FW: Abortion: when does life begin,
screedmonkey
>
> "screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
>> Jabriol wrote:
>>
>> The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and nothing
>> provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You have
>> porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
>> legitimacy to your opinion.
> ========================
> Jabriol already wrote on another NG that any women who desires sex for any
> reason other than conceiving a baby is a WHORE! I couldn't believe my
> eyes
> when I read THAT post. You can't reason with a person who thinks like
> that and believes such warped religion-based nonsense.
You folks have a nice lil' debate going here. Let's throw in feminists, mens
activists and atheists for fun.
• R.L. Measures
<scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
• For some serious fun, toss in some chainsaws.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Eric
Growth is the evidence of life!
"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
news:c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
Therion Ware
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:55:33 +1000 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Eric ("Eric"
<wor...@vic.australis.net.au>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>I have a simple answer.
>
>Growth is the evidence of life!
I hope you're kind to your stalactites, stalagmites and copper
sulphate crystals.
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
JaBrIoL
> I have a simple answer.
>
> Growth is the evidence of life!
>
Long Live Cancer!
traveler
>
> Growth is the evidence of life!
What are you bringing THIS up for? Of course a developing embryo and
a human fetus are alive. Was there ever any question of that? The
controversy swirls around when you should consider the fetus to be a
human being with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. I
think we should err on the side of caution and consider the developing
embryo sacrosanct from the moment of conception onward, but most
people do not agree. They seem to need a more practical and pragmatic
cutoff point with which to establish legal and moral guidelines, such
as when the developing child is "viable," meaning it could survive on
its own outside of the womb. That currently is some time after the
third trimester begins. The ironic thing is that many people are not
treated very well in this world and those who seem to object the most
to giving the unborn child the same rights as independent persons seem
to be thinking about that more than those who want to grant
undelivered babies all the rights children currently enjoy. Then
there is the issue of overpopulation, which cannot be ignored, as
spiritually troubling as it may be. At heart, it is a very difficult
and thorny issue. The people who claim to know the answer without any
doubt are not being honest.
Shez
<wor...@vic.australis.net.au> writes
>I have a simple answer.
>
>Growth is the evidence of life!
Douse that apply to mould, ?
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.f2s.com
Shez's Garden at http://www.oldcity.f2s.com/shez/
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"traveler" <Vall...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa96aeec.0404...@posting.google.com...
Unfortunately, the "viable" (capable of living; especially : capable of
surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support) argument
also fails. After a child is born, it is not "viable." It still requires
some external agent to keep it alive for several years, perhaps even a
decade or more. If you use this argument, then you would be sanctioning, for
example, the killing of a six-year-old because a single mother loses her job
and cannot support it.
We as a society need to make up our minds about the difference between born
and unborn children. If the mom can legally kill it, then you can't charge a
robber with murder if he shoots a pregnant mom and she loses the baby. Is
birth the demarcation point between being a possession and having human
rights?
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
Legalize Freedom
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
<snip>
This argument will never be settled until it is brought to a factual basis:
Abortion is killing a baby- period. When you cut through the bullshit on
both sides, the issue is: does a mother have the right to kill her unborn
child? Most societies aside from those controlled by Judeo/Xianity say "yes"
and this one says "they are going to do it anyway so you may as well make it
safe so two people don't end up dead."
Hyuuga Neji
I thought that the demarcation point was 21. Provided you live in a
first world nation, of course. If you live in a third world nation, you
can be considered a possession well into your 40's, which is incredibly
ancient.
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:22 GMT, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
> <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <igwec.65263$z%1.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Is
>>birth the demarcation point between being a possession and having human
>>rights?
>
>
> It is absolutely the demarcation point for having rights of any kind.
> Note in the US birth is required to be a citizen, and while rights are
> not restricted to citizens the only rights that exist are those
> supported by law.
What's the definition of birth, legally speaking?
Blubb
human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
second chance. Even though I don't believe in abortion, I have second
thoughts about whether people like you should have been aborted.
Blubb
Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:22 GMT, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
> <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <igwec.65263$z%1.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nonsense. Once born a baby can be cared for by any sufficiently
> trained and motivated individual. This could be a different person
> every day, or even every hour.
>
> Prior to birth it is not possible to substitute any other individual
> for the pregnant woman involved. The fetus cannot be cared for by any
> other individual under any circumstances.
>
> There is a huge difference between a fetus that has not been born and
> a child that has been born whether you admit it or not.
You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you. Aren't you
human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
second chance. Even though I don't believe in abortion, I have second
thoughts about whether people like you should have been aborted.
>
>
>>We as a society need to make up our minds about the difference between born
>>and unborn children.
>
>
> See above for just one physical and metabolic difference. This is one
> good reason for not considering a fetus a child.
>
>
>>If the mom can legally kill it
>
>
> There is no 'mom' prior to birth because there is no child prior to
> birth.
>
>
>
>>, then you can't charge a
>>robber with murder if he shoots a pregnant mom and she loses the baby.
>
>
> Wrong. If there is a local law that defines this act as murder he can
> be charged. Intent is always key.
>
> I shot a woman to death. Am I charged with anything and if so, what?
>
>
>
>>Is
>>birth the demarcation point between being a possession and having human
>>rights?
>
>
Blubb
MyTwoAngels wrote:
> He's been a human being ever since he was born.
You cut part of it off.
Blubb
• R.L. Measures wrote:
> In article <c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>, screedmonkey
> <scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wistful Wendy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
>>>
>>>>Jabriol wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and nothing
>>>>provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You have
>>>>porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
>>>>legitimacy to your opinion.
You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you. Aren't you
human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
second chance. Even though I don't believe in abortion, I have second
thoughts about whether people like you should have been aborted.
>>>
Shez
<acc...@domain.extension> writes
In Rome during its greatest days, children were considered to be the
possession of the father, until the day he died, and if he got angry
with his children and killed them for any reason, He was considered to
have that right... they were his children, and he had the right of life
or death justice over them.
Their was no point at which the children whatever their age were
considered to be old enough to make their own decisions..
In the Jewish religion, if you look at the bible, if a woman is attacked
and loses the foetus, its not considered as murder, but the attacker
must pay the father the price of the foetus... in other words a fine.
If the woman is killed along with the foetus its just a bigger fine.
If a baby is aborted its not a crime either.
It is very much in the view of the Catholic church that a foetus becomes
a person, though that foetus is not a viable human being until its
birth. It is very much in the view of the catholic church, that sex is
simply for procreation purposes, that sex is evil, or in some way dirty,
and that if you as a woman fall pregnant you are supposed to take the
child to full time, even if it costs you your life.
In Manilla, a couple of years ago, an eight year old girl was raped,
became pregnant, and was told by the catholic church that she had to
have the baby, even though it would cost the young rape victim her life,
She and the baby would have died, and the church knew that.
Her parents were told if they took her for an abortion they would go to
hell, and so would the daughter and that they would no longer be part of
the catholic church.
The parents said they didnt want to belong to a church that would kill
their young daughter, and took her for an abortion.
Religion taken to extremes is brutal and cruel in the extremes,
Fundamentalism of any type is a sickness, and should be treated as such.
Hyuuga Neji
I wasn't me until just now. A while before that I was slightly different.
And I have no recollections of myself from pre-birth. I'm fairly certain
I wasn't cognizant at that point.
> Aren't you
> human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
> second chance.
By that logic life begins before conception, because the existence of my
parents was necessary for my chance, as well. Hell, I was conceived at
the creation of the universe, then.
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:46:05 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> I have no idea what a 'legal' definition would be. I would agree with
> the dictionary on this one. See 1 below.
>
> Main Entry: 1birth
> Pronunciation: 'b&rth
> Function: noun
> Usage: often attributive
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse byrth; akin to Old English
> beran
> 1 a : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent b
> : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb
> 2 : a state resulting from being born especially at a particular time
> or place <a Southerner by birth>
> 3 a : LINEAGE, EXTRACTION <marriage between equals in birth> b : high
> or noble birth
> 4 a archaic : one that is born b : BEGINNING, START <the birth of an
> idea>
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=birth&x=17&y=20
>
From what I can tell then, 1 is circular in that a person is an
individual when they're born, and to be born you have to be an
individual emerging from the body of the parent.
If they're talking about an individual entity that can survive without a
parent, then don't machines complicate the matter? Ie. If someone can be
born a month premature with present technology (I'm just making this
up), then it would be ok to abort before this point, but with future
technology they'd be able to be born 5 months premature, does that mean
that it would be wrong to abort them after 4 months? I'm using born, in
this context, to mean removing from the womb.
Additionally, doesn't that make assumptions about when a child can
survive without its parent?
They should just change it to be up to and including birth, and not
grant rights for a specified period of time, unless the parent waives
that fact.
• R.L. Measures
> • R.L. Measures wrote:
> > In article <c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>, screedmonkey
> > <scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wistful Wendy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Jabriol wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and nothing
> >>>>provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You have
> >>>>porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
> >>>>legitimacy to your opinion.
>
> You are stupid.
• What's stupid about chainsaw combat? -- there's even a movie about a
real one in Texas
>The second you were conceived, it was you.
• It wasn't me until I had a brain, and that part didn't get started
until the third trimester.
>Aren't you
> human?
• Some True Believers say I am some kind of a goddamn devil.
>This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
> second chance.
• This is a matter of conjecture. Who knows, maybe God gives the souls
of babies that are miscarried or stillborn et cetera another chance for a
life on this planet?
>Even though I don't believe in abortion, I have second
> thoughts about whether people like you should have been aborted.
>
• butt of course.
cheers, Mr. or Mrs. or Miss (?) Blubb.
------------
>
>
> >>>
> >>>========================
> >>>Jabriol already wrote on another NG that any women who desires sex for any
> >>>reason other than conceiving a baby is a WHORE! I couldn't believe my
> >>>eyes
> >>>when I read THAT post. You can't reason with a person who thinks like
> >>>that and believes such warped religion-based nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> >>You folks have a nice lil' debate going here. Let's throw in feminists, mens
> >>activists and atheists for fun.
> >
> >
> > • For some serious fun, toss in some chainsaws.
> >
--
Robbin Hood
"Blubb" <bl...@blubber.net> wrote in message
news:407A9E6D...@blubber.net...
You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you. Aren't you
human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
second chance. Even though I don't believe in abortion, I have second
thoughts about whether people like you should have been aborted.
> JaBrIoL wrote:
> > "Eric" <wor...@vic.australis.net.au> wrote in message
news:<c5deg7$2l6i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> >
> >>I have a simple answer.
> >>
> >>Growth is the evidence of life!
> > Long Live Cancer!
I don't think a anyone will disagree with you but please don't "top post."
--
Robbin Hood.....
And the Lord God of Israel spoke to the man Santana, "Ye be steeped in
iniquity, and ye revel in sinfulness, and every form of perversion is
a thing of delight to thee. Thou shall be allowed your allotted time,
and then I shall smite thee grievously, and cast thee into the lake of
fire together with thine Master, Lucifer, where ye shall find eternal
damnation together."
But the man Santana known as Jabriol was one of Jehovah's Witnesses,
and so did not fear God, and worshiped demons, and continued in his
wicked ways.
==========================================================
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:55:51 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> It is no more circular that the definition of anything else.
Except that it's a direct circle from one word to the other. Most other
words involve several steps in between, and they often have words that
have agreed upon meanings.
It is a contentious definition, and as such, should be defined in a
clearer and more explicit manner.
Removing a fetus from a womb through abortion could be considered birth,
if one considered a fetus an individual, as the pro-'pain and misery
everlasting on society who has to raise this orphan child'ers do.
> Live
> birth is required to have the status of individual. That is very
> simple.
Live without aids? Or live, period?
What if the entity is able to live outside the womb, but hasn't left
yet. Is it still eligible for abortion?
I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
into the womb, yet.
>>If they're talking about an individual entity that can survive without a
>>parent, then don't machines complicate the matter? Ie. If someone can be
>>born a month premature with present technology (I'm just making this
>>up), then it would be ok to abort before this point, but with future
>>technology they'd be able to be born 5 months premature, does that mean
>>that it would be wrong to abort them after 4 months? I'm using born, in
>>this context, to mean removing from the womb.
>
> It doesn't matter how it is removed. If it is removed and is
> subsequently alive it is an individual.
>
> Prior to that point it is a fetus, and as far as I am concerned the
> age of the fetus is irrelevant.
So a fetus that could emerge, but doesn't, isn't a baby?
>>They should just change it to be up to and including birth, and not
>>grant rights for a specified period of time, unless the parent waives
>>that fact.
>
> No 'they' should not. The current conditions have been in effect for
> hundreds of years and should not be changed.
I disagree. Defining something to be a non-person because they're in the
womb is no less arbitrary than defining something to be a non-person
until 3 months after they've left the womb.
This gives a full year, and ample time for both parents to agree whether
it should live or not.
Hyuuga Neji
Jeff
"MyTwoAngels" <krisblake...@spamu.xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:fp4l709ugudltjjvl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:22 GMT, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
> him; not necessarily the mother who gave birth to him. The child does
> not require his mother's use of her bodily resources for his very
> survival.
>
> > If you use this argument, then you would be sanctioning, for
> >example, the killing of a six-year-old because a single mother loses her
job
> >and cannot support it.
>
How is that a red herring? Anti abortionists state life begins at
conception while differing pro abortionists state that life commences at
various stages. So, the question is: When does life begin? If one can
insist that life begins at third trimester, another at viability and yet
another only after actual birth then who has the authority to state when
life begins. Someone who states that life does not begin until the child
can talk, walk, or even until pubescence has just a valid argument as
someone who uses an arbitrary point of reference such as third trimester.
I'm sorry but the poster is only guilty of using the logic of pro
abortionist and not throwing in a red herring.
Jeff
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:u55l709icn4tcjt0g...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:22 GMT, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
> <igwec.65263$z%1.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> trained and motivated individual. This could be a different person
> every day, or even every hour.
>
> Prior to birth it is not possible to substitute any other individual
> for the pregnant woman involved. The fetus cannot be cared for by any
> other individual under any circumstances.
> There is a huge difference between a fetus that has not been born and
> a child that has been born whether you admit it or not.
I guess premature births and incubators are nothing more that an urban
legend.
>
> >We as a society need to make up our minds about the difference between
born
> >and unborn children.
Since we, as a society, can not determine when life commences, it would seem
a more appropriate statement on your part would be: We as a society need to
make up our minds when it is acceptable to terminate the existence of a
fetus.
>
> See above for just one physical and metabolic difference. This is one
> good reason for not considering a fetus a child.
>
> >If the mom can legally kill it
>
> There is no 'mom' prior to birth because there is no child prior to
> birth.
On what authority can you make that statement? Other than your personal
belief, what makes you so sure there is no child?
>
>
> >, then you can't charge a
> >robber with murder if he shoots a pregnant mom and she loses the baby.
>
> Wrong. If there is a local law that defines this act as murder he can
> be charged. Intent is always key.
You state prior to birth, there is no child. How can someone be guilty of
killing someone who is not someone?
>
> I shot a woman to death. Am I charged with anything and if so, what?
>
According to the circumstances you could be charged.
>
> > Is
> >birth the demarcation point between being a possession and having human
> >rights?
>
Gomez Addams
>
> Growth is the evidence of life!
> > > "screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> > > news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> > >> Jabriol wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception
Robbin Hood
"Hyuuga Neji" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:d_yec.2049321$iA2.2...@news.easynews.com...
> You're wrong in both cases.
==============
> >>JaBrIoL wrote:
> >>>"Eric" <wor...@vic.australis.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<c5deg7$2l6i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> >>>>I have a simple answer.
> >>>>Growth is the evidence of life!
> >>> Long Live Cancer!
========================
preferred way here on Usenet. Posting at the top causes confusion and it's
hard to tell which post you are referring to or answering if there is more
than one in a message/post.
--
Wise Willa..........
"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is
it
published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in
the
Watchtower." WT 11/1,1931 p.327 (Then whose opinions are they? The
Catholic Church's opinions?) [credit to Dizzbee]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Hyuuga Neji
the post that's way at the bottom, because apparently many Usenet
denizens have to read backstory before they're able to read the actual
posts.
Personally, I don't like reading the same thing 20 or 30 times, but
that's just me.
Regardless, top posting is the norm, here.
Poster
zayton
"Eric" <wor...@vic.australis.net.au> wrote in message
news:c5deg7$2l6i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> I have a simple answer.
>
> Growth is the evidence of life!
>
You mean that pile of dirty clothes at the foot of my bed is ALIVE?
Joe
Shez
<proc...@here.now> writes
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:54:20 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
><acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
>definition but I agree with it.
>
>>
>>It is a contentious definition, and as such, should be defined in a
>>clearer and more explicit manner.
>
>
>>
>>Removing a fetus from a womb through abortion could be considered birth,
>>if one considered a fetus an individual, as the pro-'pain and misery
>>everlasting on society who has to raise this orphan child'ers do.
>
>purpose of the abortion has been accomplished - the woman is no longer
>pregnant. All else is secondary. No individual exists until live
>birth.
>
>>
>>> Live
>>> birth is required to have the status of individual. That is very
>>> simple.
>>
>>Live without aids? Or live, period?
>
>
>>
>>What if the entity is able to live outside the womb, but hasn't left
>>yet. Is it still eligible for abortion?
>
>
>>
>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
>>into the womb, yet.
>
>
>>
>>>>If they're talking about an individual entity that can survive without a
>>>>parent, then don't machines complicate the matter? Ie. If someone can be
>>>>born a month premature with present technology (I'm just making this
>>>>up), then it would be ok to abort before this point, but with future
>>>>technology they'd be able to be born 5 months premature, does that mean
>>>>that it would be wrong to abort them after 4 months? I'm using born, in
>>>>this context, to mean removing from the womb.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter how it is removed. If it is removed and is
>>> subsequently alive it is an individual.
>> >
>>> Prior to that point it is a fetus, and as far as I am concerned the
>>> age of the fetus is irrelevant.
>>
>>So a fetus that could emerge, but doesn't, isn't a baby?
>
>it survives the process it is an individual at that point and not one
>nanosecond before.
>
>>
>>>>They should just change it to be up to and including birth, and not
>>>>grant rights for a specified period of time, unless the parent waives
>>>>that fact.
>>>
>>> No 'they' should not. The current conditions have been in effect for
>>> hundreds of years and should not be changed.
>>
>>I disagree. Defining something to be a non-person because they're in the
>>womb is no less arbitrary than defining something to be a non-person
>>until 3 months after they've left the womb.
>
>past did not consider a child to be a member of a society or to even
>have a name until they had survived for one year due to a huge infant
>mortality rate.
>
>>
>>This gives a full year, and ample time for both parents to agree whether
>>it should live or not.
>
>
The problem with a lot of people who argue that abortion is wrong, is
they think what if it were me, What if I were aborted... they forget to
think, what is my earliest memory... for most it would be at several
years old. Mine is of being in a Pram... were talking about a possible
human being in the womb.. And as the mother has to carry that foetus to
term or decide to have it aborted, it comes down very simply to what the
mother wants to do.
If her health or her life is bad at that time, then the probability of
caring for a new baby is not going to improve her health or her life,
its going to make things worse.
Instead of thinking of a foetus as a child or a baby, people should
start to think of it as a mass of cells, slowly turning into a possible
human being, because that is exactly what it is during the first months
of conception.
zayton
"Robbin Hood" <noa...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:uPCdncfD0-U...@heartoftn.net...
> > > "Eric" <wor...@vic.australis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<c5deg7$2l6i$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> > >
> > >>I have a simple answer.
> > >>
> > >>Growth is the evidence of life!
> > > Long Live Cancer!
> ==========================
> I don't think a anyone will disagree with you but please don't "top post."
> --
> Robbin Hood.....
This is being crossposted to ARW. If you sneeze, at least a dozen people
will disagree.
(and six dozen others will start sneezing because of _who_ disagreed.)
((and 73 of those will be socks))
(((and, Yes, I did mean to type 73 out of six dozen)))
Joe
zayton
"Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:k2zec.50723$2_6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> How is that a red herring? Anti abortionists state life begins at
> conception while differing pro abortionists state that life commences at
> various stages. So, the question is: When does life begin?
As you have stated the question here, It is unanswerable. Clearly the
question as stated cannot be accurately answered by, "at conception"because
the egg and sperm are both alive before conception.
Joe
Shez
Addams <n...@good.address> writes
many stages of evolution that humanity must have once gone through,
including gills, eventually after quite a few months it starts to look
like a recognizable human being, but until its higher brain centres are
connected to its nervous system its not anything at all... just a clump
of cells.
Shez
<proc...@here.now> writes
>was the only christian religion for over a thousand years and all of
>the others can trace their roots directly to it Many of it's
>attitudes have become so ingrained that many people consider them as
>natural law and to be obeyed without thought or question. The church
>has always put it's doctrine ahead of the survival of any of it's
>individual members.
Then its time the faithful started to take a closer look at this idea of
natural law, because to let a child or a woman die to bring forth a baby
that would also probably die, I would say is not natural.
If their are other children in the family, they need their mother, not
another baby, with no one to care for it because the mother is dead.
Its been for to long a decision made for women by men, and with little
thought and even less care that women might not want to be brood mares.
Or that having child after child, is both foolish and in the long run
evil... Looking at third world country's mostly catholic, Women produce
child after child, have no money to feed, cloth or educate them, and
those children produce more children, and more children, in a world that
is overcrowded now.
>
>Too bad..
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:54:20 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> Then I suggest you take it up with Webster's, not me. It's their
> definition but I agree with it.
I hope the OED is better, at least.
>>It is a contentious definition, and as such, should be defined in a
>>clearer and more explicit manner.
>
> You are wrong.
Using imprecise circular language for something that is frequently
debated is not a wise thing to do. Especially when this debate is based
on the legal context.
>>>Live
>>>birth is required to have the status of individual. That is very
>>>simple.
>>
>>Live without aids? Or live, period?
>
>
> It does not matter.
>
>
>>What if the entity is able to live outside the womb, but hasn't left
>>yet. Is it still eligible for abortion?
>
>
> The woman is still pregnant is she not?
Your distinction is arbitrary.
>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
>>into the womb, yet.
>
>
> Only an idiot would try that.
Or a midget.
>>>>They should just change it to be up to and including birth, and not
>>>>grant rights for a specified period of time, unless the parent waives
>>>>that fact.
>>>
>>>No 'they' should not. The current conditions have been in effect for
>>>hundreds of years and should not be changed.
>>
>>I disagree. Defining something to be a non-person because they're in the
>>womb is no less arbitrary than defining something to be a non-person
>>until 3 months after they've left the womb.
>
> Live is arbitrary in case you had not noticed.
You are wrong.
> Some societies in the
> past did not consider a child to be a member of a society or to even
> have a name until they had survived for one year due to a huge infant
> mortality rate.
And that doesn't mean they weren't alive.
>>This gives a full year, and ample time for both parents to agree whether
>>it should live or not.
>
> Under the Constitution that is irrelevant.
What constitution?
As far as I'm concerned, if a person has a child without informing the
other parent, then they waive all child support rights.
zayton
>
> >
> >
> > He's been a human being ever since he was born.
> You cut part of it off.
> You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you
I was a lot shorter, then.
In fact; I've changed so much I'm pretty sure that , if you could see me at
the moment of conception and now, you souldn't even be able to recognize me
as the same person. In fact, If you had taken me from my mother's womb at
the moment of my conception, and taken, at the same time, a pig embryo from
its mother at the moment of conception; you would have been hard pressed to
figure out, just by looking at us, which was which.
Aren't you
> human?
At the moment. Was I "human" as a sperm or egg. Well, I wasn't a frog sperm
or egg; but it is by no means obvious that I became a "human being" when
that human sperm entered that human egg.
>This was the only chance of you.
But a "chance of me" is not yet me.
zayton
"Hyuuga Neji" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> Blubb wrote:
>
> > You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you.
>
> I wasn't me until just now. A while before that I was slightly different.
>
> And I have no recollections of myself from pre-birth. I'm fairly certain
> I wasn't cognizant at that point.
>
> > Aren't you
> > human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
> > second chance.
>
> By that logic life begins before conception, because the existence of my
> parents was necessary for my chance, as well. Hell, I was conceived at
> the creation of the universe, then.
Precisely. blubb attributes the label to a specific stage in an ongoing life
process of moving from possibility to reality with absolutely no basis; and
then calls others "stupid" for not adopting his arbitrary attribution. How
ironic.
Joe
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:39:40 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <wvAec.13000004$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Then I suggest you take it up with Webster's, not me. It's their
>>>definition but I agree with it.
>>
>>I hope the OED is better, at least.
>>
>>
>>>>It is a contentious definition, and as such, should be defined in a
>>>>clearer and more explicit manner.
>>>
>>>You are wrong.
>>
>>Using imprecise circular language for something that is frequently
>>debated is not a wise thing to do. Especially when this debate is based
>>on the legal context.
>
>
> I have no interested in arguing the wording of a definition. As far
> as I am concerned it is clear, concise, and unambiguous.
A circular definition cannot be unambiguous.
>>>>What if the entity is able to live outside the womb, but hasn't left
>>>>yet. Is it still eligible for abortion?
>>>
>>>
>>>The woman is still pregnant is she not?
>>
>>Your distinction is arbitrary.
>
> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>>>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
>>>>into the womb, yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only an idiot would try that.
>>
>>Or a midget.
>
> Not even a midget.
If it were small enough.
>>>>This gives a full year, and ample time for both parents to agree whether
>>>>it should live or not.
>>>
>>>Under the Constitution that is irrelevant.
>>
>>What constitution?
>
>
> The US Constitution, which governs the laws where I live.
And how does it violate the constitution?
>>As far as I'm concerned, if a person has a child without informing the
>>other parent, then they waive all child support rights.
>
> That is not the law, but I have no intention of getting into that
> again. I have stated my position and will not do so again.
What group?
Scott
". R.L. Measures" <+r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-120404...@192.168.1.100...
> > > In article <c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>, screedmonkey
> > > <scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Wistful Wendy wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> > >>>news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jabriol wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and
nothing
> > >>>>provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You
have
> > >>>>porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
> > >>>>legitimacy to your opinion.
> >
> > You are stupid.
>
> real one in Texas
>
> >The second you were conceived, it was you.
>
> until the third trimester.
Rich, Rich....brain development begins in the first at about 7 weeks:
http://www.brain-mind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
etal As for as when human life begins that *objectively* happens at
conception. It's genetic makeup is human and qualifies as life (see below
link and quote, and Rich read Myth 13 within it). But that's not really what
the abortion debate is about. The debate is about when should this human
life be given the legal status of personhood. Legal personhood is
*subjective* and gets into a Sorites Paradox problem. When should personhood
be given and when should it be taken away? Are there any non-arbitrary
mind/body qualifier for what qualifies as person? Question: Are (or should)
human rights (be) relative to subjective personhood or objective human life?
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
"The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific
question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by
philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians,
movie stars or obstetricians and gynecologists. Current discussions on
abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research and
the formation of mixed-species chimeras) and the use of abortifacients
involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. The
purpose of this article is to focus directly on just some of the
"scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to
ground these discussions. ....To begin with, scientifically something very
dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization -
the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an
oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess
"human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual,
live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a
human being have actually been transformed into something very different
from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole
human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist,
and a new human being is produced....IV. Conclusions: Ideas do have concrete
consequences - not only in one's personal life, but also in the formulation
of public policies. And once a definition is accepted in one public policy,
the logical extensions of it can then be applied, invalidly, in many other
policies, even if they are not dealing with the same exact issue - as
happens frequently in bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and
of "person" which have been concretized in the abortion debates have been
transferred to several other areas, e.g., human embryo research, cloning,
stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, the use of abortifacients -
even the issues of brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation, the
removal of food and hydration, and research with the mentally ill or the
disabled. But both private choices and public policies should incorporate
sound and accurate science whenever possible. What I have tried to indicate
is that in these current discussions, individual choices and public policies
have been based on "scientific myth," rather than on objective scientific
facts."
Scott
Jeff
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:18:24 GMT, "Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <kjzec.50726$e67....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Prior to birth it is not possible to substitute any other individual
> >> for the pregnant woman involved. The fetus cannot be cared for by any
> >> other individual under any circumstances.
> >
> >> There is a huge difference between a fetus that has not been born and
> >> a child that has been born whether you admit it or not.
> >
> >I guess premature births and incubators are nothing more that an urban
> >legend.
>
>
> >>
> >> >We as a society need to make up our minds about the difference between
> >born
> >> >and unborn children.
> >
> >Since we, as a society, can not determine when life commences,
>
I don't understand your comment as you now sound anti abortion. Is a fetus
life? If it is, and you state life is easily detectable, then a fetus is a
human being. If it is, then abortionist favor eliminating a human life.
>
> >it would seem
> >a more appropriate statement on your part would be: We as a society need
to
> >make up our minds when it is acceptable to terminate the existence of a
> >fetus.
To some, there is no palatable answer to your question. Society can make a
legal determination but because it is a legal determination does not make it
neither correct nor the law unchangeable. Years ago, abortion was illegal
and then made legal. The tide could easily change again and again.
>
> That has been done. It is at the sole discretion of the woman
> involved. Exactly as it should be.
You forget, aside from the fetus being destroyed, there is a father who
should have a say in the matter. If the father is not to be considered and
only the woman has the final say, then, the woman should bear the entire
responsibility of raising the child.
>
> >
> >>
> >> See above for just one physical and metabolic difference. This is one
> >> good reason for not considering a fetus a child.
> >>
> >> >If the mom can legally kill it
> >>
> >> There is no 'mom' prior to birth because there is no child prior to
> >> birth.
> >
> >On what authority can you make that statement? Other than your personal
> >belief, what makes you so sure there is no child?
>
> You can use whatever nomenclature you like - it is purely a propaganda
> effort. The term fetus is accurate until birth and the term baby or
> infant is accurate after birth. Why do you insist on using a term
> which could apply to either before or after birth and therefore is not
> the best term to use? Or do you prefer not to be too accurate in your
> comments?
How about changing the identity to Prepubescent Entity or PE. Once the PE
attains puberty, it then becomes a human being. The PE may be aborted at
any time prior to attaining status of human being. Ridiculous? Sure.
However, you seem to be presenting legal justification to justify your
position and we all know laws change.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >, then you can't charge a
> >> >robber with murder if he shoots a pregnant mom and she loses the baby.
> >>
> >> Wrong. If there is a local law that defines this act as murder he can
> >> be charged. Intent is always key.
> >
> >You state prior to birth, there is no child. How can someone be guilty
of
> >killing someone who is not someone?
>
> Because the law involved says so.
>
> >>
> >> I shot a woman to death. Am I charged with anything and if so, what?
> >>
> >According to the circumstances you could be charged.
>
> So circumstances are important? As in the circumstances under which a
> fetus is killed are important?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
> Wistful Wendy wrote:
>
> >
> > "screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> > news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> >> Jabriol wrote:
> >>
> >> The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and nothing
> >> provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You have
> >> porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
> >> legitimacy to your opinion.
> > Jabriol already wrote on another NG that any women who desires sex for any
> > reason other than conceiving a baby is a WHORE! I couldn't believe my
> > eyes
> > when I read THAT post. You can't reason with a person who thinks like
> > that and believes such warped religion-based nonsense.
>
>
> You folks have a nice lil' debate going here. Let's throw in feminists, mens
> activists and atheists for fun.
The tense in the subject line was wrong. Now the question can be answered: on
Earth, about 3.5 billion years ago. The pencil has not lifted from the paper
since then.
JaBrIoL
Carol will now proceed to call the police on you, for calling her
stupid. Which is by defintion Harrasment.
Blubb <bl...@blubber.net> wrote in message news:<407AA62D...@blubber.net>...
> • R.L. Measures wrote:
> > In article <c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>, screedmonkey
> > <scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wistful Wendy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and nothing
> >>>>provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You have
> >>>>porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
> >>>>legitimacy to your opinion.
>
> You are stupid. The second you were conceived, it was you. Aren't you
> human? This was the only chance of you. There would not have been a
Jabriol
"JaBrIoL" <Jab...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.04041...@posting.google.com...
> Now I done it.
>
> I will now proceed to call the police on you, for calling me
> stupid. Which is by defintion Harrasment.
>
Jeff
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:00:30 GMT, "Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <iHBec.21842$GO7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> >news:66il70p4f02blpu1r...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:18:24 GMT, "Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> in
> >> alt.abortion with message-id
> >> <kjzec.50726$e67....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Prior to birth it is not possible to substitute any other individual
> >> >> for the pregnant woman involved. The fetus cannot be cared for by
any
> >> >> other individual under any circumstances.
> >> >
> >> >> There is a huge difference between a fetus that has not been born
and
> >> >> a child that has been born whether you admit it or not.
> >> >
> >> >I guess premature births and incubators are nothing more that an urban
> >> >legend.
> >>
> >> Why do you say that? Both involve post-birth conditions.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >We as a society need to make up our minds about the difference
between
> >> >born
> >> >> >and unborn children.
> >> >
> >> >Since we, as a society, can not determine when life commences,
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Life is easily detected through any number of methods.
> >
> >I don't understand your comment as you now sound anti abortion.
>
I believe you should be up front and not hide behind erroneous lables.
Identifying oneself as pro-life is an unfair identifier. It also means one
who is against your position is pro-death. Also, neither the fetus nor the
father fits into your pro-choice position.
>
> > Is a fetus
> >life?
>
> Yes
So being pro-choice means you are for a woman deciding if the fetus (life)
is to live or die. Is this what you mean by pro-choice?
>
> > If it is, and you state life is easily detectable, then a fetus is a
> >human being.
>
> No. A human being has been born alive.
But, but, but, you stated life can be detected by scientific measures. You
sound as if you are stating it is alright to kill a live fetus since it
isn't yet, a human being. So, one can crush the skull of a 8 1/2 month old
fetus, suck out the brains and it is OK but BINGO, once the fetus comes
through the birth canal you somehow view it differently. I find it strange
that you view one stage of developement with such callous disregard.
Where do you derive your definition of a human being? Some babies are born
and some are removed from the woman's body through artificial means.
>
> > If it is, then abortionist favor eliminating a human life.
>
> Since I know of no abortionist I cannot address their position.
Kindly play music when you tap dance.
I'll restate. If it is, then pro-abortionist favor eliminating a human
life.
>
> >>
> >> >it would seem
> >> >a more appropriate statement on your part would be: We as a society
need
> >to
> >> >make up our minds when it is acceptable to terminate the existence of
a
> >> >fetus.
> >
> >To some, there is no palatable answer to your question. Society can make
a
> >legal determination but because it is a legal determination does not make
it
> >neither correct nor the law unchangeable. Years ago, abortion was
illegal
> >and then made legal. The tide could easily change again and again.
>
> That is true for any law.
And it is also true that because something is law does not make it moral nor
right. Yes, I can already hear the wheels spinning. Whose morals?
>
> >>
> >> That has been done. It is at the sole discretion of the woman
> >> involved. Exactly as it should be.
> >
> >You forget, aside from the fetus being destroyed, there is a father who
> >should have a say in the matter.
>
> Not at this point. The woman is the only one involved and it is
> totally her decision to make.
Jesus was supposed to be an immaculant conception but aside from that there
are fathers involved in every pregnancy.
>
>
> >If the father is not to be considered and
> >only the woman has the final say, then, the woman should bear the entire
> >responsibility of raising the child.
>
> No. This would be penalizing the child for the actions of the
> parents. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with those actions.
>
Wait, you just stated the woman is the only one involved. You are also
incorrect because it is penalizing the child for the actions of the mother.
The mother had every opportunity to abort the fetus and not have a child.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> See above for just one physical and metabolic difference. This is
one
> >> >> good reason for not considering a fetus a child.
> >> >>
> >> >> >If the mom can legally kill it
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no 'mom' prior to birth because there is no child prior to
> >> >> birth.
> >> >
> >> >On what authority can you make that statement? Other than your
personal
> >> >belief, what makes you so sure there is no child?
> >>
> >> You can use whatever nomenclature you like - it is purely a propaganda
> >> effort. The term fetus is accurate until birth and the term baby or
> >> infant is accurate after birth. Why do you insist on using a term
> >> which could apply to either before or after birth and therefore is not
> >> the best term to use? Or do you prefer not to be too accurate in your
> >> comments?
> >
> >How about changing the identity to Prepubescent Entity or PE. Once the
PE
> >attains puberty, it then becomes a human being. The PE may be aborted at
> >any time prior to attaining status of human being. Ridiculous? Sure.
> >However, you seem to be presenting legal justification to justify your
> >position and we all know laws change.
>
> And slavery can be legally reinstated. A society discusses things as
> they are and as they may be, not how they could possibly be.
>
> Your nomenclature attempts are still a propaganda ploy.
Hiding behind legality and ignoring rights of all involved is disengenuous.
>
>
>
>
Mark Mizzizo
"JaBrIoL" <Jab...@excite.com> (Camden NJ Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's
Witnesses) wrote in message
news:d222de3e.04041...@posting.google.com...
> Now you done it.
>
> Carol will now proceed to call the police on me again, for calling you
> stupid. Which is by defintion Harrasment of you.
==>
Huh... ? According to the headers YOU ARE CAROL! You are doing all the
posting as Carol. You don't even know or remember you're posting here as a
women? Do you have some sexual identity problem? You must be on some damn
strong drugs! LOL!!!!
Mark
Scott
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
>
> >>
> >> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
> >
> >I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
> >within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
>
>
> >
> >Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
> >pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>
that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
>
> >
> >>>>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
> >>>>>into the womb, yet.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Only an idiot would try that.
> >>>
> >>>Or a midget.
> >>
> >> Not even a midget.
> >
> >If it were small enough.
>
> Perhaps you enjoy this type of discussion. I do not.
> Stick to practical facts that apply in the real world.
You too
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
MYTH 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active exercising of
'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing,
self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the
active exercising of 'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."
FACT 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been
illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is that
the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both
"rational attributes" and "sentience," is not actually completely developed
until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
_____Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal
(before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a
dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment._____
Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to
growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts).
The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental
changes are completed by the age of 25. (emphasis added)
One should also consider simply the logical - and very real - consequences
if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational
attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list
of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": the mentally
ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics - and for those with
diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative
state," paraplegics and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or
other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be
considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that
mean that they would not have the same ethical rights and protections as
those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such
a "split" between a human being and a human person?
Osprey
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:C8Dec.8539$9x5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> news:t0sl70psp1gk9g4um...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> > <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> > <eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
> > >
> > >I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
> > >within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
> >
> > Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
> >
> > >
> > >Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
> > >pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
> >
> > Birth is a pretty clear point.
>
> that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
> physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
Almost everyone, including professionals in the science and medical field
all
agree that life begins at conception
Scott
"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:R6udncxYGeo...@comcast.com...
I already posted that and a link to it
Scott
Osprey
Can you post that link again please?
I was just posting my comments to show you I agreed with you.
Shez
<zay...@bellsouth.net> writes
Again these people who want every pregnancy to come to term no matter
what, They personalise each conception, see it as a baby, full term,
without understanding the many stages a newly fertilized embryo has to
go through to before it ever reaches the stage of being born,...
conception is only a very small thing, a great many fertilised eggs are
naturally aborted, because they are not viable, and Mother Nature is
ruthless about such things thank goodness.
Every baby born should be wanted, planned and loved, to bring babies
into the world without wanting them, loving them and planning for their
future is the height of stupidity in my book.
What use is a life which they say is precious, spent in ignorance,
poverty and hunger... because the parents cant afford to educate, feed
or care for them.
Shez
<noneed...@mail.com> writes
Rubbish... If you have any such documents produce them, the fertilized
embryo is simply a clump of dividing cells, their is as much life in an
amoeba, If you consider life as dividing cells then you have life, if
you consider human life as sentience then you have a clump of dividing
cells with the possibility of sentient life.
Osprey
"Shez" <sh...@oldcity.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:O9xvyPBd...@oldcity.f2s.com...
> In article <R6udncxYGeo...@comcast.com>, Osprey
> <noneed...@mail.com> writes
> >
> >"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:C8Dec.8539$9x5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> "Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> >> news:t0sl70psp1gk9g4um...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> >> > <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> >> > <eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
> >> > >
> >> > >I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
> >> > >within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
> >> >
> >> > Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better
to
> >> > >pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
> >> >
> >> > Birth is a pretty clear point.
> >>
> >> that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
> >> physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
> >
> >Almost everyone, including professionals in the science and medical field
> >all
> >agree that life begins at conception
>
> Rubbish... If you have any such documents produce them,
Without conception you can not have the beginning of a life.
Want documents, go to google and type in the key words
Want to refute it, you show me scientist that disagree
the fertilized
> embryo is simply a clump of dividing cells, their is as much life in an
> amoeba,
You are simply a clump of dividing cells, we all are.
>If you consider life as dividing cells then you have life,
Do you consider yourself to be a life?
You are nothing more than a clump of cells.
if
> you consider human life as sentience then you have a clump of dividing
> cells with the possibility of sentient life.
Naturally pro-aborts need to believe the rubbish you spew, it helps you
sleep at night
knowing that you support the killing of a human life.
Scott
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:40:02 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <C8Dec.8539$9x5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> >news:t0sl70psp1gk9g4um...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> >> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> >> <eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
> >> >
> >> >I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
> >> >within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
> >>
> >> Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
> >> >pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
> >>
> >> Birth is a pretty clear point.
> >
> >that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
> >physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
>
> from the body of the host. After birth the body must be able to
> sustain itself.
What the hell is the objective difference between the baby getting it's
support from the mother by way of her placenta or her tit? and what the hell
does any of that have to do with defining human being or for personhood for
that matter?
Breathe, digest food, and so forth. It is also the
> starting point for the existence of a human being. A fetus is not a
> human being.
idiot http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>>>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going
back
> >> >>>>>into the womb, yet.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Only an idiot would try that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Or a midget.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not even a midget.
> >> >
> >> >If it were small enough.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you enjoy this type of discussion. I do not.
> >> Stick to practical facts that apply in the real world.
> >
> >You too
> >
> > http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
> >MYTH 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active exercising of
> >'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing,
> >self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the
> >active exercising of 'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and
pleasure)."
>
> Irrelevant here. An unconscious person is still a person.
subjective. BFD. There are no objective facts about personhood. none.
personhood is a legal status only.
The only objective criteria for the beginning of human life is conception.
all others claimed are subjective.
> >
> >FACT 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have
been
> >illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is
that
> >the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both
> >"rational attributes" and "sentience," is not actually completely
developed
> >until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
>
> Irrelevant. The status of human being is a social status and the
> requirements are set by society. Other than species determination
> science is not involved.
wrong. that social status is personhood. human being is science
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
>
> >
> >_____Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal
> >(before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a
> >dramatic event during development resulting in a change in
environment._____
> >Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to
> >growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female
breasts).
> >The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most
developmental
> >changes are completed by the age of 25. (emphasis added)
>
> Again irrelevant. All life forms change over time.
BFD. You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >One should also consider simply the logical - and very real -
consequences
> >if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of
"rational
> >attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following
list
> >of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": the mentally
> >ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and
> >Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics - and for those with
> >diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative
> >state," paraplegics and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics
or
> >other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be
> >considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that
> >mean that they would not have the same ethical rights and protections as
> >those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really
such
> >a "split" between a human being and a human person?
> >
> The term human being applies to all members of the human species that
> has been born alive and is still alive. A human being and a person or
> 'human' person' are all the same thing and none of these include a
> fetus.
you're an idiot: http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
Scott
Osprey
Thank you
Shez
<jef...@pacbell.net> writes
Snip for space.
>
>You forget, aside from the fetus being destroyed, there is a father who
>should have a say in the matter. If the father is not to be considered and
>only the woman has the final say, then, the woman should bear the entire
>responsibility of raising the child.
>>
Why should the father have a say in the matter, he is not acting as a
womb for nine months, the woman is, Should she not have the right to say
what happens to her body, Should she be forced against her will to carry
a child she might not want, or can not care for.
What if she has been raped and the man insists that she has the child he
implanted within her.
Once you take away a woman's right to decide what happens to her own
body, you make her and her body a slave to mens whims. That day and age
is over.
If a man has sex with a woman, their is always the possibility that she
will get pregnant, pretending that he has nothing to do with it, doesn't
make it go away, It takes two people to make a baby,
If a man doesn't take precautions then he can expect a bill for the
raising of the child for the next 18years. Women should not bear the
responsibility of prevention, of birth control, alone and of raising a
child herself without help from a father who has decided that a few
moments of lust are not worth a lifetime of paying,
Next time you unzip your fly make sure you have a propilactic in your
pocket or be prepared to pay for your fun, Women have had to pay for
mens fun for centuries, Now its the mans turn. Get used to it.
Shez
<noneed...@mail.com> writes
Then you consider life to anything from a single celled amoeba divining
to a human embryo being fertilized, and you consider no doubt that the
fertilized egg is sentient...?
Have I got it right, or are you now looking at life as anything that
changes grows or reproduces... Don't forget to include crystals in your
description, moulds, plants, animals and those much abused amoeba.
Scott
> <noneed...@mail.com> writes
> >
> >"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:C8Dec.8539$9x5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> "Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> >> news:t0sl70psp1gk9g4um...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> >> > <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> >> > <eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
> >> > >
> >> > >I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
> >> > >within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
> >> >
> >> > Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better
to
> >> > >pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
> >> >
> >> > Birth is a pretty clear point.
> >>
> >> that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
> >> physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
> >
> >Almost everyone, including professionals in the science and medical field
> >all
> >agree that life begins at conception
>
> Rubbish... If you have any such documents produce them,
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
the fertilized
> embryo is simply a clump of dividing cells, their is as much life in an
> amoeba, If you consider life as dividing cells then you have life, if
> you consider human life as sentience then you have a clump of dividing
> cells with the possibility of sentient life.
how many cells does it take to make a heap into a sentient person?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
http://www.brain-mind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
what a mixed up world, we have Pro-Choice PETAs saving lobsters from
restaurants.
Scott
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
>>>Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
>>
>>I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
>>within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
>
> Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
Actually, it is my understanding that late term abortions are illegal in
the US. Is that not true?
>>Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
>>pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>
> Birth is a pretty clear point.
Yes, but is it a valid point.
>>>>>>I haven't even gotten into the hypotheticals about people going back
>>>>>>into the womb, yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only an idiot would try that.
>>>>
>>>>Or a midget.
>>>
>>>Not even a midget.
>>
>>If it were small enough.
>
> Perhaps you enjoy this type of discussion. I do not.
> Stick to practical facts that apply in the real world.
A proper definition is necessary for a robust law. There are thousands
of cases where laws were made that were not properly generalized, and
therefore didn't take into account technology and/or societal changes.
A simple case would be transplanting a baby from one womb into another.
>>>>>Under the Constitution that is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>What constitution?
>>>
>>>
>>>The US Constitution, which governs the laws where I live.
>>
>>And how does it violate the constitution?
>
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Haha. I love when people quote parts of the constitution that aren't
actually followed.
If Section 1 were actually followed, then the laws that apply to
children would be the same as those applied to old people. But the lack
of voting, and self determination indicates that they do not.
>>>>As far as I'm concerned, if a person has a child without informing the
>>>>other parent, then they waive all child support rights.
>>>
>>>That is not the law, but I have no intention of getting into that
>>>again. I have stated my position and will not do so again.
>>
>>What group?
>
> What part of 'will not do so again' do you fail to understand?
What group do you post to, should I wish to look up the argument that
you go into on a previous date?
Osprey
Yes, but in this case we are talking about a human life.
And in the case of abortion, a life is being taken.
> Have I got it right, or are you now looking at life as anything that
> changes grows or reproduces... Don't forget to include crystals in your
> description, moulds, plants, animals and those much abused amoeba.
They are alive right?
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:00:30 GMT, "Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <iHBec.21842$GO7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:66il70p4f02blpu1r...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:18:24 GMT, "Jeff" <jef...@pacbell.net> in
>>>alt.abortion with message-id
>>><kjzec.50726$e67....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>That has been done. It is at the sole discretion of the woman
>>>involved. Exactly as it should be.
>>
>>You forget, aside from the fetus being destroyed, there is a father who
>>should have a say in the matter.
>
>
> Not at this point. The woman is the only one involved and it is
> totally her decision to make.
And it is totally her decision to pay for it.
>>If the father is not to be considered and
>>only the woman has the final say, then, the woman should bear the entire
>>responsibility of raising the child.
>
>
> No. This would be penalizing the child for the actions of the
> parents. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with those actions.
Children are penalized for the actions of their parents on a frequent
basis. That alone is not sufficient.
Scott
"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:00:19 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <DrDec.8544$NG5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> I am pro-choice.
> >>
> >
> >snipped>
> >
> >> > If it is, then abortionist favor eliminating a human life.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Main Entry: pro-choice Pronunciation Guide
> >Pronunciation:
> >Function: adjective
> >: PROABORTION herein
> >- pro-choic搪r \prchisr \ noun -s
> >
> >Main Entry: pro戢bortion Pronunciation Guide
> >Pronunciation: ()pr+
> >Function: adjective
> >: favoring the legalization of abortion
> >- pro-abortionist \"+ \ noun
> >
>
> I have been through this with fishbreath and I don't intend to do it
> again here.
>
> I know my position. I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide
> whether to complete or terminate her pregnancy. I do not care what
> that decision is.
>
> If I favored her completing the pregnancy over having an abortion I
> would be anti-abortion. I do not and am not.
>
> If I favored her have an abortion over completing her pregnancy I
> would be pro-abortion. I do not and am not.
>
> Clearly the definitions are in error.
Waffle
Hyuuga Neji
Without the Sun, you can't have the beginning of a life, either.
I guess that means I'm really billions of years old.
Hyuuga Neji
If the definitions are in error, he should take it up with Websters (or
whomever).
Shez
<proc...@here.now> writes
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:32:48 +0100, Shez <sh...@oldcity.f2s.com> in
>alt.abortion with message-id <Gw29B2BA...@oldcity.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>That prevailing attitude is easy to understand if you consider the RCC
>>>was the only christian religion for over a thousand years and all of
>>>the others can trace their roots directly to it Many of it's
>>>attitudes have become so ingrained that many people consider them as
>>>natural law and to be obeyed without thought or question. The church
>>>has always put it's doctrine ahead of the survival of any of it's
>>>individual members.
>>
>>Then its time the faithful started to take a closer look at this idea of
>>natural law, because to let a child or a woman die to bring forth a baby
>>that would also probably die, I would say is not natural.
>>If their are other children in the family, they need their mother, not
>>another baby, with no one to care for it because the mother is dead.
>
>The only 'natural laws' that exist are things like the law of gravity.
>Certainly none exist with regard to human behavior.
>
>>
>>Its been for to long a decision made for women by men, and with little
>>thought and even less care that women might not want to be brood mares.
>>Or that having child after child, is both foolish and in the long run
>>evil... Looking at third world country's mostly catholic, Women produce
>>child after child, have no money to feed, cloth or educate them, and
>>those children produce more children, and more children, in a world that
>>is overcrowded now.
>
>Effective birth control, better medical facilities, and education
>would go a long way in fixing this.
>
>
>
Agreed on all counts, and in countries, where education, medical
facilities and birth control are in part of the social structure, birth
rates are going down.
Given the information and the means to planned parenthood, women and men
are making educated choices about when and how many children they will
have, and even if they will or will not have children at all.
Catholic women and men are voting with there feet, or should that be
genitals and deciding for themselves to use birth control.
The more educated the country the less power the various churches have
over the body's and sexuality of their followers
The day when religion is taken out of the equation all together cant
come soon enough for me.
I am old enough to remember back street abortionists, and lost a friend
to one, This generation has no idea of the pain and distress caused to
women who found they were pregnant in a social climate that condemned
the woman but not the man.
Having a baby out of wedlock was considered a publicly shameful act, and
in some ways worse than murder.
Women some of them married, it was not all single women knowingly took
their lives in their hands with back street abortionists, rather than
have another child to feed.
If as often happened you ended up in hospital because you were loosing
to much blood, you could also end up in prison for aborting a foetus,
It was illegal.
If you were lucky you survived, if not you died of blood poisoning, or
simple butchery at the hands of people who didnt know what they were
doing but knew they could make a lot of money from it.
The operations were carried out in dirty rooms, on dirty tables, and
with dirty instruments, and every woman who was old enough to know, Knew
that you would be very lucky to survive, so how desperate would the
thousands upon thousands of women who chanced that operation every year
be. Very desperate indeed. I do not wish those days to return.
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:15:35 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <XFDec.8546$3N5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
>>>>>>pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>Birth is a pretty clear point.
>>>>
>>>>that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
>>>>physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
>>>
>>>Of course it is. Prior to birth the fetus gets all of it's support
>>>from the body of the host. After birth the body must be able to
>>>sustain itself.
>>
>>What the hell is the objective difference between the baby getting it's
>>support from the mother by way of her placenta or her tit?
>
>
> human being provides all life support for a fetus. If that individual
> does not provide that life support for whatever reason the fetus will
> die.
So if that woman was not irreplaceable, what then?
> After birth any sufficiently trained and motivated individual can
> provide this support. In fact, a different individual could do it
> every hour, or whatever period of time you choose. The actions or
> presence of a particular specific person is not necessary.
>
> That makes a huge difference.
>
> To put in simpler terms - kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies.
If the woman dies, and the baby is to term, they shouldn't really have a
problem just cutting her open.
>>and what the hell
>>does any of that have to do with defining human being or for personhood for
>>that matter?
>
>
> Society and the law has historically determined that live birth is
> required for the social status of person.
You have commented in the past that some societies didn't determine
social status until well after birth.
Oh, and what about a baby that isn't grown in a womb? Do they just forgo
all rights?
Scott
We hold the truths to be self-evident...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness - Thomas Jefferson D of I
Whether actual or not (a philosophical ethical debate) those Rights are held
to be objective and intuitive to humanity in US law. Those Rights are
supposed to be held intersubjectively and *ordered* objectively. That is
your right to Happiness does not trump my (or anyone else's) right to
Liberty, no matter how miserable that makes you in restricting you freedoms.
They are ordered objectively in that Life must precede Liberty. You cannot
have liberty without first having life. Likewise, you cannot pursue
happiness if you don't first have the liberty to do so.
In RvW the Court mixed up this objective ordering and defined when
personhood begins. The Court had/has no legal status defined in the
Constitution giving it such power. They made the Liberty of the women trump
the Life of the human being she carried. Their reasoning was arbitrary and
based on the time viability of the fetus to live outside the mother. Science
has now pushed back the time earlier in which the fetus can survive outside
the womb.
Shez
<sc...@nospam.net> writes
individual, it has to be taught, it has to learn, and it has to develop
language and thinking skills....
A baby ape and a human baby are so much alike at a few months old that
its almost impossible to tell which is which... apart from the body
differences, its only when the human baby learns to speak and to think
that it start to deviate from the ape, and develops into a separate and
thinking sentient entity.
Shez
No a life is not being taken, because the fertilized egg is not a
sentient life form, Its not even a sentient life form at birth, that
baby needs socialisation and education to make it human...
Take a good look at children raised by dogs or wolves, they can never
become human, they don't learn after a certain age, and that age is
quite young, If you don't get that early human socialisation and
education then your not a sentient human being.
Remember the teenage girl found in a room in America, her father had not
allowed her to be talked to, she was fed, and that was about it,
When she was found she was little more than an animal, and although she
learned words, she never learned how to put a sentence together. She was
past the age where she should have learned such language skills, and
that was within the first two or three years of life.
Sentience and understanding that you have a personal ego, is something
that has to be taught.
>
>
>
>> Have I got it right, or are you now looking at life as anything that
>> changes grows or reproduces... Don't forget to include crystals in your
>> description, moulds, plants, animals and those much abused amoeba.
>
>They are alive right?
Crystals ?
Shez
<sc...@nospam.net> writes
douse with her own body. You obviously have control issues.. I suggest
you take them up with a qualified professional medical person.
Osprey
"Hyuuga Neji" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:aWDec.12921764$Id.21...@news.easynews.com...
When you are ready to get back on the issue, let me know.
If you want to carry it to extremes, I am not interested
Osprey
yes, a life is being taken. And pro-aborts need to believe the crap you are
spewing
in order to justify abortion.
The life begins upon conception, it continues to develop from that point to
the day we die.
Abortion stops this, and ends it.
Its not even a sentient life form at birth, that
> baby needs socialisation and education to make it human...
> Take a good look at children raised by dogs or wolves, they can never
> become human, they don't learn after a certain age, and that age is
> quite young, If you don't get that early human socialisation and
> education then your not a sentient human being.
> Remember the teenage girl found in a room in America, her father had not
> allowed her to be talked to, she was fed, and that was about it,
> When she was found she was little more than an animal, and although she
> learned words, she never learned how to put a sentence together. She was
> past the age where she should have learned such language skills, and
> that was within the first two or three years of life.
> Sentience and understanding that you have a personal ego, is something
> that has to be taught.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Have I got it right, or are you now looking at life as anything that
> >> changes grows or reproduces... Don't forget to include crystals in your
> >> description, moulds, plants, animals and those much abused amoeba.
> >
> >They are alive right?
>
> Crystals ?
Are we talking about human beings or not?
Shez
<sc...@nospam.net> writes
Fortunately I am not an American, nor do I belong to some weird
religion, I learned to think and to reason, and I am well aware that
women have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if
that includes not having a baby that is her right.
I am British its a very secular society, and their is little or no
argument about the right to abortion....
Osprey
Some basic questions for you and then after you answer them we can go from
there.
Do you feel a woman is justified in choosing abortion if she
a) Realizes she is not ready
b) Realizes she is not financially ready
c) Realizes she isn't happy with the father and doesn't want to be a single
mother
d) Realizes she just doesn't want to be a mother
Do you feel those reasons are justified for abortion?
Shez
Your a child... You have no reasoning and you have not gone beyond the
colour me purple romantic stage. Try living for a few years then come
back and tell us what its all about.
I just love these children who think they have all the answers when they
don't even know the Questions.
We are human beings. Wise apes... animals with sentience. Dolphins are
also self aware, yet I don't see you rushing out to stop the Tuna
fishermen from catching and killing them
Babies are not sentient, they have to learn from other sentient beings
how to think and to talk and to act. That's why baby's need parents.. If
they didnt they could toddle away at birth and do their own thing.
Grow up and get some real life under your belt instead of this romantic
clap trap. Practical common sense would be a good start.
Take a look at the Street kids in Brazil, the cops shoot them, their is
a bounty on their heads, they are growing up as animals. I don't see you
fighting for those kids, but then they are not unborn ba....bies.... sob
sob.
They are children with no rights, no food, they sell their bodies for
sex, from a very young age, and they are killed and raped on a a daily
basis, if you want to support human life, support those organizations
that give those children a chance at a real life.
You people make me sick to my stomach, You have no idea what is going on
in the real world. You live in a romantic candy floss TV paradise.
Faced with human degradation you bleat about the babies and never lift
your nicely manicured hands to help anyone but yourself.
>
>
> Its not even a sentient life form at birth, that
>> baby needs socialisation and education to make it human...
>> Take a good look at children raised by dogs or wolves, they can never
>> become human, they don't learn after a certain age, and that age is
>> quite young, If you don't get that early human socialisation and
>> education then your not a sentient human being.
>> Remember the teenage girl found in a room in America, her father had not
>> allowed her to be talked to, she was fed, and that was about it,
>> When she was found she was little more than an animal, and although she
>> learned words, she never learned how to put a sentence together. She was
>> past the age where she should have learned such language skills, and
>> that was within the first two or three years of life.
>> Sentience and understanding that you have a personal ego, is something
>> that has to be taught.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Have I got it right, or are you now looking at life as anything that
>> >> changes grows or reproduces... Don't forget to include crystals in your
>> >> description, moulds, plants, animals and those much abused amoeba.
>> >
>> >They are alive right?
>>
>> Crystals ?
>
>Are we talking about human beings or not?
I don't know what your talking about, because foetus are not sentient
human beings. They are only potentially human beings. Grow up.
Shez
<noneed...@mail.com> writes
her own reasons, and those reasons might be very deep indeed.
The point your missing is that the woman has a right to decide what
happens to her body, the moment you take that right away, you make her a
slave.
I take it you consider women to be little more than brood mares, and
baby factory's.
Shez
<proc...@here.now> writes
>and are simply ignoring it.
>
>
>>The more educated the country the less power the various churches have
>>over the body's and sexuality of their followers
>>The day when religion is taken out of the equation all together cant
>>come soon enough for me.
>>I am old enough to remember back street abortionists, and lost a friend
>>to one, This generation has no idea of the pain and distress caused to
>>women who found they were pregnant in a social climate that condemned
>>the woman but not the man.
>>Having a baby out of wedlock was considered a publicly shameful act, and
>>in some ways worse than murder.
>>Women some of them married, it was not all single women knowingly took
>>their lives in their hands with back street abortionists, rather than
>>have another child to feed.
>>If as often happened you ended up in hospital because you were loosing
>>to much blood, you could also end up in prison for aborting a foetus,
>>It was illegal.
>>If you were lucky you survived, if not you died of blood poisoning, or
>>simple butchery at the hands of people who didnt know what they were
>>doing but knew they could make a lot of money from it.
>>The operations were carried out in dirty rooms, on dirty tables, and
>>with dirty instruments, and every woman who was old enough to know, Knew
>>that you would be very lucky to survive, so how desperate would the
>>thousands upon thousands of women who chanced that operation every year
>>be. Very desperate indeed. I do not wish those days to return.
>
>don't understand how it would be without it. If the freedom of choice
>was ever lost as soon as the reality hit there would be tens of
>millions of women with the objectives of reinstating their freedom and
>eliminating from politics every one who had anything to do with it's
>loss in the first place.
>
>That keeps a lot of politicians up nights - trying to satisfy the
>anti-choice fanatics who demand action now yet not actually
>accomplishing anything because of the certain backlash.
>
If women and men could have lived through that time or have the memories
of what happened. They would not be willing to put women through that
sort of hell again, not unless they were very sick or total control
freaks, which some of these anti abortionists are.
They are not for keeping foetuses alive, they are for keeping women in
their place.. And the best way to do that is to keep them pregnant and
financially dependent on men.
Back street abortions were so normal everyone knew who the local
abortionists were, and if you were lucky you knew one who was a midwife,
you had more chance of surviving then.
• R.L. Measures
<sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> ". R.L. Measures" <+r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:+r-120404...@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <407AA62D...@blubber.net>, Blubb <bl...@blubber.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > . R.L. Measures wrote:
> > > > In article <c5d08v$2p5d$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>, screedmonkey
> > > > <scr...@chimp.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Wistful Wendy wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>"screedmonkey" <scr...@chimp.net> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:c5c2ag$2frf$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Jabriol wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>The embyro is something that is NOT human upon conception, and
> nothing
> > > >>>>provided by hardcore creationist weirdoes has proven otherwise. You
> have
> > > >>>>porven yourselves so closed minded on the issue, you vacate any
> > > >>>>legitimacy to your opinion.
> > >
> > > You are stupid.
> >
> > . What's stupid about chainsaw combat? -- there's even a movie about a
> > real one in Texas
> >
> > >The second you were conceived, it was you.
> >
> > . It wasn't me until I had a brain, and that part didn't get started
> > until the third trimester.
>
> Rich, Rich....brain development begins in the first at about 7 weeks:
> http://www.brain-mind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
>
** So the brain forms before the skull?
> etal As for as when human life begins that *objectively* happens at
> conception.
• Pope Gregory XIII taught that ensoulment takes place on the 40th day.
>It's genetic makeup is human and qualifies as life (see below
> link and quote, and Rich read Myth 13 within it). But that's not really what
> the abortion debate is about. The debate is about when should this human
> life be given the legal status of personhood. Legal personhood is
> *subjective* and gets into a Sorites Paradox problem. When should personhood
> be given and when should it be taken away? Are there any non-arbitrary
> mind/body qualifier for what qualifies as person? Question: Are (or should)
> human rights (be) relative to subjective personhood or objective human life?
>
> http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
> "The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific
> question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by
> philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians,
> movie stars or obstetricians and gynecologists. Current discussions on
> abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research and
> the formation of mixed-species chimeras) and the use of abortifacients
> involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. The
> purpose of this article is to focus directly on just some of the
> "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to
> ground these discussions. ....To begin with, scientifically something very
> dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization -
> the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an
> oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess
> "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual,
> live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a
> human being have actually been transformed into something very different
> from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole
> human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist,
> and a new human being is produced....IV. Conclusions: Ideas do have concrete
> consequences - not only in one's personal life, but also in the formulation
> of public policies. And once a definition is accepted in one public policy,
> the logical extensions of it can then be applied, invalidly, in many other
> policies, even if they are not dealing with the same exact issue - as
> happens frequently in bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and
> of "person" which have been concretized in the abortion debates have been
> transferred to several other areas, e.g., human embryo research, cloning,
> stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, the use of abortifacients -
> even the issues of brain death, brain birth, organ transplantation, the
> removal of food and hydration, and research with the mentally ill or the
> disabled. But both private choices and public policies should incorporate
> sound and accurate science whenever possible. What I have tried to indicate
> is that in these current discussions, individual choices and public policies
> have been based on "scientific myth," rather than on objective scientific
> facts."
>
> Scott
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Osprey
I am asking you if you feel those are justifiable reasons.
They are reasons many, if not most, women use when deciding.
If you support the right to choose abortion, then you are entitled to be
asked
for justifiable reasons.
Every woman who has an abortion, has
> her own reasons, and those reasons might be very deep indeed.
> The point your missing is that the woman has a right to decide what
> happens to her body, the moment you take that right away, you make her a
> slave.
Learn what slavery means ok?
> I take it you consider women to be little more than brood mares, and
> baby factory's.
I take it you are a coward that has run away from some basic questions to
avoid being pinned.
dw
conception and ends at birth.
IMHO if men could get pregnant there would be a constitutional
amendment guaranteeing a free quick safe and immediate abortion
up through the ninth month.
BTW, God msut think there is no problem with abortions,
he performs them all the time (misscarriages.)
I've noticed in the abortion debate in the past years that
underlying it is a deep seatd hatred of women.
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:23:09 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>Attila wrote:
>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:25:14 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
>>><acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>><eaBec.13002108$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Not really. Do you contend the woman is not pregnant?
>>>>
>>>>I have no need to. The distinction between a fully functional life
>>>>within a womb and one outside of it is trivial.
>>>
>>>Not according to the law, society, or tradition.
>>
>>Actually, it is my understanding that late term abortions are illegal in
>>the US. Is that not true?
>
> previous point.
So you think that the law makes a major distinction between a newborn,
and a fetus in the late term of pregnancy? Can you list any distinctions?
>>>>Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
>>>>pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>>>
>>>Birth is a pretty clear point.
>>
>>Yes, but is it a valid point.
>
> It has bee sufficient for society and the law for a long time.
Not really. The fact that some people are trying to outlaw abortion
should show that.
Arguing that something is and should be lawful because it's lawful is
tautological.
>>>Perhaps you enjoy this type of discussion. I do not.
>>>Stick to practical facts that apply in the real world.
>>
>>A proper definition is necessary for a robust law. There are thousands
>>of cases where laws were made that were not properly generalized, and
>>therefore didn't take into account technology and/or societal changes.
>>
>>A simple case would be transplanting a baby from one womb into another.
>
> When that occurs perhaps the law will address the situation. In the
> mean time I will ignore it.
Shortsighted laws.
>>>>>>>Under the Constitution that is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The US Constitution, which governs the laws where I live.
>>>>
>>>>And how does it violate the constitution?
>>>
>>>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>>>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
>>>and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
>>>any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
>>>of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
>>>liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>>>person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
>>
>>Haha. I love when people quote parts of the constitution that aren't
>>actually followed.
>>
>>If Section 1 were actually followed, then the laws that apply to
>>children would be the same as those applied to old people. But the lack
>>of voting, and self determination indicates that they do not.
>
>
> There is nothing here that says citizens or anyone else must be
> treated the same.
So the fact that children may get greater or lesser protection of the
law doesn't violate what is stated above?
> Amendment XXVI
>
> Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18
> years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the
> United States or any state on account of age.
Abridging privileges of citizenship. Now if they allowed anyone who was
over the age, then the citizenship part wouldn't come into it, and it
wouldn't violate the rest of the constitution.
> Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article
> by appropriate legislation
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxvi.html
Yes, the constitution is an absolute mess. It is very poorly written,
and is rife with contradiction.
>>>>>>As far as I'm concerned, if a person has a child without informing the
>>>>>>other parent, then they waive all child support rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is not the law, but I have no intention of getting into that
>>>>>again. I have stated my position and will not do so again.
>>>>
>>>>What group?
>>>
>>>What part of 'will not do so again' do you fail to understand?
>>
>>What group do you post to, should I wish to look up the argument that
>>you go into on a previous date?
>
> If you look at the top of my responses the newsgroup is always
> specified.
>
> For example:
Thank you.
Hyuuga Neji
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:43:34 GMT, Hyuuga Neji
> <acc...@domain.extension> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <a4Eec.13013528$Of.21...@news.easynews.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Attila wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:15:35 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> in
>>>alt.abortion with message-id
>>><XFDec.8546$3N5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Any contention of individuality is arbitrary, and thus it is better to
>>>>>>>>pick an arbitrary point after careful consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Birth is a pretty clear point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>that is only related to an environmental change and not a substantive
>>>>>>physical one for the human being involved - the baby.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is. Prior to birth the fetus gets all of it's support
>>>>
>>>>>from the body of the host. After birth the body must be able to
>>>>
>>>>>sustain itself.
>>>>
>>>>What the hell is the objective difference between the baby getting it's
>>>>support from the mother by way of her placenta or her tit?
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a huge difference. Prior to birth one single irreplaceable
>>>human being provides all life support for a fetus. If that individual
>>>does not provide that life support for whatever reason the fetus will
>>>die.
>>
>>So if that woman was not irreplaceable, what then?
>
> I fail to understand your question.
If the irreplaceable human being that provides all life support was
actually replaceable, then what?
>>>After birth any sufficiently trained and motivated individual can
>>>provide this support. In fact, a different individual could do it
>>>every hour, or whatever period of time you choose. The actions or
>>>presence of a particular specific person is not necessary.
>>>
>>>That makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>>To put in simpler terms - kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies.
>>
>>If the woman dies, and the baby is to term, they shouldn't really have a
>>problem just cutting her open.
>
> Then there is a birth (which does not depend on the host staying
> alive) and a baby exists to be taken care of by someone else.
So if it dies, it's a fetus, and if it lives, it's a baby?
>>Oh, and what about a baby that isn't grown in a womb? Do they just forgo
>>all rights?
>
>
> That has not occurred.
And therefore we should write laws after the fact? That's pretty
shortsighted.
Hyuuga Neji
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that someone wouldn't
exist without one specific event, and therefore that event constituted
them becoming a person.
Hyuuga Neji
> "Shez" <sh...@oldcity.f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:0cWxKqCD...@oldcity.f2s.com...
>
>>In article <A6Eec.8558$U%5.7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, Scott
>><sc...@nospam.net> writes
>>
>>Fortunately I am not an American, nor do I belong to some weird
>>religion, I learned to think and to reason, and I am well aware that
>>women have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if
>>that includes not having a baby that is her right.
>>I am British its a very secular society, and their is little or no
>>argument about the right to abortion....
>>
>
>
> Some basic questions for you and then after you answer them we can go from
> there.
>
> Do you feel a woman is justified in choosing abortion if she
>
> a) Realizes she is not ready
> b) Realizes she is not financially ready
> c) Realizes she isn't happy with the father and doesn't want to be a single
> mother
> d) Realizes she just doesn't want to be a mother
>
> Do you feel those reasons are justified for abortion?
I do.
I also think these are justified in choosing abortion
a) Realizes he is not ready
b) Realizes he is not financially ready
c) Realizes he isn't happy with the mother and doesn't want to be a
single father
d) Realizes he just doesn't want to be a father
Hyuuga Neji
> "Shez" <sh...@oldcity.f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:6s+yGUDg...@oldcity.f2s.com...
>
>>In article <-pSdna-ntPL...@comcast.com>, Osprey
>><noneed...@mail.com> writes
>>
> Every woman who has an abortion, has
>
>>her own reasons, and those reasons might be very deep indeed.
>> The point your missing is that the woman has a right to decide what
>>happens to her body, the moment you take that right away, you make her a
>>slave.
>
> Learn what slavery means ok?
Indeed. That's like suggesting that preventing someone from committing
suicide is making them into slaves.
>>I take it you consider women to be little more than brood mares, and
>>baby factory's.
>
> I take it you are a coward that has run away from some basic questions to
> avoid being pinned.
And you would be correct.
JaBrIoL
viewpoint is that of the Creator of life. So they are guided by God's
Word on this matter.
When we turn to God's Word, the Bible, we find that reproduction was
one of the main purposes of marriage, though not the only one. But
Christians today are not under a divine command to "be fruitful and
become many." Some may even choose to remain unmarried, as Jesus said,
"on account of the kingdom of the heavens."—Gen. 1:28; Matt. 19:10-12.
Hence, married Christians today may choose to limit their families or
have no children at all. They may do this to have greater freedom to
serve God, or for reasons related to health or their economic
situation. Since the Bible does not directly discuss birth control,
each couple has the right to reach their own conclusions about
it.—Gal. 6:5.
However, the Bible does show that life is precious to God. And the
practice of induced abortion does not in any way show godly respect
for life. According to God's law given through Moses, the human embryo
or lotus was considered a life. (Ex. 21:22, 23) The Bible book of
First John, chapter 3 verse 15, says: "You know that no manslayer has
everlasting life remaining in him." Revelation 22:15 declares:
"Outside are . . . those who practice spiritism and the fornicators
and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying
on a lie."
If a mother's life is definitely endangered at childbirth, then a
choice must be made between the life of the mother and that of the
child. Here it is the responsibility of those involved to make the
choice. Many, in view of the mother's importance to the family, choose
to have her life saved. However, such occurrences are rare in most
nations today because of advanced medical procedures.
Benefiting from God's Laws
Jehovah's witnesses see that the way to limit families is not by
having abortions, but by exercising care and self-control so as not to
increase the size of their families.
Even if they should have an unplanned child, they still work to give
it all the love they can. They know that God will help them because
they have respected his laws. Psalm 37:25 says: "I have not seen
anyone righteous left entirely, nor his offspring looking for bread."
Jesus said much the same in his famous Sermon on the Mount, showing
that those who obey God's laws benefit from His help in caring for
their responsibilities.—Matt. 6:25-33.
Too, single girls who are Christian witnesses of Jehovah benefit from
God's laws in that there is no growing abortion problem among them.
Why not? Because unmarried men and women who live by the Bible's
Christian principles and laws do not practice fornication. They do not
go along with the immoral trend of today's youth. They respect the
fact that marriage is the place for sexual relations. They safeguard
their virginity until then. Thus by keeping God's laws they benefit in
not being troubled by unwanted pregnancies.
Living up to Bible laws and principles indeed solves the problem of
abortion. Jehovah's witnesses in over 200 lands find this true. But if
other people choose to go against God's laws regarding sexual morality
and killing, that is their responsibility. They must answer to God for
their actions.
Why are Jehovah's witnesses so concerned about doing God's will?
Because God is the Creator; furthermore, they love him and respect his
law. Also, we are living in the "last days" of the present wicked
system of things.—1 John 2:17.
All the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy shows we are very
near the time when God will execute his judgments against this corrupt
system of things. Only those who respect God's laws and serve him will
live in his new order of peace and security, with the prospect of
eternal life. At that time God's laws will be respected by all who are
living. Then, no more will there be the problem of abortions.
Sparrow's Wench
news:4tGdnT3uW9m...@comcast.com...
Do you think Shez is this stupid? LOL You're attempting to erect a straw
man argument, assuming her complicity in your silly plot, so you can shoot
it down. Too amusing.
It's no one's damned business WHY a woman decides to have an abortion. Not
yours, not mine, and especially not the government's. Shez has brought up
numerous excellent points during this debate, and you have merely snipped
them out instead of answering to them forthrightly. You should expect no
less from her with your feeble attempts to entrap her in an argument of your
own making.
Shez did forget one thing though. There is ample evidence of prehistoric
enfanticide in the caves of France and Europe. I personally know that some
traditional people still use herbs to induce abortion. And, I know what
many of those herbs are. You aren't going to stop abortion. You *may* stop
it from happening "legally". That's all. It will still happen, and those
women who don't know the ways to do it properly are still going to die at
the hands of back alley butchers. I'm sure you are too young to have ever
seen those kinds of pictures, but I saw them when I was a teenager. Women
laying on the pavement surrounded in their own blood, halfway out of their
car doors covered in their own blood. You CAN NOT stop abortion. It's
going to happen legally or illegally. But it's still going to happen. Deal
with it.
Tegan
--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sparrow's Wench
the website this article originally appeared on, here:
http://www.l4l.org/journal.html
I also love how you conservatives substitute factual science for religious
dogma. This article you offer up as a "reference" to when life begins,
starts off with saying it debunks, "Scientific Myths". ROTFLMAO I
certainly hope you don't expect those of us with a functioning brain to buy
any of this bullshit?
Tegan
--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:DGDec.8547$iK5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:McqdnS83XIE...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> > Can you post that link again please?
> >
> > I was just posting my comments to show you I agreed with you.
>
> sure
> http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
>
> Scott
>
>
Osprey
"Hyuuga Neji" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Personhood and human life are two different issues.
Yes, we have laws that define personhood.
A human life begins at conception
Osprey
"Hyuuga Neji" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
So you agree, that if a father is not ready, or any of the above reasons he
should be able to get out of any obligation
just as she is able to get out of any obligation by killing the unborn.
There is but one problem. She is carrying, she determines and controls what
happens to him.
Sparrow's Wench
dictator bush!
Tegan
--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9QDec.8550$YS5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
<snip>
>
> Waffle
Osprey
"Sparrow's Wench" <sa...@thecaribbean.com> wrote in message
news:107mehn...@corp.supernews.com...
There are double standards involved in the choices of abortion.
You know it, Shez knows it and that is why the questions were dodged.
Write back in the subject line a subject that lets me know when you are
ready to tackle
this issue.
Osprey
"Sparrow's Wench" <sa...@thecaribbean.com> wrote in message
news:107mfmm...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ooooh, look! The xtian conservatives have been taught a new word by
> dictator bush!
>
> Tegan
Is this that maturity David Barnes was looking for????
Sparrow's Wench
ones? I have already answered the old ones in my last post, but will do so
again (since you are quite obviously unable to comperhend the small print).
It's NONE OF MY or YOUR or the GOVERNMENT'S damned business WHY a woman has
an abortion. If you want another answer, ask another person. That should
"tackle" your issues rather nicely.
Tegan
--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:i-ydnVJ8mrK...@comcast.com...
>
> "Sparrow's Wench" <sa...@thecaribbean.com> wrote in message
> news:107mehn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
Osprey
You have demonstrated to me a few things
a) You are very immature
b) You are afraid to dwell deep into the issues and you want to avoid
questions that could threaten your beliefs of opinion
c) You are a bigot and have a strong hatred towards conservatives and
religious
When you can overcome these obstacles you possess, maybe then I will give
consideration into
discussing a issue with you.
"Sparrow's Wench" <sa...@thecaribbean.com> wrote in message
news:107mga7...@corp.supernews.com...
Sparrow's Wench
Tegan
--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9MKdndjg6dP...@comcast.com...
Osprey
> It's called humor. Look it up in your Funk&Wagnall's.
It is called immature behavior and bigotry.
You are only out to attack conservatives and anyone who is religious.
Where is the humor in that?
Grow up
Gomez Addams
> Of course it is. Prior to birth the fetus gets all
of it's support
> from the body of the host. After birth the body must be able to
> starting point for the existence of a human being. A fetus is not a
> human being.
Oh noooooooo, course not. It's a rubber ducky!
<plonk>
Gomez Addams
"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote
> the fertilized
> > embryo is simply a clump of dividing cells, their is as much life in an
> > amoeba,
With your own words you stand convicted!
Behold!, the world awaits your next ignorant babblings.......
Gomez Addams
> Actually, it is my understanding that late term abortions are illegal in
> the US. Is that not true?
appointment to have labor induced with a full term baby, simply by refusing
to see =that= doctor and going to one who will kill the child instead.
GOD IN HEAVEN IS SURELY PLANNING A SERIES OF VERY UNPLEASANT SURPRISES
FOR THE USA........