>> >> > I don't personally believe that there is a difference but believe that >> >> > the case of rape is an exception that can be accepted.
>> >> So, it's OK to murder someone if their father is a rapist? I guess that >> >> fits with Judeo-Christian theology, in which God says it's OK to punish >> >> people for the transgressions of their ancestors, up to 7 generations. >> >> Personally, I think that is monstrous.
>> > No, don't insert your own ignorant assumptions for what I said. I >> > still disagree with abortion even in the case of rape but can see some >> > justification for it under some circumstances. The rest of your >> > statement is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen but expected >> > from people who will justify abortion under all circumstances.
>> Be careful you don't fall off your bike from back-pedaling so fast!
> The percieved back-pedaling is what you want to see but is only in > your mind.
>> Pardon my "ignorant assumption" for taking YOUR phrase, "the case of
> Finally, you said something correct...your "Ignorant assumption".
>> rape is an exception that can be accepted.", to mean that a woman who has >> been raped should be able to get an abortion. I was also making the >> "ignorant assumption" that you use English language words to mean what >> they usually mean. Now, you are saying that "in the case of rape but >> can see some justification for it under some circumstances." Are you >> planning to run for Congress or something? That is as fast a backing down >> from a strong position to a mushy one that would make any politician proud.
> Your ignorant assumption is that I condone rather than just accept > that in the case of rape that abortion could be allowed. There is a > very distinct difference that you clearly can't understand or is it > that you chose to not understand?
At the risk of asking you to actually commit to an opinion, do you think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, or not? No waffling, either. Start with either "yes" or "no", and feel free to explain further if you feel it necessary.
>> I know that sticking to a principle regardless of the circumstance is not >> a strong suit for religionists in general, and Christians in particular, >> but try to understand this:
> Quit trying to prove that you are an ass, you have already done that.
>> IF a fetus is an innocent life that needs protection, THEN it is an >> innocent life REGARDLESS of the circumstances: if the mother was raped, if >> the mother if 14 years old, if the fetus has abnormalities that guarantee >> that it cannot survive after birth. IF the fetus is NOT an innocent life, >> AND the circumstances of the mother are relevant, THEN it is up to the >> mother to decide what circumstances justify having an abortion, and it is >> NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
>> Got it?
> NOPE and I never will accept that argument either. The federal > government has passed on that argument a long time ago and already > makes much more than abortion the business of government.
So, what part of that statement is confusing you?
>> It is entirely possible to be philosophically opposed to abortion, and >> also be opposed to depriving others of the ability to make their own >> choice. As it turns out, the vast majority of the politically active >> anti-abortionists are motivated by their religion, which generally also >> encourages them to force their views on others. My disagreement is not >> with those who oppose abortion, it is with those who are "anti-choice."
> Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but "Pro- > Life". Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" > advocates as "Anti-Life" advocates.
EVERYBODY is "pro-life". The religious activists who oppose letting women decide for themselves if abortion is necessary want to call themselves "pro-life" as if it distinguished them from people who are "pro-choice". It doesn't. They, are, in fact, "anti-choice".
>> >> Here's another thought experiment: You are sitting in a restaurant, >> >> enjoying dinner with you wife. Someone walks up to her and shoots her >> >> in the head, right in front of you. The shooter is arrested, but, >> >> after a brief investigation, is released, and all charges dropped. >> >> Outraged, you call the DA's office, and they tell you that and >> >> investigation reveal that your father-in-law had once pleaded guilty to >> >> a charge of "date rape" in high school.
>> >> By the argument you have put forth, you are saying that is OK. >> >> Amazing.
>> > You are really too dumb to have a meaningful discussion with if that is >> > what you think I was saying.
>> I am often handicapped by the expectation that the people I talk to will >> say what they mean, and stand by what they have said. Clearly, you do not >> fit that category.
> How the hell would you know, you make false assumptions of what people > say and then base your opinions on your false assumptions.
As I said, I assume people mean what they say. If I am not reading you correctly, perhaps you could re-phrase your position.
> On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 5:03 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:06 am, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 2:34 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:15:49 -0800 (PST), BobR > > > > > <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> in alt.abortion with message-id > > > > > <3721735a-5545-46e9-8733-bd0308959...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > >about killing the baby.
> > > > > No, we are talking about terminating a pregnancy. All other factors > > > > > are irrelevant side effects.
> > > > If your mother had terminated you during her pregnancy would your non- > > > > existance have been simply an irrelevant side effect?
> > > Bobby, little buddy, grok this: there are way, *way* worse things > > > than merely not existing. See if you can wrap your pointy little head > > > around that fact.
> > You should know.
> > PS: I will never be your little buddy.
> > > > > > At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > >separate life is formed.
> > > > > Even if true, so what? Are humans an endangered species? Where is > > > > > the requirement that every possible individual must exist?
> > > > Well hell, lets just thin the heard of all those we don't like then > > > > while we are at it.
> > > Well, we sure-as-shit need to thin the herd *somehow*. We're nigh > > > onto seven billion as it is. If we don't cut back our numbers > > > voluntarily, nature is going to do it for us. And it will be a damn > > > sight uglier than mere abortions.
> > > > Can we start with YOU?
> > > Oh, Bobby, bad analogy: Atilla's already *here*. We don't advocate > > > the killing of humans who have already gone through the birth process; > > > that's the catholic church's job.
> > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > BAAWA Knight > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Sometimes people are terminally Unclear on the Concept. All antiaborts fall into that category.
> > The more you post the more I am convinced that you probably should > > abort because you are totally unsuited to be anyones mother.
> HALLELUJA!!!!!! HE SEES THE LIGHT!!!!!!!
You betcha. Those of us who don't want to be pregnant tend not to want to be mothers.
> Thank you, so much, for *finally* demonstrating a lick of common > sense. I had about given up on you.
Actually, it's more in the category of even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The antiaborts tend to hate their own mothers and thus all women, and at the same time they feel that women who aren't mothers or even worse, don't want to be, are somehow even more Evil than Mother . . ..
> *Yes*, I *am* totally unsuited to be anybody's mother. I knew this at > a very young age, about 11 years old, IIRC.
Oh, yes, some of us get that very early but learn to keep it to ourselves, because some jackass always yaps, ' you'll change your mind,' never questioning what happens when women who *do* have children change *their* minds, assuming they *have* minds, that is . ..
>And to the (entirely > unknown) extent that my disaffection for children and disinclination > towards motherhood may be genetic, why in hell would you want to risk > sending such a gene on into the human lineage by preventing a woman > like me from having an abortion?
It only makes sense . .but we're dealing with antiaborts, who hate women and children, feeling that women should be punished by being forced to breed, which kind of indicates how their mothers felt about them . .. sad, when you think about it, but more reasons that women shouldn't be forced to breed.
> > Why > > don't you just get your tubes tied and then you won't have to worry > > about it?
> Well, snookie, I don't get them tied *now* because I'm 60 years old > and well past my fertile years. Thank Dog.
> However, in my youth, I tried continuously to get my tubes tied. > Doctors would pat me on the head or on the knee ad assure me that I > would "change my mind."
Testify! When I finally did, the doc said, "but what if you change your mind?" as if I would at that point in my life . .. so I said, "It's better to regret not having children than to regret having them" and she said, "I never thought of it that way" She also botched the surgery and I had a lot of problems, nearly died.
> When I insisted that I wouldn't, they quoted > a standard saying that a woman's age plus number of living children > she already had must equal [some number, it may have been 40] before a > tubal was considered an option. And since I had no living children, I > didn't even come close to qualifying for a tubal.
> The same mind-set that told me I couldn't have a tubal when I was > young is now trying to tell other women that they don't have the right > to say what happens to their own bodies. It was wrong then, and it's > wrong now.
There would be no need of abortions if men would get vasectomized and store sperm cryogenically. No more unwanted babies, and no dead women from contraception side effects. Vasectomies are the cheapest, safest, and most effective method ever devised for preventing pregnancy. So, if men feel that they should be able to dictate what women do with our bodies, shouldn't we demand they all get snipped?
> On Nov 8, 9:33 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 12:53 am, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > > The Emotional Effects of Abortion > > > 92% Emotional deadening > > > (Reported either feeling less in touch with their emotions or feeling > > > a "need to stifle their emotions") > > > 86% Increased tendency toward anger or rage > > > (48% reported they became more violent when angered) > > > 86% Had a fear of others learning of the abortion or a greater sense > > > of fear for unknown reasons > > > 82% Greater feelings of loneliness or isolation > > > 75% Had less self-confidence > > > 73% Sexual dysfunctions > > > (Increased pain during intercourse, promiscuity, frigidity, or loss of > > > pleasure) > > > 63% Denial > > > (Respondents were asked, "Was there a period of time when you would > > > have denied the existence of any doubts or negative feelings about > > > your abortion?" Of those responding yes, the average period of denial > > > that they reported was 5.25 years.) > > > 58% Suffered from insomnia or nightmares > > > 57% Greater difficulty in maintaining or developing relationships > > > 56% Suicidal feelings > > > 53% Increased or began use of drugs or alcohol > > > 39% Eating disorders which began after the abortion > > > (binge eating, anorexia, or bulimia) > > > 28% Attempted suicide
> > > This is a partial list of symptoms drawn from a survey of 260 women > > > who, on average, had their first abortion 10.6 years prior to being > > > surveyed. These women were volunteers who either were seeking post- > > > abortion counseling, had participated in post-abortion counseling in > > > the past, or had a history of prior abortion and were seeking help at > > > a crisis pregnancy center to carry a subsequent pregnancy to term. > > > These findings appear to be representative of the reactions of the > > > group of women who experience negative emotional reactions to > > > abortion. These figures may not be representative of the entire > > > population of women who have had abortions, of whom very little is > > > known.
> > No. do you have a reputable website that without such an obvious > > agenda to support your claims. The fact that they were already > > seeking counseling immediately skews the numbers and therefore cannot > > be taken as a representative sample. Additionally, the number of > > women in the survey is very small given the population that they are > > drawn from.
> > At least they were honest enough to say that the numbers were not to > > be used to represent all women who have had abortions.
> > Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I didn't have to prove that 98% of all women who got abortions > regretted it, just that "many" did. That was clearly proven. If you > were really interested if finding out more on the subject you would do > some research on your own. Instead, you will ignore or deny any > reports presented. It only took me about a minute to find several > different studies proving my point.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Many women regret giving birth. Just ask *your* mothers.
> On Nov 8, 6:08 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 5:03 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:06 am, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 2:34 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:15:49 -0800 (PST), BobR > > > > > > <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> in alt.abortion with message-id > > > > > > <3721735a-5545-46e9-8733-bd0308959...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > > >about killing the baby.
> > > > > > No, we are talking about terminating a pregnancy. All other factors > > > > > > are irrelevant side effects.
> > > > > If your mother had terminated you during her pregnancy would your non- > > > > > existance have been simply an irrelevant side effect?
> > > > Bobby, little buddy, grok this: there are way, *way* worse things > > > > than merely not existing. See if you can wrap your pointy little head > > > > around that fact.
> > > You should know.
> > > PS: I will never be your little buddy.
> > > > > > > At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > > >separate life is formed.
> > > > > > Even if true, so what? Are humans an endangered species? Where is > > > > > > the requirement that every possible individual must exist?
> > > > > Well hell, lets just thin the heard of all those we don't like then > > > > > while we are at it.
> > > > Well, we sure-as-shit need to thin the herd *somehow*. We're nigh > > > > onto seven billion as it is. If we don't cut back our numbers > > > > voluntarily, nature is going to do it for us. And it will be a damn > > > > sight uglier than mere abortions.
> > > > > Can we start with YOU?
> > > > Oh, Bobby, bad analogy: Atilla's already *here*. We don't advocate > > > > the killing of humans who have already gone through the birth process; > > > > that's the catholic church's job.
> > > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > > BAAWA Knight > > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
> > > The more you post the more I am convinced that you probably should > > > abort because you are totally unsuited to be anyones mother.
> > HALLELUJA!!!!!! HE SEES THE LIGHT!!!!!!!
> > Thank you, so much, for *finally* demonstrating a lick of common > > sense. I had about given up on you.
> > *Yes*, I *am* totally unsuited to be anybody's mother. I knew this at > > a very young age, about 11 years old, IIRC. And to the (entirely > > unknown) extent that my disaffection for children and disinclination > > towards motherhood may be genetic, why in hell would you want to risk > > sending such a gene on into the human lineage by preventing a woman > > like me from having an abortion?
> You don't seem to like yourself very much. Too bad, you might have > found something to love and nurture had you not decided to be so > selfish.
> > > Why > > > don't you just get your tubes tied and then you won't have to worry > > > about it?
> > Well, snookie, I don't get them tied *now* because I'm 60 years old > > and well past my fertile years. Thank Dog.
> That makes two of us but I will look forward to loving my wife, my > child and my grandchildren for years to come. How about you?
> > However, in my youth, I tried continuously to get my tubes tied. > > Doctors would pat me on the head or on the knee ad assure me that I > > would "change my mind." When I insisted that I wouldn't, they quoted > > a standard saying that a woman's age plus number of living children > > she already had must equal [some number, it may have been 40] before a > > tubal was considered an option. And since I had no living children, I > > didn't even come close to qualifying for a tubal.
> Then the doctors were wrong! On that point we can agree. I fully > agree with you on the prevention issue.
> > The same mind-set that told me I couldn't have a tubal when I was > > young is now trying to tell other women that they don't have the right > > to say what happens to their own bodies. It was wrong then, and it's > > wrong now.
> What you don't want to accept is that I don't have an issue with women > wanting to control their bodies. I believe they should have every > right to any form of prevention they chose. My belief, and it stems > from the scientific fact that a new life is formed at the moment of > conception, is the protection of a human life. I believe that life > deserves protection under the law. It is not about religion, it is > not about hatred of women or wanting to make women subservient or any > of your other claims. It is about protection of a life that has no > say and is being killed by the millions.
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > BAAWA Knight > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There is no moment of conception, it's a process.
Tell ya what, pootzy. YOu don't like abortions, don't get one, and if you think you should dictate what women can do with our bodies, how about you let us women castrate and vasectomize your bodies? It's very cheap, very very safe, and very very very effective at ending all unwanted pregnancy. Sperm can easily be stored.
Women die from complications of tubals, of contraception you know. Men don't die from vasectomies. It's very cost effective to vasectomize the males instead of using costly, harmful methods that are less effective on women.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:29:42 -0800 (PST), BobR > <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> in alt.abortion with message-id > <1ad3fba7-3155-4a27-b5af-ea6d7e1a9...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> > wrote:
> >Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but "Pro- > >Life".
> Anti-choice or Anti-freedom would be more accurate.
> > Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" > >advocates
> I have seen no one here advocate abortion. Choice, yes - abortion, > no.
> >> >> > I don't personally believe that there is a difference but believe that > >> >> > the case of rape is an exception that can be accepted.
> >> >> So, it's OK to murder someone if their father is a rapist? I guess that > >> >> fits with Judeo-Christian theology, in which God says it's OK to punish > >> >> people for the transgressions of their ancestors, up to 7 generations. > >> >> Personally, I think that is monstrous.
> >> > No, don't insert your own ignorant assumptions for what I said. I > >> > still disagree with abortion even in the case of rape but can see some > >> > justification for it under some circumstances. The rest of your > >> > statement is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen but expected > >> > from people who will justify abortion under all circumstances.
> >> Be careful you don't fall off your bike from back-pedaling so fast!
> > The percieved back-pedaling is what you want to see but is only in > > your mind.
> I am just reading what you wrote.
> >> Pardon my "ignorant assumption" for taking YOUR phrase, "the case of
> > Finally, you said something correct...your "Ignorant assumption".
> >> rape is an exception that can be accepted.", to mean that a woman who has > >> been raped should be able to get an abortion. I was also making the > >> "ignorant assumption" that you use English language words to mean what > >> they usually mean. Now, you are saying that "in the case of rape but > >> can see some justification for it under some circumstances." Are you > >> planning to run for Congress or something? That is as fast a backing down > >> from a strong position to a mushy one that would make any politician proud.
> > Your ignorant assumption is that I condone rather than just accept > > that in the case of rape that abortion could be allowed. There is a > > very distinct difference that you clearly can't understand or is it > > that you chose to not understand?
> At the risk of asking you to actually commit to an opinion, do you think > that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, or not? No waffling, > either. Start with either "yes" or "no", and feel free to explain further > if you feel it necessary.
Already answered twice but you apparently can't read very well or comprehend anything. So I will answer it one more time and say it very slow so you don't miss a word of it.
NO!
Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to say it slower and spell it out one letter at a time.
> >> I know that sticking to a principle regardless of the circumstance is not > >> a strong suit for religionists in general, and Christians in particular, > >> but try to understand this:
> > Quit trying to prove that you are an ass, you have already done that.
> >> IF a fetus is an innocent life that needs protection, THEN it is an > >> innocent life REGARDLESS of the circumstances: if the mother was raped, if > >> the mother if 14 years old, if the fetus has abnormalities that guarantee > >> that it cannot survive after birth. IF the fetus is NOT an innocent life, > >> AND the circumstances of the mother are relevant, THEN it is up to the > >> mother to decide what circumstances justify having an abortion, and it is > >> NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
> >> Got it?
> > NOPE and I never will accept that argument either. The federal > > government has passed on that argument a long time ago and already > > makes much more than abortion the business of government.
> So, what part of that statement is confusing you?
> >> It is entirely possible to be philosophically opposed to abortion, and > >> also be opposed to depriving others of the ability to make their own > >> choice. As it turns out, the vast majority of the politically active > >> anti-abortionists are motivated by their religion, which generally also > >> encourages them to force their views on others. My disagreement is not > >> with those who oppose abortion, it is with those who are "anti-choice."
> > Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but "Pro- > > Life". Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" > > advocates as "Anti-Life" advocates.
> EVERYBODY is "pro-life". The religious activists who oppose letting women > decide for themselves if abortion is necessary want to call themselves > "pro-life" as if it distinguished them from people who are "pro-choice". > It doesn't. They, are, in fact, "anti-choice".
Apparently you are so pro-life or you would be willing to take a stand in an effort to protect it. But wait: I know that sticking to a principle regardless of the circumstance is not a strong suit for non- believers and pro-abortionists so I guess it only applies in some circumstances.
> >> >> Here's another thought experiment: You are sitting in a restaurant, > >> >> enjoying dinner with you wife. Someone walks up to her and shoots her > >> >> in the head, right in front of you. The shooter is arrested, but, > >> >> after a brief investigation, is released, and all charges dropped. > >> >> Outraged, you call the DA's office, and they tell you that and > >> >> investigation reveal that your father-in-law had once pleaded guilty to > >> >> a charge of "date rape" in high school.
> >> >> By the argument you have put forth, you are saying that is OK. > >> >> Amazing.
> >> > You are really too dumb to have a meaningful discussion with if that is > >> > what you think I was saying.
> >> I am often handicapped by the expectation that the people I talk to will > >> say what they mean, and stand by what they have said. Clearly, you do not > >> fit that category.
> > How the hell would you know, you make false assumptions of what people > > say and then base your opinions on your false assumptions.
> As I said, I assume people mean what they say. If I am not reading you > correctly, perhaps you could re-phrase your position.
Wouldn't do any good, you see only what you want to see anyway and its a waste of time to try and reason with you.
> > > > > > > >We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > > > >about killing the baby.
> > > > > > > No, we are talking about terminating a pregnancy. All other factors > > > > > > > are irrelevant side effects.
> > > > > > If your mother had terminated you during her pregnancy would your non- > > > > > > existance have been simply an irrelevant side effect?
> > > > > Bobby, little buddy, grok this: there are way, *way* worse things > > > > > than merely not existing. See if you can wrap your pointy little head > > > > > around that fact.
> > > > You should know.
> > > > PS: I will never be your little buddy.
> > > > > > > > At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > > > >separate life is formed.
> > > > > > > Even if true, so what? Are humans an endangered species? Where is > > > > > > > the requirement that every possible individual must exist?
> > > > > > Well hell, lets just thin the heard of all those we don't like then > > > > > > while we are at it.
> > > > > Well, we sure-as-shit need to thin the herd *somehow*. We're nigh > > > > > onto seven billion as it is. If we don't cut back our numbers > > > > > voluntarily, nature is going to do it for us. And it will be a damn > > > > > sight uglier than mere abortions.
> > > > > > Can we start with YOU?
> > > > > Oh, Bobby, bad analogy: Atilla's already *here*. We don't advocate > > > > > the killing of humans who have already gone through the birth process; > > > > > that's the catholic church's job.
> > > > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > > > BAAWA Knight > > > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
> > > > The more you post the more I am convinced that you probably should > > > > abort because you are totally unsuited to be anyones mother.
> > > HALLELUJA!!!!!! HE SEES THE LIGHT!!!!!!!
> > > Thank you, so much, for *finally* demonstrating a lick of common > > > sense. I had about given up on you.
> > > *Yes*, I *am* totally unsuited to be anybody's mother. I knew this at > > > a very young age, about 11 years old, IIRC. And to the (entirely > > > unknown) extent that my disaffection for children and disinclination > > > towards motherhood may be genetic, why in hell would you want to risk > > > sending such a gene on into the human lineage by preventing a woman > > > like me from having an abortion?
> > You don't seem to like yourself very much. Too bad, you might have > > found something to love and nurture had you not decided to be so > > selfish.
> > > > Why > > > > don't you just get your tubes tied and then you won't have to worry > > > > about it?
> > > Well, snookie, I don't get them tied *now* because I'm 60 years old > > > and well past my fertile years. Thank Dog.
> > That makes two of us but I will look forward to loving my wife, my > > child and my grandchildren for years to come. How about you?
> > > However, in my youth, I tried continuously to get my tubes tied. > > > Doctors would pat me on the head or on the knee ad assure me that I > > > would "change my mind." When I insisted that I wouldn't, they quoted > > > a standard saying that a woman's age plus number of living children > > > she already had must equal [some number, it may have been 40] before a > > > tubal was considered an option. And since I had no living children, I > > > didn't even come close to qualifying for a tubal.
> > Then the doctors were wrong! On that point we can agree. I fully > > agree with you on the prevention issue.
> > > The same mind-set that told me I couldn't have a tubal when I was > > > young is now trying to tell other women that they don't have the right > > > to say what happens to their own bodies. It was wrong then, and it's > > > wrong now.
> > What you don't want to accept is that I don't have an issue with women > > wanting to control their bodies. I believe they should have every > > right to any form of prevention they chose. My belief, and it stems > > from the scientific fact that a new life is formed at the moment of > > conception, is the protection of a human life. I believe that life > > deserves protection under the law. It is not about religion, it is > > not about hatred of women or wanting to make women subservient or any > > of your other claims. It is about protection of a life that has no > > say and is being killed by the millions.
> > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > BAAWA Knight > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> There is no moment of conception, it's a process.
> Tell ya what, pootzy. YOu don't like abortions, don't get one, and if > you think you should dictate what women can do with our bodies, how > about you let us women castrate and vasectomize your bodies? It's > very cheap, very very safe, and very very very effective at ending all > unwanted pregnancy. Sperm can easily be stored.
> Women die from complications of tubals, of contraception you know. > Men don't die from vasectomies. It's very cost effective to > vasectomize the males instead of using costly, harmful methods that > are less effective on women.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
They also die from complications from abortions but that is ok isn't it? As long as they have the choice to end the life within them without having to take responsibility for it. Yes, most men seem more than happy to take advantage of letting women have abortions rather than take any responsibility in either prevention or support after the fact.
Oh, and when my wife and I decided to not have any more children it was I who took the active role in making sure we didn't have any additional children. So your second argument is a mute point.
> > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind of a > > > >> >>> mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would have with a > > > >> >>> young woman contemplating killing her pre-born child. ...
> > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the mother's > > > >> > womb.
> > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where the > > > >> mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of course, if > > > >> the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly the mother's > > > >> fault, is it?
> > > >> -- > > > >> MarkA > > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house just > > > > move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive outside the house, > > > > that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a woman is > > > responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no such agreement > > > when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants to put a 6 month old up > > > for adoption, she should be able to do so. Same goes for a fetus.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear > someone saying that they feel that a new life -- by which > they mean a new human -- is formed at the moment of > conception. I wonder how you must feel about the > fact that in the normal course of things, with no > human intervention whatsoever, only about 20 > to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant successfully > and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. > Only one of every four or five "new and separate" > lives avoid being flushed out, almost always > without the mother even being aware of it.
> Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Is that not a natural event? Are you saying that there is no difference between that natural event and an abortion requiring a doctor to remove the fetus?
Now answer me this question. At what point do you believe that the "fetus" becomes a human life? Is it not until the moment of birth and therefore acceptable to terminate that life at any point prior to that or at some point during those nine months? If at some point prior to the nine months, what is the criteria for that division?
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:07:57 -0800, BobR wrote: > On Nov 9, 9:20 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:29:42 -0800, BobR wrote:
>> >> >> > I don't personally believe that there is a difference but believe that >> >> >> > the case of rape is an exception that can be accepted.
>> >> >> So, it's OK to murder someone if their father is a rapist? I guess that >> >> >> fits with Judeo-Christian theology, in which God says it's OK to punish >> >> >> people for the transgressions of their ancestors, up to 7 generations. >> >> >> Personally, I think that is monstrous.
>> >> > No, don't insert your own ignorant assumptions for what I said. I >> >> > still disagree with abortion even in the case of rape but can see some >> >> > justification for it under some circumstances. The rest of your >> >> > statement is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen but expected >> >> > from people who will justify abortion under all circumstances.
>> >> Be careful you don't fall off your bike from back-pedaling so fast!
>> > The percieved back-pedaling is what you want to see but is only in >> > your mind.
>> I am just reading what you wrote.
>> >> Pardon my "ignorant assumption" for taking YOUR phrase, "the case of
>> > Finally, you said something correct...your "Ignorant assumption".
>> >> rape is an exception that can be accepted.", to mean that a woman who has >> >> been raped should be able to get an abortion. I was also making the >> >> "ignorant assumption" that you use English language words to mean what >> >> they usually mean. Now, you are saying that "in the case of rape but >> >> can see some justification for it under some circumstances." Are you >> >> planning to run for Congress or something? That is as fast a backing down >> >> from a strong position to a mushy one that would make any politician proud.
>> > Your ignorant assumption is that I condone rather than just accept >> > that in the case of rape that abortion could be allowed. There is a >> > very distinct difference that you clearly can't understand or is it >> > that you chose to not understand?
>> At the risk of asking you to actually commit to an opinion, do you think >> that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, or not? No waffling, >> either. Start with either "yes" or "no", and feel free to explain further >> if you feel it necessary.
> Already answered twice but you apparently can't read very well or > comprehend anything. So I will answer it one more time and say it > very slow so you don't miss a word of it.
> NO!
> Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to say it slower and spell > it out one letter at a time.
> NO!
Yes, that is very clear. Thank you very much. So, when the RCC, earlier this year, decided that the 9 year old girl in Brazil, pregnant with twins as the result of a rape, should not be permitted to have an abortion, you agree that was a correct decision? This little girl would almost certainly die, because the clumps of cells growing in her are too holy to be removed? Frankly, after that case, it astounds me that there are ANY people with any shred of decency who still call themselves "Catholic". That case demonstrates that the Pope is a wicked, deluded man.
>> >> I know that sticking to a principle regardless of the circumstance >> >> is not a strong suit for religionists in general, and Christians in >> >> particular, but try to understand this:
>> > Quit trying to prove that you are an ass, you have already done that.
>> >> IF a fetus is an innocent life that needs protection, THEN it is an >> >> innocent life REGARDLESS of the circumstances: if the mother was >> >> raped, if the mother if 14 years old, if the fetus has abnormalities >> >> that guarantee that it cannot survive after birth. IF the fetus is >> >> NOT an innocent life, AND the circumstances of the mother are >> >> relevant, THEN it is up to the mother to decide what circumstances >> >> justify having an abortion, and it is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
>> >> Got it?
>> > NOPE and I never will accept that argument either. The federal >> > government has passed on that argument a long time ago and already >> > makes much more than abortion the business of government.
>> So, what part of that statement is confusing you?
>> >> It is entirely possible to be philosophically opposed to abortion, >> >> and also be opposed to depriving others of the ability to make their >> >> own choice. As it turns out, the vast majority of the politically >> >> active anti-abortionists are motivated by their religion, which >> >> generally also encourages them to force their views on others. My >> >> disagreement is not with those who oppose abortion, it is with those >> >> who are "anti-choice."
>> > Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but >> > "Pro- Life". Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" >> > advocates as "Anti-Life" advocates.
>> EVERYBODY is "pro-life". The religious activists who oppose letting >> women decide for themselves if abortion is necessary want to call >> themselves "pro-life" as if it distinguished them from people who are >> "pro-choice". It doesn't. They, are, in fact, "anti-choice".
> Apparently you are so pro-life or you would be willing to take a stand > in an effort to protect it. But wait: I know that sticking to a > principle regardless of the circumstance is not a strong suit for non- > believers and pro-abortionists so I guess it only applies in some > circumstances.
I do take a stand to protect life: the life of the woman. I just don't agree that a microscopic clump of cells has a more legitimate claim to the use of a woman's body than the woman herself does.
>> >> >> Here's another thought experiment: You are sitting in a >> >> >> restaurant, enjoying dinner with you wife. Someone walks up to >> >> >> her and shoots her in the head, right in front of you. The >> >> >> shooter is arrested, but, after a brief investigation, is >> >> >> released, and all charges dropped. Outraged, you call the DA's >> >> >> office, and they tell you that and investigation reveal that your >> >> >> father-in-law had once pleaded guilty to a charge of "date rape" >> >> >> in high school.
>> >> >> By the argument you have put forth, you are saying that is OK. >> >> >> Amazing.
>> >> > You are really too dumb to have a meaningful discussion with if >> >> > that is what you think I was saying.
>> >> I am often handicapped by the expectation that the people I talk to >> >> will say what they mean, and stand by what they have said. >> >> Clearly, you do not fit that category.
>> > How the hell would you know, you make false assumptions of what >> > people say and then base your opinions on your false assumptions.
>> As I said, I assume people mean what they say. If I am not reading >> you correctly, perhaps you could re-phrase your position.
> Wouldn't do any good, you see only what you want to see anyway and its a > waste of time to try and reason with you.
I was confused when you seemed to be saying that it would be OK for a woman to get an abortion if she had been raped. Now that I see that you are one of those people who believe that a pregnant woman's rights fall below those of the fetus, and that even YOU should have more authority over her body than she does, I think I understand where you are coming from.
One point I don't think I will ever be able to understand is how someone can consider themselves to be "pro-life", and "doing what God would want them to do", when they believe that a clump of cells should have the power to destroy the life, and possibly kill, a 9 year old girl, who has already been the victim of one assault, and continues to be assaulted every hour of every day, by the pregnancy that was forced on her. Nor can I understand how people with such an extreme ideology, can believe that they should have the authority to tell others how they should live. But then, I don't understand how Muslims can commit acts of violence in protest of being portrayed as violent, either.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:00 -0800, BobR wrote: > On Nov 9, 3:07 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:29:42 -0800 (PST), BobR >> <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> in alt.abortion with message-id >> <1ad3fba7-3155-4a27-b5af-ea6d7e1a9...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> >> wrote:
>> >Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but "Pro- >> >Life".
>> Anti-choice or Anti-freedom would be more accurate.
>> > Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" >> >advocates
>> I have seen no one here advocate abortion. Choice, yes - abortion, >> no.
> Now that is funny.
Do you really fail to grasp that the whole issue is about depriving others of the ability to make their own choices? I guess when you grow up believing that it is OK for the Pope to tell you what to think, it is hard to understand how some people would rather think for themselves.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:56 -0800, BobR wrote: > On Nov 9, 2:59 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 3:15 pm, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 5, 2:04 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:47:56 -0800, BobR wrote: >> > > > On Nov 3, 7:20 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > > >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:28:33 -0500, J wrote:
>> > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind >> > > >> >>> of a mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would >> > > >> >>> have with a young woman contemplating killing her pre-born >> > > >> >>> child. ...
>> > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
>> > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the >> > > >> > mother's womb.
>> > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where >> > > >> the mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of >> > > >> course, if the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly >> > > >> the mother's fault, is it?
>> > > >> -- >> > > >> MarkA >> > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight >> > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>> > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house >> > > > just move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive >> > > > outside the house, that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
>> > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a >> > > woman is responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no >> > > such agreement when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants >> > > to put a 6 month old up for adoption, she should be able to do so. >> > > Same goes for a fetus.
>> > > -- >> > > MarkA >> > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight >> > > o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking >> > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and >> > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from >> > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
>> There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear someone saying >> that they feel that a new life -- by which they mean a new human -- is >> formed at the moment of conception. I wonder how you must feel about >> the fact that in the normal course of things, with no human intervention >> whatsoever, only about 20 to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant >> successfully and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. Only one >> of every four or five "new and separate" lives avoid being flushed out, >> almost always without the mother even being aware of it.
>> Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Is that not a natural event? Are you saying that there is no difference > between that natural event and an abortion requiring a doctor to remove > the fetus?
> Now answer me this question. At what point do you believe that the > "fetus" becomes a human life? Is it not until the moment of birth and > therefore acceptable to terminate that life at any point prior to that or > at some point during those nine months? If at some point prior to the > nine months, what is the criteria for that division?
That's a reasonable question, but implies a "black & white" answer. The fetus slowly becomes more and more human as it develops. At the point where it can be viable outside the uterus, usually beginning in the third trimester, abortion is no longer an option. That is like asking when dough put into the oven becomes bread. It is a process, not an event.
-- MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>> Would that convince you that you should let the parasite live in you for >> 9 months, increasing your risk for diabetes, blood clots, heart failure, >> back pain, etc? Just because some religion, to which you do not >> subscribe, thinks the parasite is holy? How about if this religion had >> enough members to influence members of Congress to pass laws making it >> *illegal* to kill this parasite? How about if they sneer at your >> protests, and told you that contracting this parasite is a risk you took >> when you went to Africa, and now that you have it, you have to keep it?
> Every couple of weeks, the answer to this question plays out in the media. > Religious nuts would refuse treatment. Just two weeks ago, another family > of religious nuts was sentenced for doing this. > It was their belief that God would get mad if they treated their > daughter's diabetes. > So they held a week-long prayer meeting while she dehydrated to death - a > very painful process that lasted about a week. Even as they led the family > away to prison, they were smiling and giggling with delight that they had > sent their daughter to "be with God".
The whole question of when the government should take over parenting because the parents are not doing their job is a really, really HUGE can of worms that no sane politician would touch with a 10 foot can opener.
-- MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:48:59 -0800, SkyEyes wrote: > On Nov 6, 3:21 pm, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 11:15 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > And there is the screeching hatred of women that has corrupted the >> > entire pro-lie cult.
>> > It is ALL about punishing "sluts".
>> Now YOU are projecting your own opinions.
> Actually, he's right. Read some of the anti-abort web sites. Their main > idea is that women should be punished for having sex. They try to sell > the idea that a woman consenting to have sex is *also* consenting to be > pregnant and carry a baby to term. They are very much against > contraception.
Did you notice how I worked that into my "picked up a parasite in Africa" analogy? I didn't really go into the contraception angle, but one could argue that taking an anti-parasite drug *before* going to Africa is also forbidden because it would kill the parasite after it enters your body.
> What they really want to do is control women, especially women's > sexuality. If you think this whole anti-abortion movement is about > anything else, you're a chump.
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > BAAWA Knight > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at > cox dot net
-- MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
> > > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind of a > > > > >> >>> mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would have with a > > > > >> >>> young woman contemplating killing her pre-born child. ...
> > > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> > > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the mother's > > > > >> > womb.
> > > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where the > > > > >> mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of course, if > > > > >> the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly the mother's > > > > >> fault, is it?
> > > > >> -- > > > > >> MarkA > > > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > > > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house just > > > > > move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive outside the house, > > > > > that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> > > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a woman is > > > > responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no such agreement > > > > when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants to put a 6 month old up > > > > for adoption, she should be able to do so. Same goes for a fetus.
> > > > -- > > > > MarkA > > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > > About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > > > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > > > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> > There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear > > someone saying that they feel that a new life -- by which > > they mean a new human -- is formed at the moment of > > conception. I wonder how you must feel about the > > fact that in the normal course of things, with no > > human intervention whatsoever, only about 20 > > to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant successfully > > and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. > > Only one of every four or five "new and separate" > > lives avoid being flushed out, almost always > > without the mother even being aware of it.
> > Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Is that not a natural event?
Of course it is; in fact, that was my point. Just like the Boxing Day tsunami which killed or orphaned hundreds of thousands of children. My question -- and this is something I have often wondered -- was if you think of the zygote, post-conception, as a new human being, then how can you bear the thought of a Boxing Day's worth of new humans being lost every two to three days, entirely through natural causes? A hundred million new souls a year, by my rough calculation?
> Are you saying that there is no > difference between that natural event and an abortion requiring a > doctor to remove the fetus?
I am making no statement whatsoever about abortion. I was just reflecting on your view as to when a new human life begins, and then trying to explore the implications of that.
> Now answer me this question. At what point do you believe that the > "fetus" becomes a human life? Is it not until the moment of birth and > therefore acceptable to terminate that life at any point prior to that > or at some point during those nine months? If at some point prior to > the nine months, what is the criteria for that division?
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:07:57 -0800, BobR wrote: > > On Nov 9, 9:20 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:29:42 -0800, BobR wrote:
> >> >> >> > I don't personally believe that there is a difference but believe that > >> >> >> > the case of rape is an exception that can be accepted.
> >> >> >> So, it's OK to murder someone if their father is a rapist? I guess that > >> >> >> fits with Judeo-Christian theology, in which God says it's OK to punish > >> >> >> people for the transgressions of their ancestors, up to 7 generations. > >> >> >> Personally, I think that is monstrous.
> >> >> > No, don't insert your own ignorant assumptions for what I said. I > >> >> > still disagree with abortion even in the case of rape but can see some > >> >> > justification for it under some circumstances. The rest of your > >> >> > statement is as stupid a statement as I have ever seen but expected > >> >> > from people who will justify abortion under all circumstances.
> >> >> Be careful you don't fall off your bike from back-pedaling so fast!
> >> > The percieved back-pedaling is what you want to see but is only in > >> > your mind.
> >> I am just reading what you wrote.
> >> >> Pardon my "ignorant assumption" for taking YOUR phrase, "the case of
> >> > Finally, you said something correct...your "Ignorant assumption".
> >> >> rape is an exception that can be accepted.", to mean that a woman who has > >> >> been raped should be able to get an abortion. I was also making the > >> >> "ignorant assumption" that you use English language words to mean what > >> >> they usually mean. Now, you are saying that "in the case of rape but > >> >> can see some justification for it under some circumstances." Are you > >> >> planning to run for Congress or something? That is as fast a backing down > >> >> from a strong position to a mushy one that would make any politician proud.
> >> > Your ignorant assumption is that I condone rather than just accept > >> > that in the case of rape that abortion could be allowed. There is a > >> > very distinct difference that you clearly can't understand or is it > >> > that you chose to not understand?
> >> At the risk of asking you to actually commit to an opinion, do you think > >> that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, or not? No waffling, > >> either. Start with either "yes" or "no", and feel free to explain further > >> if you feel it necessary.
> > Already answered twice but you apparently can't read very well or > > comprehend anything. So I will answer it one more time and say it > > very slow so you don't miss a word of it.
> > NO!
> > Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to say it slower and spell > > it out one letter at a time.
> > NO!
> Yes, that is very clear. Thank you very much. So, when the RCC, earlier > this year, decided that the 9 year old girl in Brazil, pregnant with twins > as the result of a rape, should not be permitted to have an abortion, you > agree that was a correct decision? This little girl would almost > certainly die, because the clumps of cells growing in her are too holy to > be removed? Frankly, after that case, it astounds me that there are ANY > people with any shred of decency who still call themselves "Catholic". > That case demonstrates that the Pope is a wicked, deluded man.
Why do you insist on making ASS-U-mptions without having any facts to base them on? When, as was the case in your extreme example, the mothers life would clearly be endangered by the pregnancy a choice must be made to save the life of the mother. My stand against abortion is not based on the Catholic church or any other religious stand. It is totally based on when I believe life begins and that a fundemental right to life exists and should be protected.
> >> >> I know that sticking to a principle regardless of the circumstance > >> >> is not a strong suit for religionists in general, and Christians in > >> >> particular, but try to understand this:
> >> > Quit trying to prove that you are an ass, you have already done that.
> >> >> IF a fetus is an innocent life that needs protection, THEN it is an > >> >> innocent life REGARDLESS of the circumstances: if the mother was > >> >> raped, if the mother if 14 years old, if the fetus has abnormalities > >> >> that guarantee that it cannot survive after birth. IF the fetus is > >> >> NOT an innocent life, AND the circumstances of the mother are > >> >> relevant, THEN it is up to the mother to decide what circumstances > >> >> justify having an abortion, and it is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
> >> >> Got it?
> >> > NOPE and I never will accept that argument either. The federal > >> > government has passed on that argument a long time ago and already > >> > makes much more than abortion the business of government.
> >> So, what part of that statement is confusing you?
> >> >> It is entirely possible to be philosophically opposed to abortion, > >> >> and also be opposed to depriving others of the ability to make their > >> >> own choice. As it turns out, the vast majority of the politically > >> >> active anti-abortionists are motivated by their religion, which > >> >> generally also encourages them to force their views on others. My > >> >> disagreement is not with those who oppose abortion, it is with those > >> >> who are "anti-choice."
> >> > Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but > >> > "Pro- Life". Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" > >> > advocates as "Anti-Life" advocates.
> >> EVERYBODY is "pro-life". The religious activists who oppose letting > >> women decide for themselves if abortion is necessary want to call > >> themselves "pro-life" as if it distinguished them from people who are > >> "pro-choice". It doesn't. They, are, in fact, "anti-choice".
> > Apparently you are so pro-life or you would be willing to take a stand > > in an effort to protect it. But wait: I know that sticking to a > > principle regardless of the circumstance is not a strong suit for non- > > believers and pro-abortionists so I guess it only applies in some > > circumstances.
> I do take a stand to protect life: the life of the woman. I just don't > agree that a microscopic clump of cells has a more legitimate claim to the > use of a woman's body than the woman herself does.
The fundamental difference between us is what your so called "microscopic clump of cells" represents. You think of it as a parasite to be destroyed and I believe it is a human being and deserves equal protection under the law. We will never agree on this and further argument is wasted.
> >> >> >> Here's another thought experiment: You are sitting in a > >> >> >> restaurant, enjoying dinner with you wife. Someone walks up to > >> >> >> her and shoots her in the head, right in front of you. The > >> >> >> shooter is arrested, but, after a brief investigation, is > >> >> >> released, and all charges dropped. Outraged, you call the DA's > >> >> >> office, and they tell you that and investigation reveal that your > >> >> >> father-in-law had once pleaded guilty to a charge of "date rape" > >> >> >> in high school.
> >> >> >> By the argument you have put forth, you are saying that is OK. > >> >> >> Amazing.
> >> >> > You are really too dumb to have a meaningful discussion with if > >> >> > that is what you think I was saying.
> >> >> I am often handicapped by the expectation that the people I talk to > >> >> will say what they mean, and stand by what they have said. > >> >> Clearly, you do not fit that category.
> >> > How the hell would you know, you make false assumptions of what > >> > people say and then base your opinions on your false assumptions.
> >> As I said, I assume people mean what they say. If I am not reading > >> you correctly, perhaps you could re-phrase your position.
> > Wouldn't do any good, you see only what you want to see anyway and its a > > waste of time to try and reason with you.
> I was confused when you seemed to be saying that it would be OK for a > woman to get an abortion if she had been raped. Now that I see that you > are one of those people who believe that a pregnant woman's rights fall > below those of the fetus, and that even YOU should have more authority > over her body than she does, I think I understand where you are coming > from.
No, clearly you don't and insist on taking the extreme position in trying to prove it.
> One point I don't think I will ever be able to understand is how someone > can consider themselves to be "pro-life", and "doing what God would want > them to do", when they believe that a clump of cells should have the power > to destroy the life, and possibly kill, a 9 year old girl, who has already > been the victim of one assault, and continues to be assaulted every hour > of every day, by the pregnancy that was forced on her. Nor can I > understand how people with such an extreme ideology, can believe that they > should have the authority to tell others how they should live. But then, > I don't understand how Muslims can commit acts of violence in protest of > being portrayed as violent, either.
You asked for and received my answer on rather I believed it to be OK to abort the child of a rape and I answered you. You were looking for an absolute answer of what I believed while holding back on your true question which was an extreme case that didn't just involve rape but also involved the rape of a child and the life of a child. Then you make assumptions based on the answer that were what YOU wanted to assume. Sorry but you missed the mark by a mile and you did so on purpose.
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:00 -0800, BobR wrote: > > On Nov 9, 3:07 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote: > >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:29:42 -0800 (PST), BobR > >> <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> in alt.abortion with message-id > >> <1ad3fba7-3155-4a27-b5af-ea6d7e1a9...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> > >> wrote:
> >> >Finally, I am not "Anti-Abortion" as you insist on referring but "Pro- > >> >Life".
> >> Anti-choice or Anti-freedom would be more accurate.
> >> > Maybe we should start referring to you "Pro-abortion" > >> >advocates
> >> I have seen no one here advocate abortion. Choice, yes - abortion, > >> no.
> > Now that is funny.
> Do you really fail to grasp that the whole issue is about depriving others > of the ability to make their own choices? I guess when you grow up > believing that it is OK for the Pope to tell you what to think, it is hard > to understand how some people would rather think for themselves.
> -- > MarkA > Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You insist on making assumptions that are false and then expecting me to defend them. I don't believe in the Pope, never have and never will. I don't listen to anything he says and think he is way off base on birth control.
What you fail to grasp or clearly want to deny is that I believe the whole issue is about life and the protection of a life that has no voice to make the choice to live or die.
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:56 -0800, BobR wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2:59 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 5, 3:15 pm, BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 5, 2:04 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:47:56 -0800, BobR wrote: > >> > > > On Nov 3, 7:20 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> > > >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:28:33 -0500, J wrote:
> >> > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind > >> > > >> >>> of a mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would > >> > > >> >>> have with a young woman contemplating killing her pre-born > >> > > >> >>> child. ...
> >> > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> >> > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the > >> > > >> > mother's womb.
> >> > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where > >> > > >> the mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of > >> > > >> course, if the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly > >> > > >> the mother's fault, is it?
> >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> MarkA > >> > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > >> > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> >> > > >> - Show quoted text -
> >> > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house > >> > > > just move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive > >> > > > outside the house, that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> >> > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a > >> > > woman is responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no > >> > > such agreement when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants > >> > > to put a 6 month old up for adoption, she should be able to do so. > >> > > Same goes for a fetus.
> >> > > -- > >> > > MarkA > >> > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > >> > > o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> >> > > - Show quoted text -
> >> > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > >> > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > >> > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > >> > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> >> There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear someone saying > >> that they feel that a new life -- by which they mean a new human -- is > >> formed at the moment of conception. I wonder how you must feel about > >> the fact that in the normal course of things, with no human intervention > >> whatsoever, only about 20 to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant > >> successfully and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. Only one > >> of every four or five "new and separate" lives avoid being flushed out, > >> almost always without the mother even being aware of it.
> >> Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Is that not a natural event? Are you saying that there is no difference > > between that natural event and an abortion requiring a doctor to remove > > the fetus?
> > Now answer me this question. At what point do you believe that the > > "fetus" becomes a human life? Is it not until the moment of birth and > > therefore acceptable to terminate that life at any point prior to that or > > at some point during those nine months? If at some point prior to the > > nine months, what is the criteria for that division?
> That's a reasonable question, but implies a "black & white" answer. The > fetus slowly becomes more and more human as it develops. At the point > where it can be viable outside the uterus, usually beginning in the third > trimester, abortion is no longer an option. That is like asking when > dough put into the oven becomes bread. It is a process, not an event.
Yes, it implies a "black & white" answer because the answer involves a "Life or Death" result.
The only problem with your example is that one involves life and death and the other is just food for a day.
> > > > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind of a > > > > > >> >>> mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would have with a > > > > > >> >>> young woman contemplating killing her pre-born child. ...
> > > > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> > > > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the mother's > > > > > >> > womb.
> > > > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where the > > > > > >> mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of course, if > > > > > >> the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly the mother's > > > > > >> fault, is it?
> > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> MarkA > > > > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > > > > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house just > > > > > > move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive outside the house, > > > > > > that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> > > > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a woman is > > > > > responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no such agreement > > > > > when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants to put a 6 month old up > > > > > for adoption, she should be able to do so. Same goes for a fetus.
> > > > > -- > > > > > MarkA > > > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > > > About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > > > > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > > > > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> > > There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear > > > someone saying that they feel that a new life -- by which > > > they mean a new human -- is formed at the moment of > > > conception. I wonder how you must feel about the > > > fact that in the normal course of things, with no > > > human intervention whatsoever, only about 20 > > > to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant successfully > > > and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. > > > Only one of every four or five "new and separate" > > > lives avoid being flushed out, almost always > > > without the mother even being aware of it.
> > > Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Is that not a natural event?
> Of course it is; in fact, that was my point. > Just like the Boxing Day tsunami which > killed or orphaned hundreds of thousands > of children. My question -- and this is > something I have often wondered -- was > if you think of the zygote, post-conception, > as a new human being, then how can you > bear the thought of a Boxing Day's worth > of new humans being lost every two to > three days, entirely through natural > causes? A hundred million new souls > a year, by my rough calculation?
> > Are you saying that there is no > > difference between that natural event and an abortion requiring a > > doctor to remove the fetus?
> I am making no statement whatsoever about abortion. > I was just reflecting on your view as to > when a new human life begins, and then trying to > explore the implications of that.
> Haiku Jones
There is a certain unfairness to life sometimes. My wife and I have been friends with many couples over the years to have tried every concievable method to have children only to fail time and again. Several have miscarried and I have seen the grief they suffered at the loss. All this while millions of abortions are carried out by those who place no value on the child they concieve or their ability to concieve. And before you rant on about why didn't they adopt, most of them ultimately did adopt several children. Failure to implant and miscarriage are both natural processes that can occur without outside intervention. Abortion is not a natural process and requires an outside intervention to complete. Same as dying of natural causes or euthanasia.
> > > > > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind of a > > > > > > >> >>> mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would have with a > > > > > > >> >>> young woman contemplating killing her pre-born child. ...
> > > > > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> > > > > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the mother's > > > > > > >> > womb.
> > > > > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where the > > > > > > >> mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of course, if > > > > > > >> the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly the mother's > > > > > > >> fault, is it?
> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> MarkA > > > > > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > > > > > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house just > > > > > > > move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive outside the house, > > > > > > > that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> > > > > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a woman is > > > > > > responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no such agreement > > > > > > when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants to put a 6 month old up > > > > > > for adoption, she should be able to do so. Same goes for a fetus.
> > > > > > -- > > > > > > MarkA > > > > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > > > > About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > > > > > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> > > > There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear > > > > someone saying that they feel that a new life -- by which > > > > they mean a new human -- is formed at the moment of > > > > conception. I wonder how you must feel about the > > > > fact that in the normal course of things, with no > > > > human intervention whatsoever, only about 20 > > > > to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant successfully > > > > and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. > > > > Only one of every four or five "new and separate" > > > > lives avoid being flushed out, almost always > > > > without the mother even being aware of it.
> > > > Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Is that not a natural event?
> > Of course it is; in fact, that was my point. > > Just like the Boxing Day tsunami which > > killed or orphaned hundreds of thousands > > of children. My question -- and this is > > something I have often wondered -- was > > if you think of the zygote, post-conception, > > as a new human being, then how can you > > bear the thought of a Boxing Day's worth > > of new humans being lost every two to > > three days, entirely through natural > > causes? A hundred million new souls > > a year, by my rough calculation?
> > > Are you saying that there is no > > > difference between that natural event and an abortion requiring a > > > doctor to remove the fetus?
> > I am making no statement whatsoever about abortion. > > I was just reflecting on your view as to > > when a new human life begins, and then trying to > > explore the implications of that.
> > Haiku Jones
> There is a certain unfairness to life sometimes. My wife and I have > been friends with many couples over the years to have tried every > concievable method to have children only to fail time and again. > Several have miscarried and I have seen the grief they suffered at the > loss. All this while millions of abortions are carried out by those > who place no value on the child they concieve or their ability to > concieve. And before you rant on about why didn't they adopt, most of > them ultimately did adopt several children. > Failure to implant and miscarriage are both natural processes that can > occur without outside intervention. Abortion is not a natural process > and requires an outside intervention to complete. Same as dying of > natural causes or euthanasia.
> > > > > > > > >We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > > > > >about killing the baby.
> > > > > > > > No, we are talking about terminating a pregnancy. All other factors > > > > > > > > are irrelevant side effects.
> > > > > > > If your mother had terminated you during her pregnancy would your non- > > > > > > > existance have been simply an irrelevant side effect?
> > > > > > Bobby, little buddy, grok this: there are way, *way* worse things > > > > > > than merely not existing. See if you can wrap your pointy little head > > > > > > around that fact.
> > > > > You should know.
> > > > > PS: I will never be your little buddy.
> > > > > > > > > At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > > > > >separate life is formed.
> > > > > > > > Even if true, so what? Are humans an endangered species? Where is > > > > > > > > the requirement that every possible individual must exist?
> > > > > > > Well hell, lets just thin the heard of all those we don't like then > > > > > > > while we are at it.
> > > > > > Well, we sure-as-shit need to thin the herd *somehow*. We're nigh > > > > > > onto seven billion as it is. If we don't cut back our numbers > > > > > > voluntarily, nature is going to do it for us. And it will be a damn > > > > > > sight uglier than mere abortions.
> > > > > > > Can we start with YOU?
> > > > > > Oh, Bobby, bad analogy: Atilla's already *here*. We don't advocate > > > > > > the killing of humans who have already gone through the birth process; > > > > > > that's the catholic church's job.
> > > > > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > > > > BAAWA Knight > > > > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
> > > > > The more you post the more I am convinced that you probably should > > > > > abort because you are totally unsuited to be anyones mother.
> > > > HALLELUJA!!!!!! HE SEES THE LIGHT!!!!!!!
> > > > Thank you, so much, for *finally* demonstrating a lick of common > > > > sense. I had about given up on you.
> > > > *Yes*, I *am* totally unsuited to be anybody's mother. I knew this at > > > > a very young age, about 11 years old, IIRC. And to the (entirely > > > > unknown) extent that my disaffection for children and disinclination > > > > towards motherhood may be genetic, why in hell would you want to risk > > > > sending such a gene on into the human lineage by preventing a woman > > > > like me from having an abortion?
> > > You don't seem to like yourself very much. Too bad, you might have > > > found something to love and nurture had you not decided to be so > > > selfish.
> > > > > Why > > > > > don't you just get your tubes tied and then you won't have to worry > > > > > about it?
> > > > Well, snookie, I don't get them tied *now* because I'm 60 years old > > > > and well past my fertile years. Thank Dog.
> > > That makes two of us but I will look forward to loving my wife, my > > > child and my grandchildren for years to come. How about you?
> > > > However, in my youth, I tried continuously to get my tubes tied. > > > > Doctors would pat me on the head or on the knee ad assure me that I > > > > would "change my mind." When I insisted that I wouldn't, they quoted > > > > a standard saying that a woman's age plus number of living children > > > > she already had must equal [some number, it may have been 40] before a > > > > tubal was considered an option. And since I had no living children, I > > > > didn't even come close to qualifying for a tubal.
> > > Then the doctors were wrong! On that point we can agree. I fully > > > agree with you on the prevention issue.
> > > > The same mind-set that told me I couldn't have a tubal when I was > > > > young is now trying to tell other women that they don't have the right > > > > to say what happens to their own bodies. It was wrong then, and it's > > > > wrong now.
> > > What you don't want to accept is that I don't have an issue with women > > > wanting to control their bodies. I believe they should have every > > > right to any form of prevention they chose. My belief, and it stems > > > from the scientific fact that a new life is formed at the moment of > > > conception, is the protection of a human life. I believe that life > > > deserves protection under the law. It is not about religion, it is > > > not about hatred of women or wanting to make women subservient or any > > > of your other claims. It is about protection of a life that has no > > > say and is being killed by the millions.
> > > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > > > > BAAWA Knight > > > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > > > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > There is no moment of conception, it's a process.
> > Tell ya what, pootzy. YOu don't like abortions, don't get one, and if > > you think you should dictate what women can do with our bodies, how > > about you let us women castrate and vasectomize your bodies? It's > > very cheap, very very safe, and very very very effective at ending all > > unwanted pregnancy. Sperm can easily be stored.
> > Women die from complications of tubals, of contraception you know. > > Men don't die from vasectomies. It's very cost effective to > > vasectomize the males instead of using costly, harmful methods that > > are less effective on women.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
Oh, for fuck's sake, get in touch with reality.
> They also die from complications from abortions but that is ok isn't > it?
Abortions are much, much safer than pregnancy and childbirth and certain forms of contraception. tubals are far more dangerous, and many women die from complications of hormonal methods. Etc.
> As long as they have the choice to end the life within them > without having to take responsibility for it.
Birthing a child you don't want and can't care for is very irresponsible.
>Yes, most men seem more > than happy to take advantage of letting women have abortions rather > than take any responsibility in either prevention or support after the > fact.
So you'd go back to the Olde Daze where men could get away with just running away? And you are aware that a leading cause of death for pregnant women in the usa is HOMICIDE, often at the hands of an unwilling babydaddy to be? Yes, I'm sure you would.
> Oh, and when my wife and I decided to not have any more children it > was I who took the active role in making sure we didn't have any > additional children.
Well, bully for you. Maybe you just preferred to be able to fuck around on the side and not worry about a paternity case.
> > > > > > >> >>> If the sight of an ultrasound can change the heart and mind of a > > > > > > >> >>> mass murderer, imagine the powerful influence it would have with a > > > > > > >> >>> young woman contemplating killing her pre-born child. ...
> > > > > > >> >> . What is a pre-born child?
> > > > > > >> > A baby who at the moment is geographically located inside the mother's > > > > > > >> > womb.
> > > > > > >> So, all you have to do is move the "baby" outside the womb, where the > > > > > > >> mother doesn't want it to be, and both will be happy. Of course, if > > > > > > >> the baby cannot survive outside a womb, that's hardly the mother's > > > > > > >> fault, is it?
> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> MarkA > > > > > > >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight > > > > > > >> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > > And if the mother doesn't want her 6 month old to be in the house just > > > > > > > move it outside. Of course, if the baby cannot survive outside the house, > > > > > > > that's hardly the mother's fault is it?
> > > > > > Is that 6 months after BIRTH? There is no disagreement that a woman is > > > > > > responsible for a baby *after it is born*. There is no such agreement > > > > > > when they are still in the womb. If a woman wants to put a 6 month old up > > > > > > for adoption, she should be able to do so. Same goes for a fetus.
> > > > > > -- > > > > > > MarkA > > > > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > > > > About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > We aren't talking about putting it up for adoption, we are talking > > > > > about killing the baby. At the moment of conception a new and > > > > > separate life is formed. That new life depends on the mother from > > > > > that moment on rather in the womb or out of it.
> > > > There's something I always wonder about whenever I hear > > > > someone saying that they feel that a new life -- by which > > > > they mean a new human -- is formed at the moment of > > > > conception. I wonder how you must feel about the > > > > fact that in the normal course of things, with no > > > > human intervention whatsoever, only about 20 > > > > to 25 percent of fertilized eggs implant successfully > > > > and avoid spontaneous abortion after implanting. > > > > Only one of every four or five "new and separate" > > > > lives avoid being flushed out, almost always > > > > without the mother even being aware of it.
> > > > Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Is that not a natural event?
> > Of course it is; in fact, that was my point. > > Just like the Boxing Day tsunami which > > killed or orphaned hundreds of thousands > > of children. My question -- and this is > > something I have often wondered -- was > > if you think of the zygote, post-conception, > > as a new human being, then how can you > > bear the thought of a Boxing Day's worth > > of new humans being lost every two to > > three days, entirely through natural > > causes? A hundred million new souls > > a year, by my rough calculation?
> > > Are you saying that there is no > > > difference between that natural event and an abortion requiring a > > > doctor to remove the fetus?
> > I am making no statement whatsoever about abortion. > > I was just reflecting on your view as to > > when a new human life begins, and then trying to > > explore the implications of that.
> > Haiku Jones
> There is a certain unfairness to life sometimes. My wife and I have > been friends with many couples over the years to have tried every > concievable method to have children only to fail time and again. > Several have miscarried and I have seen the grief they suffered at the > loss. All this while millions of abortions are carried out by those > who place no value on the child they concieve or their ability to > concieve. And before you rant on about why didn't they adopt, most of > them ultimately did adopt several children. > Failure to implant and miscarriage are both natural processes that can > occur without outside intervention. Abortion is not a natural process > and requires an outside intervention to complete. Same as dying of > natural causes or euthanasia.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There are millions of children in the world who need homes. There are hundreds of thousands of them in the usa right now. Your friends need to worry less about getting a healthy purebred puppy and worry about the children now who need them. But that would be unselfish, wouldn't it?
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote: >What you fail to grasp or clearly want to deny is that I believe the >whole issue is about life and the protection of a life that has no >voice to make the choice to live or die.
What YOU do not understand is that your words do not fit. You demand that pregnant women make sacrifices while you freely choose to let children die.
You want to save lives? You want to prevent abortions? Who is stopping you? Spend the money to feed children. Pay women to forgo abortion and give birth.
Oh, but that would be too inconveeeenient. It's so much easier to pretend that you care while insisting that other people suffer.
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 6:41 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:56 -0800, BobR wrote: >> > Now answer me this question. At what point do you believe that the >> > "fetus" becomes a human life? Is it not until the moment of birth and >> > therefore acceptable to terminate that life at any point prior to that or >> > at some point during those nine months? If at some point prior to the >> > nine months, what is the criteria for that division?
>> That's a reasonable question, but implies a "black & white" answer. The >> fetus slowly becomes more and more human as it develops. At the point >> where it can be viable outside the uterus, usually beginning in the third >> trimester, abortion is no longer an option. That is like asking when >> dough put into the oven becomes bread. It is a process, not an event.
>Yes, it implies a "black & white" answer because the answer involves a >"Life or Death" result.
>The only problem with your example is that one involves life and death >and the other is just food for a day.
How convenient for you that you expect other people to suffer and die for your rules that not even you can understand.
BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 8:04 am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am making no statement whatsoever about abortion. >> I was just reflecting on your view as to >> when a new human life begins, and then trying to >> explore the implications of that.
>There is a certain unfairness to life sometimes.
Remember that next time you whine aboout women getting abortions.
> My wife and I have >been friends with many couples over the years to have tried every >concievable method to have children only to fail time and again. >Several have miscarried and I have seen the grief they suffered at the >loss. All this while millions of abortions are carried out by those >who place no value on the child they concieve or their ability to >concieve.
Do you actually know any of these women you so casually slander?
> There are millions of children in the world who need homes. There are > hundreds of thousands of them in the usa right now. Your friends need > to worry less about getting a healthy purebred puppy and worry about > the children now who need them. But that would be unselfish, wouldn't > it?
That's a very good point. Churches here in Texas have been preaching the same thing to their congregations - with almost no success. It turns out that, for Christians at least, adoption is not an option.
Y'all are pretty good about calling others to do it - but not so much for yourself.
|
