| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2006 03:21:59 PM |
| Object: |
ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
4>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins. Many
"pro-lifers" are fundamentalist Christians but are
unable to quote any clear statements from their Bible
indicating that human life begins at conception. [And
most of them, especially the Catholics, are also against
artificial birth control, which would PREVENT the
unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7
KJV, which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
BREATH OF LIFE, and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life
begins (Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES
ITS FIRST BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore,
if an aborted fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to
breathe, or if an older fetus is biologically terminated
IN-side the womb, then that abortion can NOT be called
"murder", because NO Soul was present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working
battery but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called
an "AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist
Gordon-Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet"
Edgar Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around
people. The Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed
a way to locate the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA
becomes weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering
drugs, alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes
invade and cause insanity, possession, multiple
personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this
world KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be
aborted before birth or terminated immediately after
birth, and will simply STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the
United States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM,
and prevent it from being violated by others, NOT to
stifle it in the name of power, control, exploitation,
ORTHODOX RELIGION, or the money-god. Any man-made law
which fails that test is automatically and immediately
UN-Constitutional, null and void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to
control her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for
ALL People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before
birth, the world could rapidly become a decent place to
live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want
to create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE
their self-righteous religious values against the
rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
19 Apr 2006 10:40:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
4>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
"STIMPY, you EEDIOT!"
"See how I LOVE to clean... FEELTHY CATboxes!"
"Oh, my beloved ICE CREAM BAR! How I love to LICK your CREAMY CENTER!"
"ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS!"
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepalot" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 06:01:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
4>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
When you get a job, and leave home.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
28 Mar 2006 06:55:04 PM |
|
|
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
28 Mar 2006 07:26:59 PM |
|
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception. The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate, meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight, her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
28 Mar 2006 09:55:17 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It's actually pretty damn easy since the sperm and egg are both alive.
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate, meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight, her
privacy, and her rights.
--
--sexkitten--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 06:20:51 AM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
He means *a particular" human life.
I know he does. But in my view such a question is pointless. As
'sexkitten' has pointed out, the sperm and the egg are both alive, they
both carry part of the genetic information required to generate a new
human individual - therefore they are both 'human life'. There is no
reason to believe that the new individual does not 'begin' when the
gametes fuse to create the complete DNA sequence. That is my view, and
it is not based on religion, because my religion has nothing to say about
abortion.
As far as I am concerned the foetus is a human life from the start - and
I still do not oppose abortion. The question of when human life begins
is a red herring, but a valid question might be when a foetus becomes
self-aware; when it starts to appreciate the fact that it is alive. And
that is impossible to establish. So I believe that while that life is
dependent on the woman's body then she has every right to make every
choice concerning it - including whether or not it continues to develop.
If a woman is able to make a decision to terminate knowing and accepting
that the foetus would otherwise develop into a child then she is making
an informed and considered decision, and I support her right to do so
100%. If, in order to make the decision, she has to tell herself that
she is not really terminating a human life, then her decision is not
informed, and I would wonder whether she truly believes she is making the
right one - although I acknowledge that it remains hers alone to make.
You are correct: her privacy and her rights are paramount. While she
hosts the foetus then she has control over it - or should, in any case -
as she does any part of her body. It is not the place of religious
activists to tell her what she should or should not do with her body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:18:09 PM |
|
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
Dutch wrote:
He means *a particular" human life.
I know he does. But in my view such a question is pointless.
Perhaps, but nonetheless the question was put, so should be answered
truthfully.
As
'sexkitten' has pointed out, the sperm and the egg are both alive, they
both carry part of the genetic information required to generate a new
human individual - therefore they are both 'human life'.
But they are not "THE human organism" in question.
There is no
reason to believe that the new individual does not 'begin' when the
gametes fuse to create the complete DNA sequence. That is my view, and
it is not based on religion, because my religion has nothing to say about
abortion.
Exactly right.
As far as I am concerned the foetus is a human life from the start - and
I still do not oppose abortion. The question of when human life begins
is a red herring,
I think it needs to be cleared up and agreed upon, but I agree it's not the
definitive fact.
but a valid question might be when a foetus becomes
self-aware; when it starts to appreciate the fact that it is alive. And
that is impossible to establish.
I don't think that occurs until at least several weeks after birth at the
earliest.
So I believe that while that life is
dependent on the woman's body then she has every right to make every
choice concerning it - including whether or not it continues to develop.
That *is* the main point.
If a woman is able to make a decision to terminate knowing and accepting
that the foetus would otherwise develop into a child then she is making
an informed and considered decision, and I support her right to do so
100%. If, in order to make the decision, she has to tell herself that
she is not really terminating a human life, then her decision is not
informed, and I would wonder whether she truly believes she is making the
right one - although I acknowledge that it remains hers alone to make.
Excellent point. Why are pro-choice advocates trying to promote fallacies in
order to make a serious decision appear trivial?
You are correct: her privacy and her rights are paramount. While she
hosts the foetus then she has control over it - or should, in any case -
as she does any part of her body. It is not the place of religious
activists to tell her what she should or should not do with her body.
A voice of reason finally...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:44:57 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
If a woman is able to make a decision to terminate knowing and accepting
that the foetus would otherwise develop into a child then she is making
an informed and considered decision, and I support her right to do so
100%. If, in order to make the decision, she has to tell herself that
she is not really terminating a human life, then her decision is not
informed, and I would wonder whether she truly believes she is making the
right one - although I acknowledge that it remains hers alone to make.
Excellent point. Why are pro-choice advocates trying to promote fallacies in
order to make a serious decision appear trivial?
You claim to be pro-choice, so why do you push fallacies, propaganda,
and outright lies?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 01:37:53 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:442ad5a9$0$58073$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
If a woman is able to make a decision to terminate knowing and
accepting that the foetus would otherwise develop into a child then
she is making an informed and considered decision, and I support her
right to do so 100%. If, in order to make the decision, she has to
tell herself that she is not really terminating a human life, then
her decision is not informed, and I would wonder whether she truly
believes she is making the right one - although I acknowledge that
it remains hers alone to make.
Excellent point. Why are pro-choice advocates trying to promote
fallacies in order to make a serious decision appear trivial?
You claim to be pro-choice, so why do you push fallacies, propaganda,
and outright lies?
Obviously because Douche is lying about being pro-choice. The fallacies,
propaganda and outright lies are just par for the anti-choice course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:36:27 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
Dutch wrote:
He means *a particular" human life.
I know he does. But in my view such a question is pointless.
Perhaps, but nonetheless the question was put, so should be answered
truthfully.
As
'sexkitten' has pointed out, the sperm and the egg are both alive, they
both carry part of the genetic information required to generate a new
human individual - therefore they are both 'human life'.
But they are not "THE human organism" in question.
Yes, they are. They are human, alive and contain the elements for a person.
They fit all your criterion.
There is no
reason to believe that the new individual does not 'begin' when the
gametes fuse to create the complete DNA sequence. That is my view, and
it is not based on religion, because my religion has nothing to say about
abortion.
Exactly right.
As far as I am concerned the foetus is a human life from the start - and
I still do not oppose abortion. The question of when human life begins
is a red herring,
I think it needs to be cleared up and agreed upon, but I agree it's not the
definitive fact.
but a valid question might be when a foetus becomes
self-aware; when it starts to appreciate the fact that it is alive. And
that is impossible to establish.
I don't think that occurs until at least several weeks after birth at the
earliest.
So I believe that while that life is
dependent on the woman's body then she has every right to make every
choice concerning it - including whether or not it continues to develop.
That *is* the main point.
If a woman is able to make a decision to terminate knowing and accepting
that the foetus would otherwise develop into a child then she is making
an informed and considered decision, and I support her right to do so
100%. If, in order to make the decision, she has to tell herself that
she is not really terminating a human life, then her decision is not
informed, and I would wonder whether she truly believes she is making the
right one - although I acknowledge that it remains hers alone to make.
Excellent point. Why are pro-choice advocates trying to promote fallacies in
order to make a serious decision appear trivial?
Is "trivial" how you define "none of your business"?
You are correct: her privacy and her rights are paramount. While she
hosts the foetus then she has control over it - or should, in any case -
as she does any part of her body. It is not the place of religious
activists to tell her what she should or should not do with her body.
A voice of reason finally...
--
--sexkitten--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
28 Mar 2006 08:30:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin. The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate, meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight, her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:05:54 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of
pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin.
Of course it has, of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least. Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time over a
period of weeks.
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure? I am totally atheist and I think conception is the most
reasonable. There is only one reason to suggest any other time and that is a
desire to facilitate legal abortion. Although I favour choice in abortion, I
don't agree with forming arguments about reality based on it.
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate, meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight,
her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:30:15 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of
pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin.
Of course it has, of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least. Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
The old anti-abortion eugenics argument.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 10:06:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:05:54 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122k8u1t7abkl93@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of
pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin.
Of course it has,
No it has not.
of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least.
Anyone who says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who
says it starts at conception.
Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears
So what?
and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time over a
period of weeks.
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<===============================================
Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological
change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and
oxygen come from. These profound changes are a reason that I
consider birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing
'personhood.' For example you mention 'method of getting
nutrition and oxygen changes because of the change in
environment' Do you have any idea of the massive changes
necessary to accomplish this? Let me just address
circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound
respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I
think you'll regard birth as even more miraculous when you
understand what an amazing physiological event it is, and
what awesome changes happen at that moment!
At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal
hemodynamics; (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a
huge, though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a
rise in plasma C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate
regular breathing.
With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal
chest cavity) pressure remains low; after distension of the
airways, assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure
quickly rises to that of an adult..(-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure
in the pulmonary artery falls by 50%, but pressure in the
atrium immediately doubles or even triples.
In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the
capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes
most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to
rush into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in
the fetus called the ductus arteriosus. At birth, the first
expansion of the lungs forces all the blood in the right
ventricle into the pulmonary artery for the first time.
Furthermore, increased systemic arterial pressure actually
reverses the flow through the ductus arteriosus! Now,
neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta to the low
pressure pulmonary artery.
The massive increase in the left arterial pressure would,
before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the
right heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An
oval opening in the atrial septum that we all have before
birth.) However, (and this is cool..) the anatomical
configuration of the foramen is such that a valvelike fold
in the left atrial wall automatically closes the foramen
(hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed blood. That
always amazes me.
The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with
closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some
minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult
phase begins.
Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....
Umbilical vein...Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to
fetus
Ductus venosus...Conducts about half the blood from the
umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus
bypassing the liver
Foramen Ovale...Conveys large proportion of blood entering -
the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the
atrial septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the
lungs
Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary
artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs
Umbilical arteries...Carry blood from the internal iliac
arteries to the placenta for reoxygenation
Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels
constrict. The arteries close first, and if the umbilical
cord is not clamped or severed for a minute or so, blood
continues to flow from the placenta to the newborn through
the umbilical vein, adding to the newborn's blood volume.
The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in
the adult as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood
to the urinary bladder. The more distal portions become
solid cords (lateral umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical
vein becomes the cordlike ligamentum teres that extends from
the umbilicus to the liver in an adult. Similarly, the
ductus venosus constricts shortly after birth and is
represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamentum
venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of the
liver.
So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate newborn
and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many more
minor ones...ALL abruptly changing at the moment of birth:
(1) arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria;
(2)the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood into
the right atrium, where it goes into the right ventricle,
and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries, and finally to
the pulmonary capillary bed , and ; (3) the aorta now
carries only oxygenated blood from the left heart via the
pulmonary veins for distribution to the rest of the body.
The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but what enormous
changes have taken place in a few short seconds!
So, I'd appreciate if we didn't say that the immediate
newborn and term fetus are almost identical, because they
just aren't. The digestive changes alone would be ten times
the length of this very basic circulatory primer, and the
respiratory chemistry changes at the instant of birth could
fill a book.
cut here 8<================================================
He listed as sources:
_Gray's Anatomy_ 15th Edition; 1995
_Human Anatomy and Physiology_, Second Edition, John W. Hole
jr. 1988 Wm C. Brown Co.
_Current Obstetric and Gynecologic Diagnosis and Treatment_
8th Ed, DeCherney, Pernoll 1994
Posted by Pat Winstanley <ng_wisy@yahoo.co.uk>
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure?
In the US where I live religion is not the basis for any law. It does
not set any public standard and should have no public influence.
Since both sperm and eggs are alive in order to accomplish conception
to say that life 'starts' here is obviously wrong. It simply
continues.
I am totally atheist and I think conception is the most
reasonable. There is only one reason to suggest any other time and that is a
desire to facilitate legal abortion. Although I favour choice in abortion, I
don't agree with forming arguments about reality based on it.
I have seen none.
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate, meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight,
her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:05:24 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:8nbl22h7ou2itmdsv5balern4l2if85g1m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:05:54 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122k8u1t7abkl93@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of
pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin.
Of course it has,
No it has not.
of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least.
Anyone who says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who
says it starts at conception.
Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears
So what?
That genetic code is what defines the new individual organism as distinct
from all others.
and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time over
a
period of weeks.
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<==================================
[..]
Why did you post that irrelevant diatribe after admitting that "Anyone who
says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who says it starts
at conception." Birth is an instantaneous and dramatic adaptation to a new
environment, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure?
In the US where I live religion is not the basis for any law. It does
not set any public standard and should have no public influence.
No, I meant how do you figure that "'start at conception' argument is rooted
squarely in religion"? I can't see ANYthing religious about it. Some people
may BELIEVE that it is a holy event, or whatever, but the phenomenon itself
is purely biological. Even the word "conception" implies that answer to the
very question.
Since both sperm and eggs are alive in order to accomplish conception
to say that life 'starts' here is obviously wrong. It simply
continues.
That's an equivocation. Of course "life" (on earth) is a continuus process.
The sperm and egg cells were previously undifferentiated cellular matter
within the parent bodies, previous to that they were protein in some food
the parents ingested, prior to that they were part of some plant.. etc.. the
first law of thermodynamics in action, but this is NOT the point. The
question here is when does the SPECIFIC human organism begin that is defined
by the unique genetic code in the blastula, and the answer is during the
conception stage. Anything prior to that is living processes, but NOT THIS
particular organism, everything subsequent are simply later stages of
development.
I am totally atheist and I think conception is the most
reasonable. There is only one reason to suggest any other time and that is
a
desire to facilitate legal abortion. Although I favour choice in abortion,
I
don't agree with forming arguments about reality based on it.
I have seen none.
Of course not ;^\
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate,
meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the
existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight,
her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 12:43:24 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least.
Anyone who says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who
says it starts at conception.
Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears
So what?
That genetic code is what defines the new individual organism as distinct
from all others.
Individuality and distinctness have never been determined by genes.
For thousands of years humanity knew nothing of genes and had no
problem telling one person from another. Identical twins are distinct
people even though they share the same genes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
29 Mar 2006 03:15:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:05:24 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122lj33oghejqa3@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:8nbl22h7ou2itmdsv5balern4l2if85g1m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:05:54 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122k8u1t7abkl93@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122joj2simhbcbd@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.
Human life began many thousands of generations ago and has continued
uninterrupted ever since.
He means *a particular" human life. I disagree with him, debating when a
human life begins will never prevail as an argument in favour of
pro-choice
because it is impossible to show that it does not begin at conception.
It certainly has not shown that it does so begin.
Of course it has,
No it has not.
of all the arguments, conception is the most compelling,
birth is the least.
Anyone who says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who
says it starts at conception.
Conception is the time when a new genetic string first
appears
So what?
That genetic code is what defines the new individual organism as distinct
from all others.
So what? You have determined a particular fetus has a unique genetic
code different from any other. Again, so what?
What difference does this make? Why should it matter to anyone?
and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time over
a
period of weeks.
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<==================================
[..]
Why did you post that irrelevant diatribe after admitting that "Anyone who
says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who says it starts
at conception." Birth is an instantaneous and dramatic adaptation to a new
environment, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
It was in response to the idiotic response above about birth,
especially how it can "be chosen at random from any time over a period
of weeks".
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure?
In the US where I live religion is not the basis for any law. It does
not set any public standard and should have no public influence.
No, I meant how do you figure that "'start at conception' argument is rooted
squarely in religion"? I can't see ANYthing religious about it. Some people
may BELIEVE that it is a holy event, or whatever, but the phenomenon itself
is purely biological. Even the word "conception" implies that answer to the
very question.
Because that seems to be the position most of the religious nut I have
seen will take.
Since both sperm and eggs are alive in order to accomplish conception
to say that life 'starts' here is obviously wrong. It simply
continues.
That's an equivocation. Of course "life" (on earth) is a continuus process.
The sperm and egg cells were previously undifferentiated cellular matter
within the parent bodies, previous to that they were protein in some food
the parents ingested, prior to that they were part of some plant.. etc.. the
first law of thermodynamics in action, but this is NOT the point. The
question here is when does the SPECIFIC human organism begin that is defined
by the unique genetic code in the blastula, and the answer is during the
conception stage. Anything prior to that is living processes, but NOT THIS
particular organism, everything subsequent are simply later stages of
development.
No, it simply points out that when "life begins" **does not matter**.
It is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with when a
human being exists.
That requires live birth - who cares how long that 'life' has
previously existed? I assure you I could not care less.
I am totally atheist and I think conception is the most
reasonable. There is only one reason to suggest any other time and that is
a
desire to facilitate legal abortion. Although I favour choice in abortion,
I
don't agree with forming arguments about reality based on it.
I have seen none.
Of course not ;^\
The
best that can be attained in that argument would be a stalemate,
meanwhile
abortion could be illegal by then. I think the strongest pro-choice
positions are the ones who avoid such quibbling, acknowledge the
existence
of the fetus, then focus politely but directly on the woman, her plight,
her
privacy, and her rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
30 Mar 2006 02:24:52 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
That genetic code is what defines the new individual organism as distinct
from all others.
So what? You have determined a particular fetus has a unique genetic
code different from any other. Again, so what?
What difference does this make? Why should it matter to anyone?
Again, read the Subject, it IS the subject of this discussion. Many people
believe that it is important to establish this.
and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the
mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time
over
a
period of weeks.
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<==================================
[..]
Why did you post that irrelevant diatribe after admitting that "Anyone who
says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who says it starts
at conception." Birth is an instantaneous and dramatic adaptation to a new
environment, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
It was in response to the idiotic response above about birth,
especially how it can "be chosen at random from any time over a period
of weeks".
Have you never heard of a Caesarean Section? That is a pre-scheduled birth,
the time is selected by the doctor.
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure?
In the US where I live religion is not the basis for any law. It does
not set any public standard and should have no public influence.
No, I meant how do you figure that "'start at conception' argument is
rooted
squarely in religion"? I can't see ANYthing religious about it. Some
people
may BELIEVE that it is a holy event, or whatever, but the phenomenon
itself
is purely biological. Even the word "conception" implies that answer to
the
very question.
Because that seems to be the position most of the religious nut I have
seen will take.
That is probably the case, but it's a biological opinion, not a religious
one. If you relied purely on scriptures you would probably conclude that
birth was the beginning of life.
Since both sperm and eggs are alive in order to accomplish conception
to say that life 'starts' here is obviously wrong. It simply
continues.
That's an equivocation. Of course "life" (on earth) is a continuus
process.
The sperm and egg cells were previously undifferentiated cellular matter
within the parent bodies, previous to that they were protein in some food
the parents ingested, prior to that they were part of some plant.. etc..
the
first law of thermodynamics in action, but this is NOT the point. The
question here is when does the SPECIFIC human organism begin that is
defined
by the unique genetic code in the blastula, and the answer is during the
conception stage. Anything prior to that is living processes, but NOT THIS
particular organism, everything subsequent are simply later stages of
development.
No, it simply points out that when "life begins" **does not matter**.
It is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with when a
human being exists.
You are presuming that "born person"/ "human being" is the only stage of
human deserving of protection, that is simply begging the question.
That requires live birth - who cares how long that 'life' has
previously existed? I assure you I could not care less.
I think that you have established that you say you don't care when a human
life begins. I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
[..]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
30 Mar 2006 06:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122ofkj9oumbab8@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
That genetic code is what defines the new individual organism as distinct
from all others.
So what? You have determined a particular fetus has a unique genetic
code different from any other. Again, so what?
What difference does this make? Why should it matter to anyone?
Again, read the Subject, it IS the subject of this discussion. Many people
believe that it is important to establish this.
My subject line says"ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS". I see
nothing there about genetic code or an 'individual organism'.
Just because many people thing something that does not mean it is
valid or important.
and when the process of cell replication starts. From just prior to
birth to birth virtually nothing happens except separation from the
mother
ship, in fact the time of birth can be chosen at random from any time
over
a
period of weeks.
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<==================================
[..]
Why did you post that irrelevant diatribe after admitting that "Anyone who
says life starts at birth is as big an idiot as someone who says it starts
at conception." Birth is an instantaneous and dramatic adaptation to a new
environment, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
It was in response to the idiotic response above about birth,
especially how it can "be chosen at random from any time over a period
of weeks".
Have you never heard of a Caesarean Section? That is a pre-scheduled birth,
the time is selected by the doctor.
Which is not an event that is chosen at random over a period of weeks.
The 'start at
conception' argument is rooted squarely in religion and thus can be
ignored.
How do you figure?
In the US where I live religion is not the basis for any law. It does
not set any public standard and should have no public influence.
No, I meant how do you figure that "'start at conception' argument is
rooted
squarely in religion"? I can't see ANYthing religious about it. Some
people
may BELIEVE that it is a holy event, or whatever, but the phenomenon
itself
is purely biological. Even the word "conception" implies that answer to
the
very question.
Because that seems to be the position most of the religious nut I have
seen will take.
That is probably the case, but it's a biological opinion, not a religious
one. If you relied purely on scriptures you would probably conclude that
birth was the beginning of life.
Scriptures are irrelevant, especially since they have never been
proven valid.
Since both sperm and eggs are alive in order to accomplish conception
to say that life 'starts' here is obviously wrong. It simply
continues.
That's an equivocation. Of course "life" (on earth) is a continuus
process.
The sperm and egg cells were previously undifferentiated cellular matter
within the parent bodies, previous to that they were protein in some food
the parents ingested, prior to that they were part of some plant.. etc..
the
first law of thermodynamics in action, but this is NOT the point. The
question here is when does the SPECIFIC human organism begin that is
defined
by the unique genetic code in the blastula, and the answer is during the
conception stage. Anything prior to that is living processes, but NOT THIS
particular organism, everything subsequent are simply later stages of
development.
No, it simply points out that when "life begins" **does not matter**.
It is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with when a
human being exists.
You are presuming that "born person"/ "human being" is the only stage of
human deserving of protection, that is simply begging the question.
That requires live birth - who cares how long that 'life' has
previously existed? I assure you I could not care less.
I think that you have established that you say you don't care when a human
life begins.
I don't consider it important.
I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
I disagree with it even being an issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
31 Mar 2006 02:48:45 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> in
I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your
pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
I disagree with it even being an issue.
And if I don't agree that the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" is an
issue?
Where are we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
31 Mar 2006 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:48:45 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122pr7boip9554c@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> in
I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your
pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
I disagree with it even being an issue.
And if I don't agree that the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" is an
issue?
Where are we?
I am satisfied to leave it exactly as it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
01 Apr 2006 03:25:32 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:48:45 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122pr7boip9554c@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> in
I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your
pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
I disagree with it even being an issue.
And if I don't agree that the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" is
an
issue?
Where are we?
I am satisfied to leave it exactly as it is.
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
he said: I disagree with the so-called life of the fetus even being an
issue.
he said: I disagree with the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" even
being an issue.
I need to believe that facing up to the truth for both sides can result in a
resolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
01 Apr 2006 06:21:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122truaeoefjr76@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:48:45 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122pr7boip9554c@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> in
I think the truth is, you just are not equipped to deal with
the issues in any substantial way, you simply want to assert your
pro-choice
opinion and have everyone accept it as truth.
I disagree with it even being an issue.
And if I don't agree that the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" is
an
issue?
Where are we?
I am satisfied to leave it exactly as it is.
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion - she wants
it.
There is only one reason for a woman not to get an abortion - she
doesn't want it.
he said: I disagree with the so-called life of the fetus even being an
issue.
Correct - I do.
he said: I disagree with the woman's so-called "reproductive freedom" even
being an issue.
Correct - I do.
I need to believe that facing up to the truth for both sides can result in a
resolution.
A resolution exists. Stop restricting the rights of women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
01 Apr 2006 11:34:32 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
[..]
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
That's nice. Why should restrictions be removed? Why should anyone listen to
a person who can't even admit that a fetus is a human?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
01 Apr 2006 11:42:04 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
That's nice. Why should restrictions be removed? Why should anyone listen to
a person who can't even admit that a fetus is a human?
Why can't you admit that a fetus is not a human? Why do you cling to
your religion and ignore all of the facts?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gods Creator" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
04 Apr 2006 05:14:44 AM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
[..]
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
That's nice. Why should restrictions be removed? Why should anyone listen to
a person who can't even admit that a fetus is a human?
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*No fertilized sperm cell is a human*
Until... it can breathe and feed it *SELF* externally.
:-) Do you eat up live chickens with you bacon? :-)
God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive ****** )
:-)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
05 Apr 2006 03:34:00 AM |
|
|
"God's Creator" <Why_Are_Gods@Always.Bro.ke> wrote
*No fertilized sperm cell is a human*
Until... it can breathe and feed it *SELF* externally.
That leaves out children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
06 Apr 2006 12:58:34 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"God's Creator" <Why_Are_Gods@Always.Bro.ke> wrote
*No fertilized sperm cell is a human*
Until... it can breathe and feed it *SELF* externally.
That leaves out children.
You've never had any children, have you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
02 Apr 2006 10:40:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:34:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122uoj9m96sfj6e@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
[..]
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
That's nice. Why should restrictions be removed?
To give a basic and necessary freedom to women.
Why should anyone listen to
a person who can't even admit that a fetus is a human?
Because it isn't, and all of your comments to the contrary will not
make it so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION, & WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
02 Apr 2006 02:24:41 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:82sv2214inbn121gnpgj0bks7tnu9c24ct@4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:34:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <122uoj9m96sfj6e@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
[..]
I'm not, this dialogue needs to be taken to another level. It's past the
time where this kind of impasse is good enough...
I would like to see any restrictions removed.
That's nice. Why should restrictions be removed?
To give a basic and necessary freedom to women.
Why not allow women to kill their infant children? Could you support such a
law?
Why not? What business is it of yours?
Why should anyone listen to
a person who can't even admit that a fetus is a human?
Because it isn't, and all of your comments to the contrary will not
make it so.
A fetus is a human. All your your comments to the contrary will not make it
anything else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
