being a human being has nothing to do with what stage of development
you are in. Nothing to do with being born.
Just like believing the earth is flat goes against all scientific
knowledge, so too does thinking the unborn human isn't a human.

being a human being has nothing to do with what stage of development
you are in. Nothing to do with being born.
Just like believing the earth is flat goes against all scientific
knowledge, so too does thinking the unborn human isn't a human.

...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 young chick developing
inside it? or the kinda' egg you get from a supermarket?

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,

...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?

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

AGAINST their will.

RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status...

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)

WOMEN would very properly, under the circumstances, regard
to be parasitic.

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 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.

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

**More** well-deserved nails in the coffin lid of the

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.

Struggling?? LOL!!! 2/3 of the population has been Pro-Choice
consistently for decades, now.

got!

**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'

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

unaware of the FACTS contained in the outline provided as the
SIG of this post.

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

undeniably the case -- just like a baby. ...

So does a child's toy doll.

the fetus and the doll have and deserve are EQUAL.

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

weeks, he now believes, should be the limit for social

Fine. And many doctors specialize in OTHER ways.

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

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

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

Of course. NOT an argument against abortion.

**gametes**, fertilization could not take place.

the process is the **gamete** stage.

Yes a stage of reproduction. Not a stage of development in a

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

Irrelevant.

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

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.

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

yourself. Gives us even more to laugh at.)

<Examples of reports in which fetuses were described by gender
flushed, due to their having been propagandistically worded.

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

To fine-tune my above statement: The apparent gender of fetuses
is IRRELEVANT. Gender is meaningful only for *people* -- who have
been BORN.

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

pretty much all you've GOT.

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

Wrong again. We Pro-Choicers know the difference between
employing the word, "human" as a noun (which means "human being;"
an already-born PERSON) and as an adjective. Reproductive-process
entities are human (adj.) INCLUDING the quadrillions of gametes that
you so hypocritically ignore. Abortion kills human ENTITIES of the
reproductive process -- NOT people.

Sperm and egg are for sure, not a ... human in the embryonic
stage of life.

Obviously not. Since "embryo" is Stage THREE of the reproductive
process.

development continues after this event.

Of course. NOT an argument against abortion."

subsequent stages possible. (See farther above.)

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...

If the reproductive-process entities are still in the womb, they
are not OFFspring.

...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

That would depend on what you mean by "hear." For an entity to
reflexively react to sound without yet having conscious awareness of
that sound is probably what's being described, there. And that's NOT
"hearing."

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.

Apples and oranges again. Comparing mere reproductive-
process entities to **people**. (LOL!!!!!!! Just **clutch** at

silly straws!!)

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

Plenty of reason to tolerate her youngs life.

Of course. Since referring to any one as a person's "young' is

reference to a young **person**.

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, ...

Taxes don't pay for EITHER of her choices: childbirth OR
abortion. If you can find an exception to that, feel free to cite

... unless to save her life, which is the only reason that

should be allowed.

(In *your* ignorant and hateful opinion.)

THANKS for the reminder than most Anti-Choicers make
exceptions, and thus continually PROVE that they are fully
aware that mere reproductive-process entities are NOT people.