Pro-Aborts Kill and Lie

Science > Abortion > Pro-Aborts Kill and Lie

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 3

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Damien"
Date:	17 Dec 2004 06:32:46 AM
Object:	Pro-Aborts Kill and Lie

Pro aborts still lie and pretend that abortion doesn't kill a human
being. The only proof offered for this fantasy is, a law! LOL A law
that says a humans do not have any rights until they are born, that is
their proof! LMAO
To think the unborn human is not a human being is like thinking that
the earth is flat! There is any doubt about not what but who the
unborn are, human offspring are human beings. The only debatable issue
is whether human young in the womb have any rights, and if so what age
are they entitled to these rights (eg viability).
So please pro aborts keep making a fool of yoursleves. It gives
everyone a laugh when pro aborts compare an unborn human with a
gamete.
Abortion is a business, like tobacco companies. Do you think they are
going to tell you the truth and get in the way of profit.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Craig Chilton...nutter and liar	11 Jan 2005 05:06:01 AM

Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,475 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!! wrote:

On 9 Jan 2005 02:10:50 -0800,
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm not even REMOTELY like you or your hateful, bigoted,
and abjectly-ignorant ilk.

You refer to the unborn human young as a reproductive entity. That is
ignorance. read an anatomy book and learn the diffrence between
reproduction and development. One begins at fertilisation, while one
ends at fertilisation.

You are intolerant to unborn human life

...which have NO intrinsic value, (rest of cut and paste

propaganda cut)
All human life has some value. Children are our most precious resource.

...ignorant of any facts of human reproduction,...

Blatant LIE.

No, you still don't know the difference between a gamete and a human in
an early stage of development. and you keep showing your ignorance on
the matter...please continue lol

...and hateful of anyone who tries to defend these helpless
human young.

I oppose loathsome and inane agendas against human rights and
personal liberties.

Then be pro life! and don't be a hypocrite, oppose agendas against any
humans life. Do no be exclusive in who you support, be inclusive and
include all humans, even in the womb. Tolerance. Abortion should be a
LAST resort, yet you defend it like it was a simple remedy like popping
an asprin, are you making a mockery of all those mothers (ad fathers)
who grieve for their lost offspring, when they do not make it to birth.
The only entities that the term, "helpless human

young" describes are infants -- who have been BORN.

No, no one could be more helpless than the young in the womb.

You are totally without excuse, lowlife.

You are without excuse, you have no evidence to say that a human being
isn't killed durng an abortion. The prodcedure is very rarely
necessary, and should be a last resort, like any death sentence.
Pregnancy is a natural thing, womans bodies are/have designed/evolved
to bear their young for about 9 months. Should a woman have an abortion
if her work is really busy? After all its her choice, and her work can
hardly be supportive of an elective procedure like giving birth! Is
this where you want to head, no more rights for mothers? As well as
things like maternity leave, you need to consider welfare payments as
well. Ater all its an elective procedure.
Abortion takes away liberty, and takes away a life

-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

What facts have you got? you can't even understand what reproduction
and development are. After reproduction something is produced, the
young of the species reproducing. The young develops in their mothers
womb, and continues to develop after birth

And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda,

Why call yourself a bigot?
that TOO is an additional nail in

the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate

destination.
Yes pro abortion is dying
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Craig Chilton...nutter and liar	11 Jan 2005 09:19:11 AM

<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm not even REMOTELY like you or your hateful, bigoted,
and abjectly-ignorant ilk.

Reproduction begins at meiosis.

You are intolerant to unborn human life

...which have NO intrinsic value, (rest of cut and paste

propaganda cut)

All human life has some value.

Like those millions of sperm you murdered?

Children are our most precious resource.

Which is why you can't be bothered to help any.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,474 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!"
Title: Re: "Damien" (Remember "The Omen" trilogy? Very FITTING alias, he chose!) ...nutter and liar	11 Jan 2005 12:31:29 PM

On 11 Jan 2005 03:06:01 -0800,
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

> wrote:

"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

> wrote:

"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not even REMOTELY like you or your hateful, bigoted,
and abjectly-ignorant ilk.

You refer to the unborn human young as a reproductive entity.

No. Since there is no such thing as "unborn human young," I
referred ONLY to reproductive-process entities. All "young" humans
have been BORN. **You** are the person who's NOYTWIT enough to
pretend that they reproductive-process entities are anything *other*
than that. Contributes to your Laughingstock status.

That is ignorance. read an anatomy book and learn the diffrence
between reproduction and development. One begins at fertilisation,
while one ends at fertilisation.

"Development,' while a necessay PART of the process, is irrelevant
to the point I was making. That being that ALL FOUR stages of the
reproductive process are equally necessary to it... and ALL FOUR
stages' entities are human, unique, and living **potential** people.
And Stage ONE is the GAMETE stage.
At that stage, more than a quadrillion potential people are
electively aborted DAILY, worldwide... while hypocritical
Anti-Choicers look the other way and whistle a tune.

You are intolerant to [reproductive-process entities]...

...which have NO intrinsic value, when attempts are made by hateful
and busybodyish bigots to use those worthless entities that have NO
intrisnsic value to wreck the lives, well-being, and furures of ACTUAL
people who do. That means I'm a fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate person. The OPPOSITE of gutlessly-anonymous
lowlifes like you who supporrt such SHAMEFUL agendas against
human rights, that you don't even have the courage of your convic-
tions to sign your names to your posts. "Joan of Arcs," you are NOT!

All human life has some value.

That which does not comprise a person, or a part of a person,
has NO intrinsic value. But such tissue may be of value to medical
science, and **thereby** to humanity.

Children are our most precious resource.

True. And ALL children have been BORN.

...ignorant of any facts of human reproduction,...

Blatant LIE. but **you** are so bone-ignorant, you can't even
figure out that the quadrillion-per-day electively-aborted gametes
that you hypocritically don't defend, are Stage ONE of the repro-
ductive process. (No wonder you cravenly cower behind an
alias; you friends would laugh you out of town if they know how
bigoted and stupid you are.)

No, you still don't know the difference between a gamete and a
human in an early stage of development.

Wrong. A gamete being formed in a person's reproductive organs IS
a potential human being in its *earliest* stage of development.

...and you keep showing your ignorance on the matter...please
continue lol

That laughter had better be at yourself -- the one you just (one
AGAIN) made a total FOOL of.

...and hateful of anyone who tries to defend these helpless
human young.

I oppose loathsome and inane agendas against human rights and
personal liberties. The only entities that the term, "helpless human
young" describes are infants -- who have been BORN.

Hateful losers like you support a loathsome agenda that seeks to
impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS
of women by FORCING childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to
second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to
mere, NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the
DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.

You are totally without excuse, lowlife.

Abortion should be a LAST resort...

So should the setting of a broken leg. It's far better not to
*break* the leg in the first place. And when it comes to unwanted
pregnancy, that's why INTELLIGENT people practice contra-
ception WELL.
But BOTH the setting of broken legs and abortion are highly
valuable and beneficial REMEDIES when needed. And only a total
ASSh*le like you would EVER seek to deny a REMEDY to **any**
person, for **any** reason. Most of society is well aware of that --
and that is why, to MOST people, Anti-Choicers/RRR cultists/
homophobes are America's National Laughingstock.

...yet you defend it like it was a simple remedy like popping
an asprin...

Because that is ALL that it IS. Merely a beneficial REMEDY.
<remaining total idiocy flushed. NO relevant facts omitted.>

Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

What facts have you got?

THESE. (in the sig.) And you cannot disprove ANY of them.
(That's how DUMB you Anti-Choicers truly are. You support a
whiney and hateful, sociopathic agenda that is supported by
**not one single relevant FACT.**
ALL that you have going for you a a crapload of lies, emotional
appeals to society's most ignorant and gullible, lies, propaganda,
lies, disinformation, and still MORE lies. NO relevant facts,
whatsoever.
Thus, you and your lowlife ilk are a JOKE.
-- Craig Chilton

(To E-mail me, remove the "_".)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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) 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.
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
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
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- 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
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- 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
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- 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.
-- 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 2002 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
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.

User: ""
Title: Re: "Damien" (Remember "The Omen" trilogy? Very FITTING alias, he chose!) ...nutter and liar	14 Jan 2005 02:08:53 AM

You refer to the unborn human young as a reproductive entity.

Young/offspring is how the product of fertilisation are defined.
Reproduction ends at fertilisation, then development begins.

That is ignorance. read an anatomy book and learn the diffrence
between reproduction and development. One begins at fertilisation,
while one ends at fertilisation.

"Development,' while a necessay PART of the process, is

irrelevant

to the point I was making.

The point I am making, is that events that happen BEFORE development
begins are irrevelant to a discussion about abortion. Abortion only
involves the product of fertilisation, NOT the parts involved in the
reproductive process.
That being that ALL FOUR stages of the

reproductive process are equally necessary to it... and ALL FOUR
stages' entities are human, unique, and living **potential** people.
And Stage ONE is the GAMETE stage.

Reproduction produces something, the young/offspring of the parents.
Once reproduction is complete the NEW entity is developing, and will
continue to develop many years after birth.
A sperm on its own has no potential to be anything other than a sperm,
a human embryo has the potential to be a doctor, a professional athlete
etc.
Why don't you read an anatomy book, and find out when reproduction ends
and development begins. Why do you think offspring of humans developing
in the womb are defined as YOUNG!!! Because thats what they are, young
humans, not entities developing into a human.
Human beings are always human beings, from conception until death.
Literally speaking all humans are human beings, and the unborn is A
human, unless you have some evidence otherwise, scientific not legal or
societal definitions.
The unborn is not the same being as the mother, they have their own
body, blood type, sex, etc. But feel free to continue avoiding, and
clutching at straws.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: "Damien" (Remember "The Omen" trilogy? Very FITTING alias, he chose!) ...nutter and liar	14 Jan 2005 10:21:29 AM

<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

You refer to the unborn human young as a reproductive entity.

Young/offspring is how the product of fertilisation are defined.

Nope.

Reproduction ends at fertilisation,

You're an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,472 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!"
Title: Re: "Damien" (Remember "The Omen" trilogy? Very FITTING alias, he chose!) ...nutter and liar	15 Jan 2005 06:46:59 PM

On 14 Jan 2005 00:08:53 -0800,
"Damien" <legend89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

"Damien" <legend89@hotmail.com> wrote:

You refer to the unborn human young as a reproductive entity.

No. Since there is no such thing as "unborn human young," I
referred ONLY to reproductive-process entities. All "young" humans
have been BORN. **You** are the person who's NOYTWIT enough
tp pretend that they reproductive-process entities are anything *other*
than that. Contributes to your Laughingstock status.

Reproduction ends at fertilisation, then development begins.

Nope. Reproduction is a PROCESS. **IF** a beginning point for
the process were to be attributed for any given person-to-be, then it
would apply to the FORMATION of his/her Stage One entities of that
process (i,e., gametes) , in the reproductive organs of his/her
parents-to-be.

That is ignorance. read an anatomy book and learn the diffrence
between reproduction and development. One begins at fertilisation,
while one ends at fertilisation.

"Development," while a necessay PART of the process, is
irrelevant to the point I was making. That being that ALL FOUR
stages of the reproductive process are equally necessary to it... and
ALL FOUR stages' entities are human, unique, and living **potential**
people. And Stage ONE is the GAMETE stage.

The point I am making, is that events that happen BEFORE devel-
opment begins are irrevelant to a discussion about abortion.

True. And development BEGINS with the FORMATION of the
gametes. From that point on, reproduction is a PROCESS. Which
ends at the moment of **birth**.
The ONLY ways that one could make an impact BEFORE develop-
ment begins would be (1) kill one or the other of the parents-to-be of
a given person, (2) perform a hysterectomy on the woman, or harvest
her eggs, or (3) castrate the man, or compel him to expel some sperm.

Abortion only involves the product of fertilisation, NOT the parts
involved in the reproductive process.

Wrong. Abortion terminates a POTENTIAL person. That can
happen at ANY of the 4 stages. Men electively abort more than a
QUADRILLION potential people every single DAY, worldwide.

Reproduction produces something, the young/offspring of the
parents.

Ultimately. At the moment of BIRTH. Not a second sooner.

Once reproduction is complete the NEW entity is developing, and
will continue to develop many years after birth.

Partially wrong. Because the reproductiove phase is a 9-month-
long process. Fertilization is NO more important ofr significant to
that process than is the **formation** of the gametes. Those two
parts of the process are EQUALLY indispensible.

A sperm on its own has no potential to be anything other
than a sperm,...

Forget the "on its own" CRAP. The important thing is that ALL
sperm DO have the potential to become people. And millions of them
PROVE it, every single day.

...a human embryo has the potential to be a doctor, a professional
athlete, etc.

Who NEVER would have been born if one or the other of their
GAMETES had been aborted.

Why don't you read an anatomy book,...

No need. YOU are the person who is so bone-IGNORANT as
to not recognize that gametes are JUST as much **potential**
people as are any of the other three stages' entities.
<redundant and cluesll bullcrap flushed. NO facts lost.>

Human beings are always human beings, from conception
until death.

Wrong. Human beings are PEOPLE. And ALL people have
been BORN.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: Craig Chilton...nutter or liar?	03 Jan 2005 08:54:28 AM

On 3 Jan 2005 03:54:17 -0800,

in alt.abortion
with message-id <1104753257.714683.98050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

Because I stand up for the rights and well-being of tens of
millions of people?

Only born people, see thats discrimination.

That's all the people there are.

While YOU support a loathsoma agenda

that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than
tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.

No this is a lie. I wish we could tolerate the young humans life,
simple as that.

We do.

AGAINST their will.

No, see above

Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their

RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status...

Lovely way to describe motherhood. If we have human rights, all humans
should have rights born or not.

All humans have been born alive.
Does a corpse have rights?

Once old/developed enough. The unborn is an intelligent, aware being.

Irrelevant and not true. Awareness does not exist in a fetus.

There is no difference between a baby a few hours after birth and one a
few hours before birth.

Yes, there is.
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>

Is there where you want to head? Choice after
birth? afterall an abortion kills the same entity.

Irrelevant.

Further manifestations of that hardship would

be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and
long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUC-
TION of countless of their opportunities.

and the creation of new opportunities. You sure are a pessimist.
Tolerance is the word! No one would ever pretend that child bearing
would be easy, but a humans life is worth tolerating.

Humans are not an endangered species and there is not requirement that
every human exist.

I have no problem what you do with any stage of reproduction. It's only
after reproduction has taken place (fertilisation) , and the young
human starts their life that I have a problem.

A fetus is not a 'young human'. It is a fetus.

Thus I respect life that **counts**; that which has attained

personhood -- PEOPLE. And **all** people have been BORN.

It's easy to say when you've been born.

It is difficult to say anything before you are born.

It's easy to say slaves should
not be free when you're already free.

Guilt by association attempt.

Nope, the unborn child is gaining more and more rights.

No fetus has any rights.

People rom BOTH
sides are sick of the INTOLERANCE shown to the unborn child.

There is a fetus, not an 'unborn child'.

17%? I doubt that. Sounds like the number of people who agree with
abortion for ANY reason. Most people agree with abortion until the age
the unborn 'looks' too human to kill.

Looks are irrelevant.

So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT regard mere reproductive-process
entities to be defensible as PEOPLE. Only a mere 17% are **that**
goofy and hateful.

No one is hateful for wanting people to consider a young humans life.

But it isn't.

It is you who show the unborn no tolerance, at all!

Tolerance is irrelevant. Facts are facts.

How would you deal
with a mother greiving for her still born? tell her she's imagining
things? her unborn was no more valuable than her period?

People have funerals for and grieve over a pet. That is an emotional
reaction and emotions are seldom related to facts.

I'm not anti choice, I'm anti abortion

Do you support the right of a pregnant woman to decide on an abortion
if that is her choice?

And... abortion is 100% harmless. While shooting a neighbor kills
or injures a person. Apples-and-oranges. NO analogy.

Abortion results in the death (usually) of a human.

No, it doesn't.

The abortionist (i
forget his name sorry) in the documentry mentioned below (my foetus -
julia black) says about abortion "I have to take a life". There is no
doubt that the young human is harmed in abortion,

Yes, there is.

and there is growing
evidence to support the fact that women are harmed.

Yet the alternative could be worse.

So does a child's toy doll.

You haven't seen these images? The movement and behaviour is what makes
them explain that the foetus looks like a baby. Because the unborn is
no different than a baby, just younger. Unless the baby is born
prematurely than they may even be in the same stage of development.

All irrelevant.

And the amount of rights that both

the fetus and the doll have and deserve are EQUAL.

Thankfully laws in my country say otherwise.

In the US a fetus has no rights.

(The doll

deserves more, however, than does an UNwanted fetus, which
has NO intrinsic *or* ascribed value.)

More rights?? that is bizzare to say the least. And the unborn child
(embryonic or foetal stage) has value to any mother or father who want
to keep their child.

Which is why she does not get an abortion.

There is the matter of dollars too for the feotal parts sold to the
local university, thats where the money is probably made, not in the
actual abortion procedure.

"Probably". That sounds like a guess to me.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Craig Chilton...nutter or liar?	09 Jan 2005 04:05:59 AM

Attila wrote:

On 3 Jan 2005 03:54:17 -0800,

in alt.abortion
with message-id

<1104753257.714683.98050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

wrote:

Because I stand up for the rights and well-being of tens of
millions of people?

Only born people, see thats discrimination.

That's all the people there are.

You have to exist in order to be born. Birth is not a humans
conception.

While YOU support a loathsoma agenda

that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than
tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.

No this is a lie. I wish we could tolerate the young humans life,
simple as that.

We do.

So you look for all alternatives to abortion, and nly view abortion as
a last resort, only to be used when the mothers life is at risk?

AGAINST their will.

No, see above

Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their

RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status...

Lovely way to describe motherhood. If we have human rights, all

humans

should have rights born or not.

All humans have been born alive.

Does a corpse have rights?

Is a corpse alive? A corpse has ceased to function, an unborn human is
functioning as they should. No comparisan between the two to be made
(eg brain death)

Once old/developed enough. The unborn is an intelligent, aware

being.

Irrelevant and not true. Awareness does not exist in a fetus.

Awareness does exist, ability to be self aware, and to recognise
familiar sounds.

There is no difference between a baby a few hours after birth and

one a

few hours before birth.

These are physiological changes, and do not lead to a new being.
Preparing one to breathe air can be compared to preparing one to
produce offspring, eg puberty. still the same being after these
changes.

Is there where you want to head? Choice after
birth? afterall an abortion kills the same entity.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant, if it is just a stage of development, where do we raw
the line? Cerebal Palsy has no pre-birth test, why should you
discriminate against these parents? When some parents can abort their
child for a range of reasons if detected before birth. These young
immediately after birth, are just as developed humans as they were a
few hours earlier and still in the womb.

Further manifestations of that hardship would

be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and
long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUC-
TION of countless of their opportunities.

and the creation of new opportunities. You sure are a pessimist.
Tolerance is the word! No one would ever pretend that child bearing
would be easy, but a humans life is worth tolerating.

Humans are not an endangered species and there is not requirement

that

every human exist.

So you don't particularly care if the unborn are human beings or not?

I have no problem what you do with any stage of reproduction. It's

only

after reproduction has taken place (fertilisation) , and the young
human starts their life that I have a problem.

A fetus is not a 'young human'. It is a fetus.

a human foetus is a young human, only a human in the embryonic stage of
development could get much younger. Look up a definition of feotus or
fetus.

Thus I respect life that **counts**; that which has attained

personhood -- PEOPLE. And **all** people have been BORN.

It's easy to say when you've been born.

It is difficult to say anything before you are born.

Yeah makes abortion easier, the older born children make too much
noise.

It's easy to say slaves should
not be free when you're already free.

Guilt by association attempt.

Two groups of humans being denied rights, by humans with those rights.
Guilt by guilt, association through diect correlation.

Nope, the unborn child is gaining more and more rights.

No fetus has any rights.

Yes they do, it is illegal for example to kill a foetus after 22 -24
weeks in most places. A death certificate is even required for unborn
who die after 20 weeks.

People rom BOTH
sides are sick of the INTOLERANCE shown to the unborn child.

There is a fetus, not an 'unborn child'.

There is also an embryo. Child refers to the product of conception up
until about 18 years old. You may not like it, but is correct use of
the term child.

17%? I doubt that. Sounds like the number of people who agree with
abortion for ANY reason. Most people agree with abortion until the

age

the unborn 'looks' too human to kill.

Looks are irrelevant.

True, so does location, or ability which is why all need to have rights
not just when they get to about 22 weeks of development.

So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT regard mere reproductive-process
entities to be defensible as PEOPLE. Only a mere 17% are **that**
goofy and hateful.

No one is hateful for wanting people to consider a young humans

life.

But it isn't.

It is you who show the unborn no tolerance, at all!

Tolerance is irrelevant. Facts are facts.

How would you deal
with a mother greiving for her still born? tell her she's imagining
things? her unborn was no more valuable than her period?

People have funerals for and grieve over a pet. That is an emotional
reaction and emotions are seldom related to facts.

Thats your response? you would compare a mothers grief at losing her
child, to losing a loved pet? Can you imgine why she would be grieving?
Because she lost the chance to have a child (happens all the time)? Or
because she lost a child, one that she was developing a bond with?

I'm not anti choice, I'm anti abortion

Do you support the right of a pregnant woman to decide on an abortion
if that is her choice?

No because there are better alternatives. Same way I would not support
her choice to shoot herself, or inject drugs, or become a prostitute.
Her "right" to this choice is irrevelant, because her "rights" in your
country end at the international boundries of your country.

And... abortion is 100% harmless. While shooting a neighbor

kills

or injures a person. Apples-and-oranges. NO analogy.

Abortion results in the death (usually) of a human.

No, it doesn't.

It does, otherwise the aborton was a failure.

The abortionist (i
forget his name sorry) in the documentry mentioned below (my foetus

julia black) says about abortion "I have to take a life". There is

doubt that the young human is harmed in abortion,

Yes, there is.

and there is growing
evidence to support the fact that women are harmed.

Yet the alternative could be worse.

Giving birth is quite safe.

So does a child's toy doll.

You haven't seen these images? The movement and behaviour is what

makes

them explain that the foetus looks like a baby. Because the unborn

no different than a baby, just younger. Unless the baby is born
prematurely than they may even be in the same stage of development.

All irrelevant.

Very relevant, it shows HOW human the unborn are, not if they are.

And the amount of rights that both

the fetus and the doll have and deserve are EQUAL.

Thankfully laws in my country say otherwise.

In the US a fetus has no rights.

I think you'll find they do have SOME rights when more developed, 22
weeks onwards? Most countries allow the unborn some rights.

(The doll

deserves more, however, than does an UNwanted fetus, which
has NO intrinsic *or* ascribed value.)

More rights?? that is bizzare to say the least. And the unborn child
(embryonic or foetal stage) has value to any mother or father who

want

to keep their child.

Which is why she does not get an abortion.

Because she wants to keep her child. And do the best for her and her
partners offspring, from conception.

There is the matter of dollars too for the feotal parts sold to the
local university, thats where the money is probably made, not in the
actual abortion procedure.

"Probably". That sounds like a guess to me.

How very perceptive of you, hypothesis, guess, learned opinion,
whatever ;)
The ovaries of the young aborted female feotus would be more or less
valuable than a male? what do you think?
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: Craig Chilton...nutter or liar?	09 Jan 2005 06:17:28 AM

On 9 Jan 2005 02:05:59 -0800,

in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1105265159.539551.288460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Attila wrote:

On 3 Jan 2005 03:54:17 -0800,

in alt.abortion
with message-id

<1104753257.714683.98050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

wrote:

Because I stand up for the rights and well-being of tens of
millions of people?

Only born people, see thats discrimination.

That's all the people there are.

You have to exist in order to be born. Birth is not a humans
conception.

I doubt anyone would argue a fetus does not exist. Simple existence
does not prove it is a person by any means.

While YOU support a loathsoma agenda

that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than
tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.

No this is a lie. I wish we could tolerate the young humans life,
simple as that.

We do.

So you look for all alternatives to abortion, and nly view abortion as
a last resort, only to be used when the mothers life is at risk?

If a woman is pregnant please advise what she can do other than:
1. Complete her pregnancy
2. Terminate it.
Note the discussion excludes all activity before conception and all
activity after birth.
Young human life describes that which exists from birth onward. It
does not include anything before live birth.

AGAINST their will.

No, see above

Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their

RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status...

Lovely way to describe motherhood. If we have human rights, all

humans

should have rights born or not.

All humans have been born alive.

Does a corpse have rights?

Is a corpse alive?

Irrelevant.

A corpse has ceased to function, an unborn human is
functioning as they should. No comparisan between the two to be made
(eg brain death)

So you are saying that because a corpse is not alive it has no rights,
and thus are setting a requirement of life to have rights yet you
reject the concept of requiring live birth for rights. Amusing.

Once old/developed enough. The unborn is an intelligent, aware

being.

Irrelevant and not true. Awareness does not exist in a fetus.

Awareness does exist, ability to be self aware, and to recognise
familiar sounds.

No, you simply making a statement proves nothing. And even if it did
so what? It simply ***does not matter***.

There is no difference between a baby a few hours after birth and

one a

few hours before birth.

These are physiological changes, and do not lead to a new being.

Similar to the changes hatching makes in the transition from egg to
chicken.

Preparing one to breathe air can be compared to preparing one to
produce offspring, eg puberty. still the same being after these
changes.

None of which matter.

Is there where you want to head? Choice after
birth? afterall an abortion kills the same entity.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant, if it is just a stage of development, where do we raw
the line?

At live birth, as the law provides.

Cerebal Palsy has no pre-birth test, why should you
discriminate against these parents? When some parents can abort their
child for a range of reasons if detected before birth. These young
immediately after birth, are just as developed humans as they were a
few hours earlier and still in the womb.

No reason is required for the freedom of choice. And certainly no
justification.
Why does not matter, and is the business of the woman involved only.

Further manifestations of that hardship would

be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and
long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUC-
TION of countless of their opportunities.

and the creation of new opportunities. You sure are a pessimist.
Tolerance is the word! No one would ever pretend that child bearing
would be easy, but a humans life is worth tolerating.

Humans are not an endangered species and there is not requirement

that

every human exist.

So you don't particularly care if the unborn are human beings or not?

They are not, and it is not important.

I have no problem what you do with any stage of reproduction. It's

only

after reproduction has taken place (fertilisation) , and the young
human starts their life that I have a problem.

A fetus is not a 'young human'. It is a fetus.

a human foetus is a young human, only a human in the embryonic stage of
development could get much younger. Look up a definition of feotus or
fetus.

No it is not. No human being exists before live birth. This is an
argument over semantics, and the terms used are unimportant except in
the use of propaganda.

Thus I respect life that **counts**; that which has attained

personhood -- PEOPLE. And **all** people have been BORN.

It's easy to say when you've been born.

It is difficult to say anything before you are born.

Yeah makes abortion easier, the older born children make too much
noise.

Since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and since there is no
pregnancy after birth you comment really makes a lot of sense doesn't
it?

It's easy to say slaves should
not be free when you're already free.

Guilt by association attempt.

Two groups of humans being denied rights, by humans with those rights.

Nope.

Guilt by guilt, association through diect correlation.

No, a propaganda ploy used when facts are insufficient.

Nope, the unborn child is gaining more and more rights.

No fetus has any rights.

Yes they do, it is illegal for example to kill a foetus after 22 -24
weeks in most places.

THis does not give a fetus any rights - just protections. And it is
not standard. There are laws restricting how you can kill a dog.

A death certificate is even required for unborn
who die after 20 weeks.

Everywhere?

People rom BOTH
sides are sick of the INTOLERANCE shown to the unborn child.

There is a fetus, not an 'unborn child'.

There is also an embryo. Child refers to the product of conception up
until about 18 years old. You may not like it, but is correct use of
the term child.

And thus is a poor term to use when discussing two different time
periods included in a single term. When you say child are you talking
about before or after birth?
More propaganda and guilt by association through negative connotation.

17%? I doubt that. Sounds like the number of people who agree with
abortion for ANY reason. Most people agree with abortion until the

age

the unborn 'looks' too human to kill.

Looks are irrelevant.

True, so does location, or ability which is why all need to have rights
not just when they get to about 22 weeks of development.

No rights exist before birth, and that is exactly as it should be.
The point at which rights exists must be pinpointed exactly, ant just
to 'about' a certain time pont.

So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT regard mere reproductive-process
entities to be defensible as PEOPLE. Only a mere 17% are **that**
goofy and hateful.

No one is hateful for wanting people to consider a young humans

life.

But it isn't.

It is you who show the unborn no tolerance, at all!

Tolerance is irrelevant. Facts are facts.

How would you deal
with a mother greiving for her still born? tell her she's imagining
things? her unborn was no more valuable than her period?

People have funerals for and grieve over a pet. That is an emotional
reaction and emotions are seldom related to facts.

Thats your response?

Yes, it is.

you would compare a mothers grief at losing her
child, to losing a loved pet? Can you imgine why she would be grieving?
Because she lost the chance to have a child (happens all the time)? Or
because she lost a child, one that she was developing a bond with?

Emotional responses differ from person to person, and the bond with a
pet of long standing can be stronger than to a 'child' that never
existed.

I'm not anti choice, I'm anti abortion

Do you support the right of a pregnant woman to decide on an abortion
if that is her choice?

No because there are better alternatives.

Please specify. Note the discussion is about a woman who is now
pregnant. Exactly what can she do other than:
1. Terminate her pregnancy before completion
2. Complete her pregnancy.

Same way I would not support
her choice to shoot herself, or inject drugs, or become a prostitute.
Her "right" to this choice is irrevelant, because her "rights" in your
country end at the international boundries of your country.

But since I live here and can only affect laws where I live her rights
under my laws are relevant. Today the US, tomorrow the world.

And... abortion is 100% harmless. While shooting a neighbor

kills

or injures a person. Apples-and-oranges. NO analogy.

Abortion results in the death (usually) of a human.

No, it doesn't.

It does, otherwise the aborton was a failure.

No, an abortion terminate a pregnancy. Anything else is an
unimportant side effect.

The abortionist (i
forget his name sorry) in the documentry mentioned below (my foetus

julia black) says about abortion "I have to take a life". There is

doubt that the young human is harmed in abortion,

Yes, there is.

and there is growing
evidence to support the fact that women are harmed.

Yet the alternative could be worse.

Giving birth is quite safe.

http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
The dangers involved with pregnancy include but are not limited to:
Death
Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers,
associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and
reduced quality of life)
Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
Increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Embolism
Temporary adverse effects
Exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
Nausea and vomiting
Dizziness and light-headedness
Bloating and attendant discomfort
Hemmorhoids
Cramps
Acne and mild skin disorders
Skin discoloration, particularly face and abdomen
Mild to severe backache and strain
Increased headaches
Difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
Increased urination and incontinence
Breast pain and discharge
Swelling of joints, and attendant discomfort or pain
Difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
Inability to take regular medications
Shortness of breath
Higher blood pressure
Hair loss
Tendency to anemia
Infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant
women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
Curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
Hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
Extreme pain on delivery
Continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period, exacerbated if
c-section (major surgery) is required, sometimes taking up to a full
year to fully recover
Occasional complications and side effects
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery, esp. after additional
pregnancies
Dropped uterus, esp. with additional pregnancies
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of
pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of
pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of
death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest, frequently ordered during
part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of
either mother or baby
Torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease, e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
Hemorrhage
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions, e.g. epilepsy is
present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug
metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the
number and frequency of seizures
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Some less common (and serious) complications
Peripartum cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary arrest
Magnesium toxicity
Severe hypoxemia/acidosis
Massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
Molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a
pregnancy-induced cancer)
Malignant arrhythmia
Circulatory collapse
Placental abruption

So does a child's toy doll.

You haven't seen these images? The movement and behaviour is what

makes

them explain that the foetus looks like a baby. Because the unborn

no different than a baby, just younger. Unless the baby is born
prematurely than they may even be in the same stage of development.

All irrelevant.

Very relevant, it shows HOW human the unborn are, not if they are.

DNA will show whether or not any tissue sample is human. As far as I
know there are no degrees of being human.

And the amount of rights that both

the fetus and the doll have and deserve are EQUAL.

Thankfully laws in my country say otherwise.

In the US a fetus has no rights.

I think you'll find they do have SOME rights when more developed, 22
weeks onwards? Most countries allow the unborn some rights.

No. Under certain conditions a fetus has limited protection the same
way a dog or a horse has legal protection but no rights at all.
There is a difference.

(The doll

deserves more, however, than does an UNwanted fetus, which
has NO intrinsic *or* ascribed value.)

More rights?? that is bizzare to say the least. And the unborn child
(embryonic or foetal stage) has value to any mother or father who

want

to keep their child.

Which is why she does not get an abortion.

Because she wants to keep her child. And do the best for her and her
partners offspring, from conception.

If the choice of a pregnant woman is to complete her pregnancy she
needs have no reason for doing so.

There is the matter of dollars too for the feotal parts sold to the
local university, thats where the money is probably made, not in the
actual abortion procedure.

"Probably". That sounds like a guess to me.

How very perceptive of you, hypothesis, guess, learned opinion,
whatever ;)

Perhaps a few facts would be more useful that simply a biased guess.

The ovaries of the young aborted female feotus would be more or less
valuable than a male? what do you think?

I have no idea.
.

User: "Terrence"
Title: Re: ANTI-Choicers Lie and Seek to Impose Needless MISERY upon Millions TEST. Ignore. alt.abortion,talk.abortion,alt.bible,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian	08 Jan 2005 07:49:30 PM

In article <41d8181c.76001751@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222_@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,481 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!) wrote:

On 2 Jan 2005 06:24:33 -0800,
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

...and pretend that abortion doesn't kill a human being.

It doesn't. Any more than breaking an egg kills a chicken.

Would that be a fertilised egg? which has a ... chick developing
inside it? Or the kinda' egg you get from a supermarket?

Makes no difference. Neither one is a chicken, is defensible
as a chicken, or has any right to be treated as chickens by law
must be humanely treated.

You are truly dumber than a crate of rusty anvils.

I think you're the one a few cans short of a six pack.

Because I stand up for the rights and well-being of tens of
millions of people? Whhile YOU support a loathsoma agenda
that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than
tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.
AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their
RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUN-
TARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient developing entities
which are, in all important ways, equivalent to sperm and ova
(human, unique, NON-sentient, a stage of development without
which NO births would occur -- and alive); entities which the
WOMEN would very properly, under the circumstances, regard
to be parasitic. Further manifestations of that hardship would
be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and
long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUC-
TION of countless of their opportunities.

You're short the ENTIRE six-pack.

You and your hateful ilk are totally without excuse.

But THANKS for putting up this totally-inane post. It is very
helpful for the fence-sitters to see such excellent examples of
just HOW ignorant and hateul you Anti-choice sociopaths really
are!

I have a respect for life at all stages of development, you are
intolerant and ageist.

At 63, I'd be pretty stuod if I were ageist... and I'm neither.
And i have precisely as much respect for ALL FOUR stages of the
reproductive process as *you* do for the FIRST one. Thus respecting
the ONLY life that **counts**; that which has attained personhood --
PEOPLE. And **all** people have been BORN.

**More** well-deserved nails in the coffin lid of the loathsome
Anti-Choice agenda as it swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
where it has always belonged.

The LIE that you FORGED into my paragraph, above, has been
removed. Making the paragraph 100% true again. (You just destroyed
even MORE of your credibility, if you had any to begin with, anonymous
coward who hasn't the guts nor the courage of your convictions to put
your name to your posts. Since you're DOSHONEST, you anonymity
comes as no further surprise. being a bigot who supports loathsome
agendas ALONE ususlly is sufficient to keep losers like you in the
closet.

Which is why pro choice is struggling as people become less ignorant.

Struggling?? LOL!!! 2/3 of the population has been Pro-Choice
consistently for decades, now. Know something. 17% is all you've
got. The other 83% of the people are AT LEAST willing to make
**exceptions** for such things as the health or life of the woman,
rape, or incest. Would they make the same exceptions for
**already-born babies**? Of course not.

So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT regard mere reproductive-process
entities to be defensible as PEOPLE. Only a mere 17% are that goofy
and hateful.

People just don't believe that abortion is a simple 'remedy' any more
than shooting a noisy neighbour is a remedy for sleepness nights.

Those who don't believe that abortion is nothing more than a
valuable remedy for an unwanted medical condition are either unaware
of the FACTS contained in the outline provided as the SIG of this
post. Or else they are bigoted losers who live in DENIAL of them.

And... abortion is 100% harmless. Shooting a neighbor kills or
injures a person. Apples-and-oranges. NO analogy.

"These images are shown as he and Black marvel at a 23 week-old fetus
and agree it cannot be described as a fetus, since it looks - as is
undeniably the case - just like a baby. In the documentary itself,
Professor Campbell, who has been a supporter of abortion rights,
described his unease as he says he has started to change his mind about
later terminations. About twelve weeks, he now believes, should be the
limit for social terminations."
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrwomex3.asp

...will you ever present these facts you keep claiming. You

don't

want to believe in fact, you want to just believe what you want.

I present facts in here all the time. Thus, we all get a good
laugh out of watching the bigots so inanely living in denail of them.

Fact - reproduction is complete at fertilisation. Human

development

continues after this event.

Of course. NOT an argument against abortion. WITHOUT the
**gametes**, fertilization could not take place. The FIRST stage of
the process is the **gamete** stage.

Yes a stage of reproduction. Not a stage of development in a human
beings life. After fertilisation there is no sperm anymore, something
quite new...

Fact - a foetus is not an 'it', but a who, a he, or she.

ROTFL!!!!! Wrong. Those pronouns apply ONLY to *people.*
And ALL people have been **born**. (But feel free to keep deluding
yourself. Craig Gives us even more to laugh at.)

Point proven, you don't know what you are talking about. An example of
a female unborn.
"A "foetal reduction" was carried out and the baby, a girl, was
stillborn. Although the woman did not see the child, she named her
Jessica."
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/38D1DECB2A1F2E05CA256E6C00087B8A

And a male
"In November, 2001, Renee Shields of Sydney lost her unborn son Byron
after an incident of road rage. ....."
http://www.babyweb.com.au/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1197

Need I go on and list the many others, or should we get into a
discussion about when sex is determined?

On the topic of abortion, I challenge you to demonstrate that

ANY

Pro-Choicer EVER lies. Lotsa luck!! We're not a bit like you Anti-
Choice losers. Having NO relevant facts on your side, lies are

pretty

much all you've GOT.

If they ever deny that abortion doesn't kill a human they lie.

They know we can see pictures of [reproductive-process

entities]...and of the new humans in the womb that these entities
produce

... and that is all that they ARE. Mere reproductive-process
entities.

Sperm and egg are for sure, not a young human in the embryoinc stage of
life

We can see both chickens and eggs, too.

so what? We can see chickens before they hatch just as we can see the
offspring of humans in the womb...

...we can see them move and smile before birth.

Which are UNconscious muscular manifestations on the part of
entities that have never experienced conscious awareness.

Cite? What stages of development are you referring too? Bearing in mind
that humans may be have the ability to hear from as early as 13 weeks
McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty. Ltd. 2001. Psychological
Science, An Introduction. Bond, Nigel et al. p5.12 - p5.15

Indefensible and worthless when unwanted by an unwilling host.

Yeah thats what they say about those detained in cuba too...pity the
usa is their host.

NO reason to FORCE any woman to gestate against her will.

Plenty of reason to tolerate her youngs life

AND -- what women choose to do is abosultely NONE of rour

business

whatsoever. HER business ONLY.

So you agree that our taxes shouldn't pay for her choice, unless to
save her life, which is the only reason that abortion should be allowed

-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

Boring.
.

User: "Support"
Title: Re: ANTI-Choicers Lie and Seek to Impose Needless MISERY upon Millions TEST. Ignore. alt.abortion,talk.abortion,alt.bible,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian	02 Jan 2005 12:12:47 PM

In article <41d8181c.76001751@netnews.mchsi.com>
xanadu222_@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,481 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!) wrote:

On 2 Jan 2005 06:24:33 -0800,
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

...and pretend that abortion doesn't kill a human being.

It doesn't. Any more than breaking an egg kills a chicken.

Would that be a fertilised egg? which has a ... chick developing
inside it? Or the kinda' egg you get from a supermarket?

Makes no difference. Neither one is a chicken, is defensible
as a chicken, or has any right to be treated as chickens by law
must be humanely treated.

You are truly dumber than a crate of rusty anvils.

I think you're the one a few cans short of a six pack.

But THANKS for putting up this totally-inane post. It is very
helpful for the fence-sitters to see such excellent examples of
just HOW ignorant and hateul you Anti-choice sociopaths really
are!

I have a respect for life at all stages of development, you are
intolerant and ageist.

**More** well-deserved nails in the coffin lid of the loathsome
Anti-Choice agenda as it swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
where it has always belonged.

Which is why pro choice is struggling as people become less ignorant.

People just don't believe that abortion is a simple 'remedy' any more
than shooting a noisy neighbour is a remedy for sleepness nights.

...will you ever present these facts you keep claiming. You

don't

want to believe in fact, you want to just believe what you want.

I present facts in here all the time. Thus, we all get a good
laugh out of watching the bigots so inanely living in denail of them.

Fact - reproduction is complete at fertilisation. Human

development

continues after this event.

Of course. NOT an argument against abortion. WITHOUT the
**gametes**, fertilization could not take place. The FIRST stage of
the process is the **gamete** stage.

Yes a stage of reproduction. Not a stage of development in a human
beings life. After fertilisation there is no sperm anymore, something
quite new...

Fact - a foetus is not an 'it', but a who, a he, or she.

ROTFL!!!!! Wrong. Those pronouns apply ONLY to *people.*
And ALL people have been **born**. (But feel free to keep deluding
yourself. Craig Gives us even more to laugh at.)

On the topic of abortion, I challenge you to demonstrate that

ANY

Pro-Choicer EVER lies. Lotsa luck!! We're not a bit like you Anti-
Choice losers. Having NO relevant facts on your side, lies are

pretty

much all you've GOT.

If they ever deny that abortion doesn't kill a human they lie.

They know we can see pictures of [reproductive-process

entities]...and of the new humans in the womb that these entities
produce

... and that is all that they ARE. Mere reproductive-process
entities.

Sperm and egg are for sure, not a young human in the embryoinc stage of
life

We can see both chickens and eggs, too.

so what? We can see chickens before they hatch just as we can see the
offspring of humans in the womb...

...we can see them move and smile before birth.

Which are UNconscious muscular manifestations on the part of
entities that have never experienced conscious awareness.

Indefensible and worthless when unwanted by an unwilling host.

Yeah thats what they say about those detained in cuba too...pity the
usa is their host.

NO reason to FORCE any woman to gestate against her will.

Plenty of reason to tolerate her youngs life

AND -- what women choose to do is abosultely NONE of rour

business

whatsoever. HER business ONLY.

So you agree that our taxes shouldn't pay for her choice, unless to
save her life, which is the only reason that abortion should be allowed

Yawn.
.

User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,481 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!"
Title: Re: Pro-Aborts Kill and Lie	02 Jan 2005 01:00:48 PM

On 2 Jan 2005 06:24:33 -0800,
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
My response to this post appears in the new thread,
ANTI-Choicers Lie and Seek to Impose
Needless MISERY upon Millions.
...which is an HONEST statement. Rather than in *this*
thread, which has a DIShonest and LYING subject header.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.

User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,481 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!"
Title: ANTI-Choicers Lie and Seek to Impose Needless MISERY upon Millions.	02 Jan 2005 12:58:10 PM

On 2 Jan 2005 06:24:33 -0800,
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

> wrote:

"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

> wrote:

"Damien"<legend_89@hotmail.com> ...
(Very APT alias!! Your hatefulness is pretty much the equiv-
alent of the Damien that was the starring character in "The Omen"
movie trilogy. About the SAME degree of worthlessness to society.)
... wrote:

Pro aborts...

There's no such thing. If you are stupidly making reference
to the Pro-CHOICE majority -- that's precisely what we **are**:
Pro-CHOICE.

That means that -- UNlike you and your equally bone-ignorant
and hateful ilk -- we ensure that NO woman will ever again be
FORCED to gestate-to-term an unwanted entity that she has NO
desire to harbor, and thus women NEVER again will be FORCED
to have their well-being and future opportunities disrupted by a
collection of sociopathic losers.

That ALSO means that we couldn't care less WHICH choice
the girl or woman makes -- gestation or the remedy of abortion -- as
long as it is HER choice and her choice ONLY, made freely and
with NO interference on the part of any person or agency. Thus --
we are Pro-CHOICE. And **you** are a LIAR.

....still lie...

Wrong. The only liars around here are you and your slimy
fellow bigots.

...and pretend that abortion doesn't kill a human being.

It doesn't. Any more than breaking an egg kills a chicken.

Would that be a fertilised egg? which has a ... chick developing
inside it? Or the kinda' egg you get from a supermarket?

Makes no difference. Neither one is a chicken, is defensible
as a chicken, or has any right to be treated as chickens by law
must be humanely treated.

You are truly dumber than a crate of rusty anvils.

I think you're the one a few cans short of a six pack.

Because I stand up for the rights and well-being of tens of
millions of people? While YOU support a loathsoma agenda
that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than
tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.
AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their
RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUN-
TARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient developing entities
which are, in all important ways, equivalent to sperm and ova
(human, unique, NON-sentient, a stage of development without
which NO births would occur -- and alive); entities which the
WOMEN would very properly, under the circumstances, regard
to be parasitic. Further manifestations of that hardship would
be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and
long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUC-
TION of countless of their opportunities.
You're short the ENTIRE six-pack.
You and your hateful ilk are totally without excuse.

But THANKS for putting up this totally-inane post. It is very
helpful for the fence-sitters to see such excellent examples of
just HOW ignorant and hateul you Anti-choice sociopaths really
are!

I have a respect for life at all stages of development, you are
intolerant and ageist.

At 63, I'd be pretty stupid if I were ageist... and I'm neither.
And I have precisely as much respect for the entities of ALL FOUR
stages of the reproductive process as *you* do for those of the FIRST
one. Thus I respect life that **counts**; that which has attained
personhood -- PEOPLE. And **all** people have been BORN.

**More** well-deserved nails in the coffin lid of the loathsome
Anti-Choice agenda as it swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
where it has always belonged.

The LIE that you FORGED into my paragraph (*without* benefit of
brackets), above, has been removed. Making the paragraph 100%
true again. (You just destroyed even MORE of your credibility, if you
had any to begin with, anonymous coward who hasn't the guts nor
the courage of your convictions to put your name to your posts.
Since you're DOSHONEST, you anonymity comes as no further
surprise. Being a bigot who supports shameful loathsome agendas
ALONE -- as you do -- usually is sufficient pressure, from a peer
standpoint, to keep losers like you in the closet.

Which is why pro choice is struggling as people become
less ignorant.

Struggling?? LOL!!! 2/3 of the population has been Pro-Choice
consistently for decades, now. Know something? 17% is all you've
got! The other 83% of the people are AT LEAST willing to make
**exceptions** for such things as the health or life of the woman,
rape, or incest. Would they make the same exceptions pertaining to
**already-born BABIES**? Of course not.
So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT regard mere reproductive-process
entities to be defensible as PEOPLE. Only a mere 17% are **that**
goofy and hateful.

People just don't believe that abortion is a simple 'remedy' any more
than shooting a noisy neighbour is a remedy for sleepness nights.

Those who don't believe that abortion is nothing more than
a valuable remedy for an unwanted medical condition are either
unaware of the FACTS contained in the outline provided as the
SIG of this post. Or else they are bigoted losers who live in DENIAL
of them. Either way, it takes a PROFOUNDLY ignorant (and usually
hateful) person to BE an Anti-Choicer.
And... abortion is 100% harmless. While shooting a neighbor kills
or injures a person. Apples-and-oranges. NO analogy.

"These images are shown as he and Black marvel at a 23 week-old
fetus and agree it cannot be described as a fetus, since it looks -- as is
undeniably the case -- just like a baby. ...

So does a child's toy doll. And the amount of rights that both
the fetus and the doll have and deserve are EQUAL. (The doll
deserves more, however, than does an UNwanted fetus, which
has NO intrinsic *or* ascribed value.)

... "In the documentary itself, Professor Campbell, who has been
a supporter of abortion rights, described his unease as he says he
has started to change his mind about later terminations. About twelve
weeks, he now believes, should be the limit for social terminations."

Fine. And many doctors specialize in OTHER ways. To take
up the slack for doctors like him, there are plenty of doctors like
Dr. Tiller, in Wichita -- whom the hateful Anti-Choicers impotently
tried to beseige for months -- who impose NO such limitations.
(That having been said though, since a ACTUAL late-term
abortion... not to be confused with the mid **second**-trimester
ID&E procedure -- that Anti-Choicers dishonestly call "partial-birth"
.... is a riskier procedure, Tiller and other equally-responsible
doctors perform late-term ones almost exclusively only when
they are medical emergencies/necessities.)

...will you ever present these facts you keep claiming. You
don't want to believe in fact, you want to just believe what you want.

I present facts in here all the time. Thus, we all get a good
laugh out of watching the bigots so inanely living in denial of them.

Fact -- reproduction is complete at fertilisation. Human
development continues after this event.

Of course. NOT an argument against abortion. WITHOUT the
**gametes**, fertilization could not take place. The FIRST stage of
the process is the **gamete** stage.

Yes a stage of reproduction. Not a stage of development in a human
beings life.

Okay. So then a mad scientist comes along and releases a virus
that's 100% contagious, worldwide. Which has no effect OTHER
than to simply cause ALL of the gametes contained in every person
on earth to die. But no biggie, right? After all, those DON'T
constitute a stage of "development," in your opinion.

After fertilisation there is no sperm anymore, something quite new...

Irrelevant. BEFORE meeting, the **sum** of the DNA of a given
pair of gametes is the SAME as after they meet. Take ANY person
alive, and mentally reverse-engineer him, and you'll find a short time
during which he existed as a pair of gametes that had not yet met.
If something had killed either of those gametes before they met, that
particular unique person would never have been born. <