it's a new human life, then
STOW the "implantation requirement" bull-oney.

Not that it makes any difference, anyway... because an unwanted z/e/f
is WORTHLESS until AT LEAST the 7th month of gestation...

-- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
and use only the info provided in the SIG.

Thanks!Lacking sentience and conscious awareness, it ranks right
along the sperm and the ova in value to itself, or to anyone else.

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <693q85$9...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:

">"In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, ken...@MCIONE.com
">"says...


">">
">">Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine
">"wall..
">">before it constitutes.. a life..
">"

">"The Pope claims that life begins at the moment of fertilization, when
">"the egg and the sperm unite. Those who argue that life begins when the
">"fertilized egg implants itself in the wall of a woman's uterus do so
">"for nothing more than the convience of haivng access to contraception.
">"In short, anyone who support the IUD and the pill are nothing more than
">"pro-abort BABYKILLERS.

Ah, yes. Another intolerant, fellow-woman-hating, z/e/f-coddling Anti
heard from. You've gotta just LOVE these nitwits. Every bit as much as
we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists -- you know, those
OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of their owm.

Brian Gillespie

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

>Not that it makes any difference, anyway... because an unwanted z/e/f
>is WORTHLESS until AT LEAST the 7th month of gestation...

Just curious as to what sort of 'magical' thing happens at the 7th month of
gestation?
--
Pax Christi,
Brian P. Gillespie
bpgil...@worldnet.att.net

Brian Gillespie

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

>Every bit as much as
>we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists -- you know, those
>OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of their owm.

You mean those other freaks who thought it was OK to arbitrarily decide
what constituted human life and what didn't? Precursors to the modern day
pro-choice movement.

Brian Gillespie

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

Cal doesn't realize who his own friends are...

>the SOONER society will recognize them for
>the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
>forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
>(You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
>well-being of already-born people.)

These are the very groups who (like the pro-choice movement) felt that they
could define what constitutes life and what does not. Sound familiar, Cal?

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

Brian Gillespie <bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

>>Every bit as much as
>>we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists -- you know, those
>>OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of their owm.
>
>You mean those other freaks who thought it was OK to arbitrarily decide
>what constituted human life and what didn't?

You do the same thing, fool.

--
Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding. -- Louis Brandeis

Paul J. Prinzivalli

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

Brian Gillespie wrote in message <69djqg$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...


>>Not that it makes any difference, anyway... because an unwanted z/e/f
>>is WORTHLESS until AT LEAST the 7th month of gestation...
>
>Just curious as to what sort of 'magical' thing happens at the 7th month of
>gestation?
>--


Two things: capacity for respiration and capacity for sentience are both
achieved at the 21st or 22nd week or so of gestation. The lungs develop
sufficiently so that the fetus has a fighting chance to survive outside the
womb, and the myelinization of the neurons in the brain means that the brain
has begun to work.

The extremely premature born baby is less developed than the full term fetus
in utero, but by virtue of the fact that the baby is "breathing" (even with
the assistance of a ventilator), that baby has become a legal human being.
The fetus remains "potential" life and has only the protection under Roe v.
Wade that a state might choose to provide to potential life, subject to the
interests of the woman's "life and health" (Which can be reasonable). The
issue of what constitutes "health" of the woman can be of concern, for
possible abuse.

The recent spurt of "partial birth abortion" bans strikes me as odd - why
concentrate on the methodology? What difference is there between the D&E and
the ID&E(PBA) in terms of the result to the fetus? The fetus dies, whether
it is sliced and diced, or has its brains sucked out.

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <69dlgm$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Brian Gillespie"
<bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

xan...@ibm.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:

">"Craig doesn't realize who his own friends are...


">"
">">the SOONER society will recognize them for
">">the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
">">forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
">">(You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
">">well-being of already-born people.)
">"
">"These are the very groups who (like the pro-choice movement) felt that they

">"could define what constitutes life and what does not. Sound familiar, Craig?

Sorry, Brian, but no cigar. The earlier fruitcakes devalued
ALREADY-BORN people on grounds of race and/or ethicity. PRESENT-DAY
fruitcakes (the Anti-Choicers) devalue ALREADY-BORN people by attempting
to rank their well-being and life options BELOW developing entities that
-- when unwanted -- have no more value than do sperm and ova.

Pro-Choicers, however, have their values straight, and have
compassion for the ALREADY-BORN, defending their rights against the
busybodies and control freaks who seek callously to discriminate against
them.

corgscot

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

Paul J. Prinzivalli wrote:
>
> Leo Mauler wrote in message <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>...
> >Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> >protesting at fertility clinics.
> >
> >I mean, here we have seven to twenty--or more--fertilized embryos being
> >killed, every time a woman undergoes fertility treatments!
> >
> >Doesn't the very definition of "person" used by so-called Pro-Lifers
> >include all fertilized embryos after conception? Well, isn't any given
> >embryo in a fertility clinic, by the pro-lifers' own definitions, a
> >"person"???
> >
>
> You must be aware, Leo, that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to
> fertility clinics.
>
> [snipped useless blathering]

Leo you are right in your definition of life, and if this is really
happening- fertilized embryos being destroyed- then Christians should do
something about it. The issue I would like to point out is that by
judging entire "Christianity" by what a select group does is rather
closed minded. Just like every fragment of society Christians have
there problems and hypocracies. The important thing is how we deal
with them-- THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. PERIOD>>>

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <69djqg$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Brian Gillespie"
<bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

xan...@ibm.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:

">">Not that it makes any difference, anyway... because an unwanted z/e/f
">">is WORTHLESS until AT LEAST the 7th month of gestation...

">"Just curious as to what sort of 'magical' thing happens at the 7th month of
">"gestation?

Medical science has determined that it is almost precisely at this
point that sentience and conscious awareness first begin to be possible.
Prior to that point, the fetus is mentally "blotto," and has NEVER had
awareness. Which makes an UNWANTED one, prior to the 3rd trimester, rank
right alongside sperm and ova in terms of worth and defensibility,

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <69edk6$m...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:

">"In article <calc2-12019...@ts002d18.jac-fl.concentric.net>,
">"xan...@ibm.net (Craig Chilton) says...


">">
">">In article <693q85$9...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net
">"(Sunshine) wrote:
">">
">">">"In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, ken...@MCIONE.com
">">">"says...

<snip>

">"> Ah, yes. Another intolerant, fellow-woman-hating, z/e/f-coddling

">"> Anti heard from. You've gotta just LOVE these nitwits. Every bit


">"> as much as we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists
">"> -- you know, those OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of
">"> their owm.

">"I take it this post was directed at kendra since I'm on your side.
">"Visit http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine and choose Abortion.
">"
">"Keep up the good work.
">"
">"Sunny

Sorry for the confusion, Sunny. I DIDN'T make that very clear, did I?

Keep up the good fight!

-- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
and use only the info provided in the SIG.
Thanks!

">"--

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

In article <69djur$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Brian Gillespie"
<bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

">" xaa...@ibm.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:

">">Every bit as much as
">">we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists -- you know, those
">">OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of their owm.
">"

">"You mean those other freaks who thought it was OK to arbitrarily decide

">"what constituted human life and what didn't? Precursors to the modern day
">"pro-choice movement.

Considering the FACT that life is a CONTINUUM (otherwise, sperm and
ova would start out as DEAD entities), it is total nonsense for
anti-choicers to arbitrarily say that human life BEGINS at conception.
And solely on the strength of THAT absurdity, they seek to destroy the
life options, opportunities, and well-being of millions of already-born
women by destroying their access to abortion.

Sorry, Brian, but by their actions, we plainly see that it is the
Pro-choicers who are the "freedom fighters" here, battling the would-be
tyranny of the control-freak Anti-choicers. So if the neo-Nazis and
segregationists are precursers of any group, mentality-wise and
mindset-wise, as will as in philosophy, they clearly are the precursers of
the Anti-choicers.

Leo Mauler

unread,
Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98
to

Paul J. Prinzivalli wrote:
>
> kendra wrote in message <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>...
> >Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the uterine wall..
> >before it constitutes.. a life..
>
> I don't agree, kendra. Fertilization is the key for the beginning of a new
> life. Implantation is another bright spot, since it means that the
> connection between the new organism and its mother has begun, in a
> viviparous species.

I was merely under the impression that fertilization was fertilization
and the if a sperm and egg combine, regardless of the location, they
constituted what pro-lifers call a "person".

Which is what made the non-protests at fertility clinics all the more
interesting and telling of a true agenda for suppressing women with the
deaths of embryos only bemoaned when the woman choosing to kill them was
engaging in a reproductive choice that pro-lifers disagreed with.

Sunshine

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

In article <69dlgm$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam says...
>
>Cal doesn't realize who his own friends are...

>
>>the SOONER society will recognize them for
>>the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
>>forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
>>(You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
>>well-being of already-born people.)
>
>These are the very groups who (like the pro-choice movement) felt that
they
>could define what constitutes life and what does not. Sound familiar,
Cal?

At least pro-choices don't condone murdering what they consider to be
people for reasons like political expediency.

Sunny

>--
>Pax Christi,
>Brian P. Gillespie
>bpgil...@worldnet.att.net

--

Sunshine

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

In article <calc2-12019...@ts002d18.jac-fl.concentric.net>,
ca...@concentric.net says...

>
>In article <693q85$9...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net
(Sunshine) wrote:
>
>">"In article <01bd1c71$47449100$c92a37a6@sandycec>, ken...@MCIONE.com
>">"says...
>">">
>">">Most of us believe that the embryo has to be embedded in the
uterine
>">"wall..
>">">before it constitutes.. a life..
>">"
>">"The Pope claims that life begins at the moment of fertilization,
when
>">"the egg and the sperm unite. Those who argue that life begins when
the
>">"fertilized egg implants itself in the wall of a woman's uterus do
so
>">"for nothing more than the convience of haivng access to
contraception.
>">"In short, anyone who support the IUD and the pill are nothing more
than
>">"pro-abort BABYKILLERS.
>
> Ah, yes. Another intolerant, fellow-woman-hating, z/e/f-coddling
Anti
>heard from. You've gotta just LOVE these nitwits. Every bit as much
as
>we used to love the neo-Nazis and the segregationists -- you know,
those
>OTHER control freaks who had no real lives of their owm.

I take it this post was directed at kendra since I'm on your side.

Visit http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine and choose Abortion.

Keep up the good work.

Sunny

>


> -- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
> Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
> this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
> and use only the info provided in the SIG.
> Thanks!

--

Kent

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

Sunshine wrote:
>
> In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...
> >
> >
> >Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...
> >>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
> >><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> >>' protesting at fertility clinics.
> >>

> >The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought
> about it
> >before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
> >pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural
> order.
> >This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.
> >
> >Jim G.
> >
> >
>
> Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
> like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
>
> Sunny
>
> >
>
> --
> Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women)
> http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html
> remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or
> just enter suns...@pinn.net

The Catholic Church is very clear on the subject. The Respect for Life
concept, option for the poor, in this case the unborn life, and the
Church's teaching that certain techniques are morally unacceptable, for
several reason, including, the aborting of the unneeded embyros. Yes,
you are right, it is nothing new.

As to why?. You will need to go out to the protest marches and query each
one as to there reasons. I would assume it is like any fight against
an immoral action. They are doing or taking the best course of action,
that will be successful in preventing the lost of life the quickest.

Kent

Kent

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

Cal Chilton wrote:

>
> In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>
> ">"In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...
> ">">
> ">">
> ">">Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...
> ">">>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
> ">">><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
> ">">>
> ">">>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> ">">>' protesting at fertility clinics.
> ">">>
> ">">The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought
> ">"about it
> ">">before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
> ">">pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural
> ">"order.
> ">">This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.
> ">">
> ">">Jim G.
> ">">
> ">">
> ">"
> ">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> ">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
> ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
> ">"
> ">"Sunny
>
> Hey, THIS is a GREAT IDEA. The more the anti-choicers spread
> themselves thin, attacking more and more highly-respected and
> publicly-accepted institutions, the SOONER society will recognize them for

> the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
> forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
> (You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
> well-being of already-born people.)
>
> -- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
> Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
> this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
> and use only the info provided in the SIG.
> Thanks!

Your comments make you part of the problem, not the solution.
kent

Pat Winstanley

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

In article <OpaZQX7H9GA.236@upnetnews03>, "Paul J. Prinzivalli"
<pjpr...@msn.com> writes

>Two things: capacity for respiration and capacity for sentience are both
>achieved at the 21st or 22nd week or so of gestation.

No.


> The lungs develop
>sufficiently so that the fetus has a fighting chance to survive outside the
>womb, and the myelinization of the neurons in the brain means that the brain
>has begun to work.

Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Pat Winstanley

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com>
writes

>Sunshine wrote:
>>
>> In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...
>> >>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
>> >><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
>> >>' protesting at fertility clinics.
>> >>
>> >The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought
>> about it
>> >before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
>> >pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural
>> order.
>> >This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.
>> >
>> >Jim G.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
>> above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
>> like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
>>
>> Sunny
>>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women)
>> http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html
>> remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or
>> just enter suns...@pinn.net
>
>The Catholic Church is very clear on the subject. The Respect for Life
>concept, option for the poor, in this case the unborn life, and the
>Church's teaching that certain techniques are morally unacceptable, for
>several reason, including, the aborting of the unneeded embyros. Yes,
>you are right, it is nothing new.
>
>As to why?. You will need to go out to the protest marches and query each
>one as to there reasons. I would assume it is like any fight against
>an immoral action. They are doing or taking the best course of action,
>that will be successful in preventing the lost of life the quickest.

Do you mean embryo hosts might be capable of being intimidated by the
tactics, but embryos won't?


Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Cal Chilton

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to

In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com> wrote:

">"Craig Chilton wrote:

">"> In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine)
wrote:

">"> ">" Why don't Catholic front organizaitons


">"> ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?

">"> Hey, THIS is a GREAT IDEA. The more the anti-choicers spread


">"> themselves thin, attacking more and more highly-respected and
">"> publicly-accepted institutions, the SOONER society will recognize them for
">"> the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
">"> forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
">"> (You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
">"> well-being of already-born people.)
">">
">"> -- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
">"> Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
">"> this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
">"> and use only the info provided in the SIG.
">"> Thanks!
">"
">"Your comments make you part of the problem, not the solution.
">"kent

WRONG, Kent. The PROBLEM is the age-old one of groups of people
getting off on harassing other groups of people. We saw this intolerance
with Nazis persecuting already-born Jews. Segregationists persecuting
already-born blacks. And today, we see the ATTEMPTED (and fortunately,
unsuccessful) persecution of already-born women by intolerant
Anti-choicers who seek to destroy their abortion rights and relegate them
to 2nd-class citizen status. An UNWANTED z/e/f has NO value, so this
latest manifestation of bigotry is senseless. The anti-choicers are
busybodies at best, and hateful bigots at worst, and everything in
between, depending upon the individuals. There is no excuse for being
anywhere on that spectrum.

The SOLUTION to this problem is to relegate Anti-choicers to the same
social pariah status that now is accorded neo-Nazis and segregationists.
That day will come, and I believe (based on the longevity of "acceptance"
of the neo-Nazis, KKK, and segregationists once people started to become
fed up with their hatefulness), that we can expect the transition to be
complete by 2010-2020. And, as was the case with the neo-Nazis and the
segregationists, when it becomes socially unacceptable for people to
promote the brand of intolerance that's been manifested by Anti-choicers,
America will be the better for it.

Gary

unread,
Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98
to


Cal Chilton wrote:

> Considering the FACT that life is a CONTINUUM (otherwise, sperm and
> ova would start out as DEAD entities), it is total nonsense for
> anti-choicers to arbitrarily say that human life BEGINS at conception.
> And solely on the strength of THAT absurdity, they seek to destroy the
> life options, opportunities, and well-being of millions of already-born
> women by destroying their access to abortion.
>

Using your argument, would it not be equally nonsensical for pro abortionists to
claim the child is not human at all or not yet a living being?

Besides, is a sperm a human? No. Is an egg a human? No. The human being only
begins when the two join together.

> Sorry, Brian, but by their actions, we plainly see that it is the
> Pro-choicers who are the "freedom fighters" here, battling the would-be
> tyranny of the control-freak Anti-choicers. So if the neo-Nazis and
> segregationists are precursers of any group, mentality-wise and
> mindset-wise, as will as in philosophy, they clearly are the precursers of
> the Anti-choicers.

Freedom fighters who do not hesitate to make any sacrifice of human life to gain
their goal.


Kent

unread,
Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98
to Pat Winstanley

Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com>
> writes
> >Sunshine wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <69b4or$p8$1...@news.netusa1.net>, jgar...@netusa1.net says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Ellen Wedum wrote in message ...
> >> >>In article <34B48C...@rocketmale.com>, Leo Mauler
> >> >><webg...@rocketmale.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>' Hey, I was just wondering why we never hear so-called Pro-Lifers
> >> >>' protesting at fertility clinics.
> >> >>
> >> >The reason you've never heard of it might be that you never thought
> >> about it
> >> >before? The Catholic Church is solidly against any means of becoming
> >> >pregnant that exploit or scandalizes, that is against the natural
> >> order.
> >> >This includes in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.
> >> >
> >> >Jim G.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> >> above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons

> >> like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
> >>
> >> Sunny
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women)
> >> http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html
> >> remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or
> >> just enter suns...@pinn.net
> >
> >The Catholic Church is very clear on the subject. The Respect for Life
> >concept, option for the poor, in this case the unborn life, and the
> >Church's teaching that certain techniques are morally unacceptable, for
> >several reason, including, the aborting of the unneeded embyros. Yes,
> >you are right, it is nothing new.
> >
> >As to why?. You will need to go out to the protest marches and query each
> >one as to there reasons. I would assume it is like any fight against
> >an immoral action. They are doing or taking the best course of action,
> >that will be successful in preventing the lost of life the quickest.
>
> Do you mean embryo hosts might be capable of being intimidated by the
> tactics, but embryos won't?
>
> Pat Winstanley
> http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Hi Pat,

No it wasn't me that used the words "embryo hosts" or "intimidated", or
"tactics".

I simply responded to an individual that had zero knowledge about
"Catholic church's theology" on the topic. May the desire for knowledge
wasn't the goal.

Knowledge about what and why someone believes a certain way is necessary
on both sides of the issue, if a resolution is to be found. I simply
provide the information that the writer apparently needed.

As to the second question, I provided a possible solution in obtaining an
answer to the question "... Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?..."
(ask one of the marchers).

I did inject my thoughts and from your response, I guess poorly in my
efforts to provide a possible answer. May this one is better understood:

....infertility clinics may not be so easily found as are the abortion
clinics.

Hopes this helps you to understand possible answers to the questions or
misstatements that were raised.

kent


Kent

unread,
Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98
to Cal Chilton

Cal Chilton wrote:
>
> In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ">"Craig Chilton wrote:
>
> ">"> In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine)
> wrote:
>
> ">"> ">" Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
> ">"> ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
>

Hi Craig,

Your posting is not really responding to the topic. It seems more as if
you are "getting off on harassing other groups of people".

Most of the group you quoted have well - known hatred for the Catholics.
If you don't try to become the solution, than you may "really" be the
problem as are the groups you so readily named.

Therefore, your comments really are part of the problem and not the
solution.

Always ready to discuss this whenever you are ready.

kent


Eric Williams @ PCB x5577

unread,
Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98
to

In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Cal Chilton wrote:
> > In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
> > ">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> > ">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons

> > ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
> > ">"
> > ">"Sunny

> >
> > Hey, THIS is a GREAT IDEA. The more the anti-choicers spread
> > themselves thin, attacking more and more highly-respected and
> > publicly-accepted institutions, the SOONER society will recognize them for
> > the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
> > forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
> > (You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
> > well-being of already-born people.)
> >
> > -- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
> > Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
> > this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
> > and use only the info provided in the SIG.
> > Thanks!
>
> Your comments make you part of the problem, not the solution.
> kent

What precisely is the problem here? Perhaps we can clarify that?

(1) If the problem is that civilization is increasingly defying the "natural
order" of the universe by doing strange things to biomachinery such as
in-vitro fertilization or the killing of foetii, then perhaps we should
re-examine our lifestyles to be more in accordance with the "natural
order", and eliminate all items and/or activities that may be in conflict
thereof. This may mean, of course, that we shall all have to live in
natural caves, without electricity, gas, or even aluminum foil to make
solar ovens, and of course the car has got to go, along with the
computer, modern science of any description, and various other
knickknacks that we have gotten used to (like indoor plumbing, brooms,
and alarm clocks).

(2) If the problem is that the human tide is not in accordance with the
Catholic Church, well, then perhaps it is because the Catholic Church
is no longer "the solution" when it comes to religion, and the CC
may (gasp) have to modernize its thinking in order to be more acceptable
to the modern-day student, worker, philosopher, or county administration
agent. Certainly the idea that premarital sex is evil, bad, and
to be shunned is anachronistic.

(3) If the problem is that women are too uppity and should be put back in the
kitchen to cook food and bear babies for their menfolk while they
watch TV, don't call us, we'll call you. :-)

--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* an official (or unofficial) public policy statement by
Mentor Graphics, Incorporated (my employer), or any of its representatives.
All spam mail to this address is archived. Consider yourselves warned.

Mike Doughney

unread,
Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98
to

In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net
(Sunshine) wrote:
">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
">"

Because, if you go to an American Life League conference, you might
notice, as we did last October, that in some ways ALL resembles a
fertility cult. We saw Mercedes Wilson insist that the Western world
was dying out, and that all of the world's population could live
comfortably inside the boundaries of the state of Texas. We saw
Pavone and Marx boast of their connections back to the Vatican. We
saw Marx complain that at the end of the century there will be more
Muslims than Catholics, and in a moment that demonstrated his
movement's embrace of positive eugenics, insisted that Catholics must
have more babies as a result. Their final prayer rally included a
parade of pregnant women, mothers, and their chidren - the only moment
when there were more than one or two token minority participants in the
conference hall.

For ALL to condemn fertility technology would be an obvious
contradiction. Its goal is for as many people as possible to have as
many babies as possible, in a world devoid of birth control and
abortion. Why would this be? Because in such a world, there would be
a steady stream of (usually white and healthy) babies that would be
adopted by families who conform to their particular norms. It is a
strategy designed to grow their movement through the indoctrination of
their children, since they never admit that their children should have
the option of making their own choices about how they will eventually
live. This is why you see the growth of so-called "Crisis Pregnancy
Centers" that feed their own, closed adoption system. These centers,
and so-called 'sidewalk counselors,' also prey upon people who are
under stress and least able to defend themselves against coercive
tactics, in an attempt to gain additional converts to grow their
movement.

We see a constant contradiction between 'good science' and 'bad
science' when we look at compulsory pregancy advocates. For example,
you can watch Bernard Nathanson claim that technological advances,
such as fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound, brought him to his
conversion to a stand against abortion. Ultrasound is considered to
be such a good thing to them that, inside the movement, they'd never
believe that a woman about to have an abortion is ever allowed to see
the ultrasound image. Meanwhile, advances in medical procedure that
have made abortion safer and affordable - products of the same process
of human thought and creativity that brings us all technological
advances - are vilified. Never are the products of applied science
seen as neutral tools that can then be used for either good or evil.

Cloning and in-vitro fertilzation are another example of sorting of
good and bad science. We hear people claiming that thousands of
embryos will be slaughtered if cloning is permitted, while today,
thousands of embryos are destroyed, through very similar processes, in
fertility clinics. Perhaps it's just the influence of too many
decades of watching Frankenstein movies.

In article <69ip9e$p...@oddball.sje.MENTORG.COM>,


Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 <ew...@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com> wrote:
>
>What precisely is the problem here? Perhaps we can clarify that?

The problem is that a lot of people have a great liking for things
represented by the Pope and certain other religious leaders, like
infallibility, security, and fertility. All of these are expressions
of primitive survival instincts that are not always compatible with
more modern ideals such as pluralism, diversity and freedom. Go take
a look at http://www.hli.org/issues/dissappl.html - on the Human Life
International web site for one example of what they really think about
people who don't agree with them. Then, consider what happens when
organizations like HLI gain real power, which, given the obvious
erosion of our freedoms that is already well underway under the
direction of HLI and others, is a time not too far away.

Mike Doughney
Biblical America Resistance Front
www.barf.org

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

Gary <gsa...@tier2.com> wrote:
>Cal Chilton wrote:
>
>> Considering the FACT that life is a CONTINUUM (otherwise, sperm and
>> ova would start out as DEAD entities), it is total nonsense for
>> anti-choicers to arbitrarily say that human life BEGINS at conception.
>> And solely on the strength of THAT absurdity, they seek to destroy the
>> life options, opportunities, and well-being of millions of already-born
>> women by destroying their access to abortion.
>>
>
>Using your argument, would it not be equally nonsensical for pro abortionists to
>claim the child is not human at all or not yet a living being?

Indeed, and I don't see either pro-abortionists or pro-choicers making
such claims. It seems to be pretty much an anti-abortion strawman.

>Besides, is a sperm a human? No.

A human sperm is human.

> Is an egg a human? No.

A human egg is human.

> The human being only
>begins when the two join together.

And are born.

Kent

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 wrote:
>
> In article <34BB5F...@hotmail.com>, Kent <dami...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Cal Chilton wrote:
> > > In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
> > > ">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> > > ">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
> > > ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
> > > ">"
> > > ">"Sunny
> > >
> > > Hey, THIS is a GREAT IDEA. The more the anti-choicers spread
> > > themselves thin, attacking more and more highly-respected and
> > > publicly-accepted institutions, the SOONER society will recognize them for
> > > the COMPLETE fruitcakes that they are, and put them up on that dusty,
> > > forgotten shelf with the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and the segregationists.
> > > (You know, those OTHER folks who had no regard for the rights and
> > > well-being of already-born people.)
> > >
> > > -- Craig Chilton xan...@ibm.net
> > > Posting remotely from Florida. If responding to
> > > this via e-mail, please disregard any header data,
> > > and use only the info provided in the SIG.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Your comments make you part of the problem, not the solution.
> > kent
>
> What precisely is the problem here? Perhaps we can clarify that?
>

Eric,

Nice try, but not honest, if you were trying to indentify the problem.

By your statements (tone and content) you didn't intend too truly clarify or
re-state the problem. You masterly provide your opinions with the questions,
but I doubt you desire a resolution to the conflict that is taking place in our
country or world.

So I am left, with the same response: If you aren't trying to be a part of the
solution, than you, maybe part of the problem.

As with many individuals, that are anti-catholic and regardless of the issue,
you will stand on the soapbox to vent your thoughts on what you believe are
Catholic beliefs, Catholic action, and Catholic teachings. Very seldom will
such an individual enter into a serious discussion, because your motives are
not honest and your desire to resolve are false.

Time catches everyone, good luck.

Kent

Kent

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

Mike Doughney wrote:
>
> In article <69bcpi$p...@netaxs.com>, suns...@antispam.pinn.net
> (Sunshine) wrote:
> ">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
> ">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
> ">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
> ">"
>
> Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 <ew...@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com> wrote:
> >
> >What precisely is the problem here? Perhaps we can clarify that?
>
> The problem is that a lot of people have a great liking for things
> represented by the Pope and certain other religious leaders, like
> infallibility, security, and fertility. All of these are expressions
> of primitive survival instincts that are not always compatible with
> more modern ideals such as pluralism, diversity and freedom. Go take
> a look at http://www.hli.org/issues/dissappl.html - on the Human Life
> International web site for one example of what they really think about
> people who don't agree with them. Then, consider what happens when
> organizations like HLI gain real power, which, given the obvious
> erosion of our freedoms that is already well underway under the
> direction of HLI and others, is a time not too far away.
>
> Mike Doughney
> Biblical America Resistance Front
> www.barf.org

Hi Mike,

Are you the one that set that page up and acted like it representative of the
Church?.................. *L*

Why pick something so out of main-stream Catholicism, when there are so
many "true" examples of the Church.

To Any Readers: If you want to know what the "pope" believes, read his best
selling book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope".

If any of the "verbage" on the HLI website was true, why are all the he
Catholic priest and sisters that were in the US Congress, now gone!

I had to scan the webpage twice to see what the initial HLI meant and did see
it once. Guess what, I couldn't find it.

On top of that is finally want money....*L*

Now someone else waste their time and see what, www.bark.org means.

kent

Kent

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

Okay, I should have left and gone to work after my last posting when I was
picking on Krista. I now have to eat a little crow...........

pst, psit ugh!! UCK!

Therefore, regarding my posting about HLI, Human Life International, and
Mike Doughney, of Biblical America Resistance Front (www.barf.org):
(* at the bottom*)

Delete....*L*, or please ignore my comments or at least the part about HLI.

WARNING:

Mr. Doughney has found a page in the HLI websites, that if not read carefully
you will or (dummy here did) get very confused very fast !!!!

START..... with HLI's main webpage before going to Father Marx's "dissent
letter":

http://www.hli.org/

or to

http://www.hli.org/marxtext.html


Don't start with the page "Doughney" has posted.....(yeah, I know, you already
did).

After this retraction and hopefully having more time to read the entire website, I
may have a different understanding of what "Father Marx" was saying,
quoting, or whatever.

Regardless, Mr. Doughney found a page that suited his purposes quite well.

Then dummy walked in and mouthed off, before looking at the full website,
which I still haven't done. Homework tonight *L*.

signing out for good.
kent

Craig Chilton

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

In article <34BBB59F...@tier2.com>, gsa...@tier2.com wrote:

">" xan...@ibm.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:
">"
">"> Considering the FACT that life is a CONTINUUM (otherwise, sperm and
">"> ova would start out as DEAD entities), it is total nonsense for
">"> anti-choicers to arbitrarily say that human life BEGINS at conception.
">"> And solely on the strength of THAT absurdity, they seek to destroy the
">"> life options, opportunities, and well-being of millions of already-born
">"> women by destroying their access to abortion.
">">
">"
">"Using your argument, would it not be equally nonsensical for pro
abortionists to
">"claim the child is not human at all or not yet a living being?

Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's is just as
alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
stages. We ALSO recognize that UNWANTED z/e/f's have no more value, and
therefore are no more defensible, than sperm and ova. ESPECIALLY when
attempting to ascribe value or defensibility to z/e/f's could destroy the
well-being and life options of millions of already-born women.

">"Besides, is a sperm a human? No. Is an egg a human? No. The human


being only
">"begins when the two join together.

A sperm contains HUMAN DNA. Not canine. Not feline. Not frog. Not
dinosaur. HUMAN. You cannot get a human z/e/f from NON-human sperm and
ovum. The mere act of combining the two is merely a mechanical one that
can easily be accomplished in a petri dish. It's no big deal. Just
another stage of development. When the BIRTH stage is reached, only THEN
is a human entity reasonably defensible.

">"> Sorry, Brian, but by their actions, we plainly see that it is the
">"> Pro-choicers who are the "freedom fighters" here, battling the would-be
">"> tyranny of the control-freak Anti-choicers. So if the neo-Nazis and
">"> segregationists are precursers of any group, mentality-wise and
">"> mindset-wise, as will as in philosophy, they clearly are the precursers of
">"> the Anti-choicers.
">"
">" Freedom fighters who do not hesitate to make any sacrifice of human
life to gain
">"their goal.

No. Freedom fighters who recognize the absolute absurdity of trashing
the life options and well-being of WORTHWHILE human entities --
already-born women -- in favor of defending WORTHLESS, undeveloped human
entities -- those UNWANTED z/e/f's. It is precisely because most
Americans have the compassion and the common sense to recognize this, that
the vast majority of Americans favor abortion rights.

Brian Gillespie

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's is just as
>alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
>stages.

Claiming that a conceived human is 'just as human' as either a sperm or egg
is hardly 'knowledgeable'. Neither a sperm or an egg will (on their own)
develop into a full grown human. Neither a sperm or an egg possesses a
complete set of DNA. At conception you have A human.

>A sperm contains HUMAN DNA. Not canine. Not feline. Not frog. Not
>dinosaur. HUMAN.

Partially, anyway.

>The mere act of combining the two is merely a mechanical one that
>can easily be accomplished in a petri dish. It's no big deal. Just
>another stage of development. When the BIRTH stage is reached, only THEN
>is a human entity reasonably defensible.

Incorrect. Once growth of A human begins you have reached a stage where a
human entity exists. And this, of course, occurs at conception.

>Freedom fighters who recognize the absolute absurdity of trashing
>the life options and well-being of WORTHWHILE human entities --
>already-born women -- in favor of defending WORTHLESS, undeveloped human
>entities -- those UNWANTED z/e/f's.

This is where you missed the original point. The Nazis and the pro-slavery
camps both attempted to arbitrarily decide what constituted WORTHWHILE
human life. Just as you have now done.

>It is precisely because most
>Americans have the compassion and the common sense to recognize this, that
>the vast majority of Americans favor abortion rights.

The vast majority of Americans also supported the right of some individuals
to keep slaves. Did this make slavery a moral right? A clear majority of
Americans oppose late term abortions. Should they be outlawed? Moral
right and wrong have nothing to do with popular consensus.

Dr. Nobody

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Brian Gillespie wrote:

> >Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's is just as
> >alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
> >stages.

> Claiming that a conceived human is 'just as human' as either a sperm or egg
> is hardly 'knowledgeable'. Neither a sperm or an egg will (on their own)
> develop into a full grown human. Neither a sperm or an egg possesses a
> complete set of DNA. At conception you have A human.

DNA doesn't a human make. There are perfectly acceptable people walking
around without 'normal' DNA. The point is that you are wrong in your
definitions and people are pointing that out. Stop pushing back so
hard, listen to what you are being told and integrate it into your own
thinking. If you then reject what others have said and continue to
believe your own (stupid idiotic) version of reality then at least
you'll have understood another viewpoint. Right now you're plain not
listening.

> >A sperm contains HUMAN DNA. Not canine. Not feline. Not frog. Not
> >dinosaur. HUMAN.

Shows you don't know what that means. Because we share DNA with yeast
molds. (You might think from the way some people behave it's only some
of us but Truth! All humans do. Go figger!)

> Partially, anyway.

> >The mere act of combining the two is merely a mechanical one that
> >can easily be accomplished in a petri dish. It's no big deal. Just
> >another stage of development. When the BIRTH stage is reached, only THEN
> >is a human entity reasonably defensible.

> Incorrect. Once growth of A human begins you have reached a stage where a
> human entity exists. And this, of course, occurs at conception.

You don't know what you're talking about either. There is growth before
conception and there is growth after conception. At one level of
complexity, it's all organic chemicals interacting. There is no Magic
Line drawn in the plasm. That line is a human invention that should
help us understand what's going on and help us evaluate, judge and act
upon the reality we experience. You let it get in your way when you
place too much emphasis on this point or that point. I think that is
what you are being told. Logically, your Magic Line isn't Magic and it
isn't really a Line. It's just in your head, man. Just in your
head....

[snipped IMHO junk]

--


###########################################
## ##
## Reply to user fg at domain portal.com ##
## ##
###########################################

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

Brian Gillespie <bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

>>Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's is just as
>>alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
>>stages.
>
>Claiming that a conceived human is 'just as human' as either a sperm or egg
>is hardly 'knowledgeable'.

Do you think that they're part, what? Avian? Canine? What?

> Neither a sperm or an egg will (on their own)
>develop into a full grown human.

Neither will a fertilized egg.

> Neither a sperm or an egg possesses a
>complete set of DNA.

And a fertilized egg doesn't have a complete body.

> At conception you have A human.

Not interested in your undereducated and unsupported claims.

>>A sperm contains HUMAN DNA. Not canine. Not feline. Not frog. Not
>>dinosaur. HUMAN.
>

>Partially, anyway.

Nope. It's _all_ human.

>>The mere act of combining the two is merely a mechanical one that
>>can easily be accomplished in a petri dish. It's no big deal. Just
>>another stage of development. When the BIRTH stage is reached, only THEN
>>is a human entity reasonably defensible.
>
>Incorrect. Once growth of A human begins you have reached a stage where a
>human entity exists.

A human begins when a human begins?

Circular argument. No pass.

>>Freedom fighters who recognize the absolute absurdity of trashing
>>the life options and well-being of WORTHWHILE human entities --
>>already-born women -- in favor of defending WORTHLESS, undeveloped human
>>entities -- those UNWANTED z/e/f's.
>
>This is where you missed the original point. The Nazis and the pro-slavery
>camps both attempted to arbitrarily decide what constituted WORTHWHILE
>human life. Just as you have now done.

Just as you do every day. Just as you did when you claim that sperm
are not human. Just as EVERY other person alive does.

>>It is precisely because most
>>Americans have the compassion and the common sense to recognize this, that
>>the vast majority of Americans favor abortion rights.
>
>The vast majority of Americans also supported the right of some individuals
>to keep slaves. Did this make slavery a moral right?

Did it make it wrong?

> A clear majority of
>Americans oppose late term abortions.

Except for medical need. Which is about the only reason late-term
abortions are even done.

> Should they be outlawed? Moral
>right and wrong have nothing to do with popular consensus.

Neither do they have anything to do with your personal prejudices.

Craig Chilton

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

In article <69oleo$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Brian Gillespie"
<bpgil...@worldnet.att.nospam> wrote:

">">Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's are just as


">">alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
">">stages.
">"
">"Claiming that a conceived human is 'just as human' as either a sperm or egg

">"is hardly 'knowledgeable'. Neither a sperm or an egg will (on their own)
">"develop into a full grown human. Neither a sperm or an egg possesses a
">"complete set of DNA. At conception you have A human.

NOT a valid enough argument to justify intolerant and callous denial to
women of their abortion rights, which therefore would cause them to have,
in most cases, fewer life options and opportunities. Arguing the
"significance" of the difference between the supposed value of sperm/ova
and a fertilized egg -- when ALL that stands between the two entities is a
simple act of joining which can be accomplished thousands of times over in
most labs -- while the MUCH larger issue of discrimination against
already-born women is the consequence of blowing such things 'way out of
proportion... pales to INsignificance.

">">A sperm contains HUMAN DNA. Not canine. Not feline. Not frog. Not
">">dinosaur. HUMAN.

">"Partially, anyway.

Again, the joining of sperm and ova is NO big deal, and ALL the stages
we're discussing here are HUMAN.

">">The mere act of combining the two is merely a mechanical one that
">">can easily be accomplished in a petri dish. It's no big deal. Just
">">another stage of development. When the BIRTH stage is reached, only THEN
">">is a human entity reasonably defensible.
">"
">"Incorrect. Once growth of A human begins you have reached a stage where a

">"human entity exists. And this, of course, occurs at conception.

WRONG. Any given spem or ovum that has human DNA is HUMAN.

">">Freedom fighters who recognize the absolute absurdity of trashing
">">the life options and well-being of WORTHWHILE human entities --
">">already-born women -- in favor of defending WORTHLESS, undeveloped human
">">entities -- those UNWANTED z/e/f's.
">"
">"This is where you missed the original point. The Nazis and the pro-slavery
">"camps both attempted to arbitrarily decide what constituted WORTHWHILE
">"human life. Just as you have now done.

There is a WORLD of difference between declaring an UNWANTED,
non-sentient, never-yet-consciously aware z/e/f WORTHWILE, compared to
doing same for ANY already-born human. ALL of the latter should have
equal rights. NONE of the former have attained a stage where such should
be conferred... except perhaps in the minds (??) of extremists who don't
hesitate to value such worthless entities above the rights of already-born
women.

">">It is precisely because most
">">Americans have the compassion and the common sense to recognize this, that
">">the vast majority of Americans favor abortion rights.

">"The vast majority of Americans also supported the right of some individuals

">"to keep slaves. Did this make slavery a moral right? A clear majority of
">"Americans oppose late term abortions. Should they be outlawed? Moral


">"right and wrong have nothing to do with popular consensus.

Humanity learns, and matures, the longer it is on earth. We've
outgrown slavery. Much more recently. we've outgrown segregation and
apatheid. We are now in the process of outgrowing the bigotry and
intolerance of Anti-choice, not to mention other heinous aspects of the
goals of people associated with the religious radical right.

Because late-term abortion may affect entities having a degree of
conscious awareness, there is room for reasonable debate on that issue...
but ONLY if no woman who NEEDS the procedure is ever denied it.

Craig Chilton

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

In article <34C01F...@Got.Nobody.org>, "Dr. Nobody"
<Ain't...@Got.Nobody.org> wrote:

">"Brian Gillespie wrote:
">"
">"> >Most knowledgeable pro-choicers recognize that z/e/f's are just as
">"> >alive and just as human as were the sperm and ova that led to those
">"> >stages.
">"
">"> Claiming that a conceived human is 'just as human' as either a sperm or egg
">"> is hardly 'knowledgeable'. Neither a sperm or an egg will (on their own)
">"> develop into a full grown human. Neither a sperm or an egg possesses a
">"> complete set of DNA. At conception you have A human.
">"

">"DNA doesn't a human make. There are perfectly acceptable people walking
">"around without 'normal' DNA. The point is that you are wrong in your
">"definitions and people are pointing that out. Stop pushing back so
">"hard, listen to what you are being told and integrate it into your own
">"thinking. If you then reject what others have said and continue to
">"believe your own (stupid idiotic) version of reality then at least
">"you'll have understood another viewpoint. Right now you're plain not
">"listening.

Okay. Right to the point! All this debate about sperm, ova, zygotes,
embryoes, and fetuses is so much semantic debating over NON-issues. The
REAL issue boils down to whether people are going to treat women as
FIRST-class citizens, allow them to have full abortion rights and control
over their bodies and whatever their bodies may happen to contain, and
thus have FULL capability of retaining, if they so desire, ALL the life
options and opportunities that were available to them PRIOR to an
ill-timed pregnancy. Or should mean-spirited, repressive, selfish people
who arbitrarily ascribe MORE value to UNWANTED z/e/fs than to women have
THEIR way? Clearly, the only reasonable and logical... not to mention
compassionate and fair... course of action is the FORMER one. Most
Americans are fair-minded and egalitarian, and that's why the
Anti-choicers lost their war against abortion rights.

I listen very well to what others say, but that cannot alter the basic
TRUTH -- that there is NO reasonable basis for anti-choice sentiments, and
a WORLD of FACTS and compassion to support pro-choice ones.


">"[snipped IMHO junk]

That's OK. I just did the same to YOUR ramblings, from the above
point on. There is no point in debating possible differences with respect
to sperm/ova and z/e/fs, when the BOTTOM line is that NONE of those which
are UNWANTED have value.

Wostenberg

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98