| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2003 06:04:50 PM |
| Object: |
Craig vs. Papa Jack # 2 |
From: Papa Jack (papajack@stic.net)
Subject: Craig vs. Papa Jack 2
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
Date: 2002-03-28 07:42:09 PST
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote
in message news:<3ca82eeb.20251389@netnews.mchsi.com>...
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Apobetic´" <Coward@Phony-Email.com> wrote:
"Thurbo" <thurbo_wave@yahoo.com> wrote:
****************************************************************
Papa Jack explains:
I've been repeatedly trying to get Craig Chilton
to reply to my statements directed at what he
wrote. I finally got a reply.
This is likely to be quite long, so I'll break it
into sections.
S E C T I O N 2
****************************************************************
Craig Chilton wrote:
The PROOF that I post solid FACTS regularly? I post
the following outline frequently, and you have seen it,
probably often. ...
==============================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Yep, in fact, I provided a detailed reply on
March 14, 2002. It was first in the thread
titled: "Will Craig Chilton Run Away? But
you ignored it. I guess you will now claim
your "...server failed to provide it to me at
the time, and I learned about it only yesterday."
Go to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=6f9e1b49.0203141940.fb81fe9%40posting.google.com&rnum=11
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
...It is FILLED with facts, which you CANNOT
disprove.
==============================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
I've posted my detailed answers several times, Craig.
Look under "Craig Chilton Runs Away from Papa Jack"
on March 18, 2002. Go to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2132987670d&hl=en&selm=6f9e1b49.0203180715.44c81204%40posting.google.com&rnum=74
But, I guess your server failed again. Have you
considered changing servers?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
NOR can any other Anti-Choicer, because facts are
TRUTHS.
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
I also posted the same detailed reply under "Here's
a Message Craig Ran Away From" on March 16, 2002.
Go to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1413382751d&hl=en&selm=6f9e1b49.0203160911.402cd79b%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
And in more than 40 years of activism in support
of the vital REMEDY of abortion,...
==============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Pregnancy is a normal and natural condition for women in
the child-bearing years. Thus, abortion is a "REMEDY"
only in those few cases where there are serious medical
complications which threaten the mother's life. Quit
trying to misuse the term "REMEDY" to pretend pregnancy
is a disease which must be cured.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
...for women who CHOOSE it -- I have NEVER
seen an actual FACT that supports being ANTI-
Choice.[8th unsupported assertion]
==============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
There are many many FACTS which support the
Pro-Life position against unnecessary abortions.
You just don't choose to accept any FACTS
which contradict your political agenda, Craig.
I will provide some of those Pro-Life FACTS
as we go along.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
THIS is the outline to which I refer. (It'll
be entertaining to watch as you either IGNORE
the facts it presents... EDIT them out...or
spew LIES (such as denying the obvious --
that they ARE facts.) ---
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes
& fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation)...
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
And, sometimes after the 7th month. For example,
a 1997 Washington Post article by Lorraine Adams
titled "Abortion Doctor Thanked Clinton at Coffee."
Go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/tiller2.htm
The article began:
When Wichita physician George Tiller made
a $25,000 contribution last year to the
Democratic National Committee, he asked
a Kansas party fund-raiser for a special
favor in return.
One of the few doctors in the country WHO
PERFORM THIRD-TRIMESTER ABOR-
TIONS, Tiller wanted a chance to personally
thank President Clinton for 30 months of
door-to-door protection by the U.S. Marshals
Service....
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
...which have ALL of these characteristics in common with
sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
WRONG. You clearly need to take a course in biology.
Sperm and ova are NOT individual human beings.
Sperm and ova have the DNA of a SINGLE HUMAN
BEING. Thus, they are PARTS of the single person
who produces them.
The new embryo has 23 chromosome PAIRS. IOW,
this embryo gained 23 chromosomes from the mother
and 23 from the father. These chromosomes must
combine for an embryo to form.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/GG/human.html
Once a fertilized ovum implants in the uterus of a
woman, a new individual has started life. That new
individual has a DNA which is different from both
the mother and the father.
Do you realize that in rape cases the police are able
to identify the rapist by comparing a sample of his
DNA to the DNA of the sperm from the victim?
Doesn't that tell you something, Craig? The sperm
is a part of the rapist.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
I won't go there, Craig. You drag your religious beliefs
thru the mud -- misusing them in this sleazy propaganda
of yours. Why don't we leave religion and the Bible out
of it?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's nice. But, is "putting their lives back on track"
worth killing unborn living human beings? That is the
question we're dealing with -- not how convenient abortion
might be to those who goofed by getting pregnant.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
In most states, young girls under certain ages cannot
legally give consent for sex. Thus, when little underage
girls get pregnant, it is called "statutory rape." The
Findlaw dictionary defines statutory rape as:
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=ac/ac7a3e0d7458aaee000fded5b5b5b081
": rape consisting of sexual intercourse with a person
beneath an age (as 14 years) specified by statute..."
You will find most Pro-Lifers would reluctantly make
exceptions in cases of rape.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's an old, outdated, and dubious statistic put out
by the section of the CDC which is run by professional
abortionists.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
=============================
================================
Papa Jack replied:
I have an adopted son and an adopted granddaughter.
My son recently located his birth mother -- and his
birth brother -- and his two birth sisters. They
had a good old time trading stories. Now tell me
how it would have been better if my son's birth
mother had hired an abortionist to kill him.
My granddaughter is just turning 3 years old. She
is a darling. It's an open abortion, so the birth
mother receives photos and periodic updates on how
she is doing. She's a wonderful delight. So, now,
why don't you try to convince me the birth mother
would have been better off to have had her killed.
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Children cost money, so
that's a good reason to kill them. Is that your logic?
You're a kind hearted soul -- NOT!
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Do you realize that child abuse statistics have GONE
UP substantially since 1973 (Roe v. Wade)?
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/statinfo/nis3.cfm#national
The National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect
The findings of the Third National Incidence Study
of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) show a sharp
increase in the scope of the problem, whether mal-
treatment is defined using the Harm Standard or the
Endangerment Standard.
Estimated Incidence As Defined by the Harm Standard.
An estimated 1,553,800 children in the United States
were abused or neglected under the Harm Standard in
1993. The NIS-3 total reflects a 67-percent increase
since the NIS-2 estimate, which indicated that the
total was 931,000 children in 1986, and it corresponds
to a 149-percent increase since the NIS-1 estimate for
1980 of 625,100 children. Significant or close-to-
significant increases were found in both abuse and
neglect. ...
If abortion on demand will help ensure all children are
wanted and go into loving homes, why are child abuse
stats going up, up, up, despite the fact that over
30,000,000 unborn children were killed by abortionists
since 1973?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
As Dr. Frank Beckwith asked: "Does this mean that because
people die or are harmed while killing other people, the
state should make it safe for them to do so? Go to:
http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html
First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the
original leaders of the American pro-abortion move-
ment and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion
Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-
life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights
movement intentionally fabricated the number of women
who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.
How many deaths were we talking about
when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L.
we generally emphasized the drama of the
individual case, not the mass statistics, but
when we spoke of the latter it was always
"5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess
that I knew the figures were totally false,
and I suppose the others did too if they
stopped to think of it. But in the "morality"
of the revolution, it was a useful figure,
widely accepted, so why go out of our
way to correct it with honest statistics.
The overriding concern was to get the
laws eliminated, and anything within
reason which had to be done was permissible.
Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in
the best official statistical studies available.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics,
there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal
abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.
[12] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of
Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University
Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady
decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942.
That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved
medical care and the use of penicillin, this number
fell to 133 by 1968. [13] The year before the first
state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about
120 abortion-related deaths. [14]
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been
done
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's interesting. IOW, you claim that among those who
had abortions an average of 1 in 3 had TWO abortions.
What is your source for this information -- or, did you
just pull it out of the air?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE
kids later, when the timing is better
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You keep making these statements like you qualified as
some sort of true expert, Craig. Where are you getting
your information? How do we know how accurate the
information is when you hide your sources?
This one is a good example. Is this just your personal
opinion, or did you learn that from an expert source?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Are you really arguing it's a good thing so many unborn
were slaughtered in abortion mills because otherwise
some of the children born later would not have been born?
That's a totally ludicrous point of view. Are you sure you
weren't raised in a Mafia family?
==============================================================
Craig Chilton wrote:
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2001 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the
attack on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the
entire world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
==============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
This is a totally dishonest and unsubstantiated misuse of statistics.
Start with the FACT that an estimated 1,553,800 children in the
U.S. were abused or neglected under in 1993 -- compared to
an estimate for 1980 of 625,100 children.
1993 1,553,800
1980 - 625,100
-------------
928,700 = growth in annual child abuse & neglect
Maybe you would tell us the more we abuse kids the lower
the crime rate will go, Craig? That would be just as
sensible as most of the other "stuff" you've posted.
Next, you've shown no connections between any crime figures
and any abortion figures. This is pure WILD SPECULATION.
But,it is certainly typical of the way PARs go about trying
to debate.
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
