| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
| Date: |
04 May 2004 09:20:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: the big picture |
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
| User: "Stephanie" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 07:58:06 AM |
|
|
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Tell me, when will that fetus become a human in your eyes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 06:09:46 PM |
|
|
(Stephanie) writes:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I
want to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death
clique would have women believe that abortion is about their
rights.It is not about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies
right to live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to
you to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're
refusing to acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has
rights that supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human,
too, but they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if
you have no objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the
removal of an embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the
stage of development where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Your own words make that claim questionable.
Tell me, when will that fetus become a human in your eyes?
It shouldn't be a secret, even to you -- when it's born, of course.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 08:23:20 AM |
|
|
On 5 May 2004 05:58:06 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Is that why in another thread you said the sperm and egg become human
once conception has occurred?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephanie" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 01:09:42 PM |
|
|
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dlqh90lb7u38aej0gbj5t0m0dseqpj4ru3@4ax.com>...
On 5 May 2004 05:58:06 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Is that why in another thread you said the sperm and egg become human
once conception has occurred?
I said they become *a* human because that it how it works. Cells are
human. They are not indivual humans. When sperm and egg join, but
they create A human. An embryo is human and A human. Spem cells are
human, not A human.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 11:02:34 AM |
|
|
Stephanie <> wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Then you misuse the words in a deliberate attempt to mislead people?
Tell me, when will that fetus become a human in your eyes?
According to millenia of human legal and social tradition, the start
of a human being's life is and has been birth.
Never earlier. Occasionally later.
And despite the whining and screeching of abortion opponents like
yourself, nobody has been able to come up with anything better.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: the big picture |
05 May 2004 03:39:54 PM |
|
|
Stephanie wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkfzaf7gxs.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
(Stephanie) writes:
MyTwoAngels <illlovemy2angels4life@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kb4g9050kka4pr75fd2njl3sos0vl9afoa@4ax.com>...
On 4 May 2004 07:37:08 -0700, (Stephanie) wrote:
Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szkisfcx1dh.fsf@fnord.io.com>...
jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:
sjrsimac@adelphia.net (Seth Reuter) wrote in message news:<45b683ab.0405031038.570e59ad@posting.google.com>...
The argument has been going both ways for years, mostly since the
woman's movment. I want to know *why* you believe how you do. I want
to scream questions, not answers.
Thankyou for seeing what I've contended all along.The pro-death clique
would have women believe that abortion is about their rights.It is not
about a woman's right to choose.It's about a babies right to
live.Plain and simple.
...and the plain and simple answer is: once it's human, born, and
alive. It's only worked in this country for 228 years, and in others
for approximately as far back as recorded history goes. Leave it to you
to fix something that never was broken, "Jon".
Why is it that pro-choice people no not believe the life inside the
uterus is actually a human? Why is it not a human and alive inside the
mother?
An alive human fetus is alive, and can only be, in-utero. What's to
deny?
What you must understand is that what happens within that woman's
body, where it concerns her pregnancy, is between the pregnant woman,
her partner/spouse (if possible) and her doctor; not you or any
outsider she wishes not to include. Understand?
No, I do not understand. If it is a human and alive, why, just because
it is in utero, must it be denied the basic right to life?
Because the one human being who's alive and is a person that you're refusing to
acknowledge the existence of -- the pregnant woman -- has rights that
supersede any the fetus may have. Malignant tumors are human, too, but
they're not *a* human, nor will they develop into one -- and if you have no
objections to surgical relief of cancer, why object to the removal of an
embryo or fetus that is very likely not anywhere near the stage of development
where its sentience is even possible?
I very clearly understand the difference between human and *a* human.
Tell me, when will that fetus become a human in your eyes?
When it is not inside a human.
--
--sexkitten--A critic is a man who knows the way, but can't drive the car.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
