| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"CE" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2007 02:30:19 PM |
| Object: |
Re: When life begins |
On Apr 13, 5:01 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
The unborn baby has no more right to her body, than a date
would have.
Well, two things spring to mind from this statement of yours. The
first is encouraging. I see you're admitting the unborn baby is indeed
a baby since you're referring to it as such. The second thing I notice
is somewhat troubling and puzzling. It seems you see no qualitative
difference between a baby being nurtured, protected and nourished in
his or her mother's womb and a man's penis being thrust into that
woman's vagina during intercourse.
If you can't see the qualitative difference between an unborn baby and
a man's erect penis or the difference between a baby growing within
his or her mother's womb and a penis inside a vagina during
intercourse, well, what can I say? There's not much point trying to
have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone who thinks
those two things are fundamentally the same.
.
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: When life begins |
14 Apr 2007 05:32:35 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2007 12:30:19 -0700, "CE" <jlrisdon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 5:01 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
The unborn baby has no more right to her body, than a date
would have.
Well, two things spring to mind from this statement of yours. The
first is encouraging. I see you're admitting the unborn baby is indeed
a baby since you're referring to it as such.
Not so. He is merely using your emotive terminology, because you seem
incapable of understanding anything else.
The second thing I notice
is somewhat troubling and puzzling. It seems you see no qualitative
difference between a baby being nurtured, protected and nourished in
his or her mother's womb and a man's penis being thrust into that
woman's vagina during intercourse.
There are similarities.
Both can be pleasurable if desired, and both can be abhorrent, if
unwanted.
If you can't see the qualitative difference between an unborn baby and
a man's erect penis or the difference between a baby growing within
his or her mother's womb and a penis inside a vagina during
intercourse, well, what can I say?
You can say whatever you like, it will not affect anyone here.
There's not much point trying to
have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone who thinks
those two things are fundamentally the same.
You cannot have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone
who's only concern is getting babies into the world, while giving no
thought or consideration, and being unconcerned, as to the physical
and mental well being of the female, or what is going to happen to the
child once the birthing female, turns her back on it.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: When life begins |
14 Apr 2007 11:04:27 PM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 3:32 am, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 12:30:19 -0700, "CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
The second thing I notice
is somewhat troubling and puzzling. It seems you see no qualitative
difference between a baby being nurtured, protected and nourished in
his or her mother's womb and a man's penis being thrust into that
woman's vagina during intercourse.
There are similarities.
Both can be pleasurable if desired, and both can be abhorrent, if
unwanted.
Antiaborts are rapists. They feel entitled to force women to endure
harm for the benefit of the rapist, and they will shift all blame,
since rapists tend to insist ":she asked for it"
They hate all women, and feel sex should be forced on unwilling women,
and if they dare enjoy sex, they should be punished even more. You
can't reason with that sort of hatred.
If you can't see the qualitative difference between an unborn baby and
a man's erect penis or the difference between a baby growing within
his or her mother's womb and a penis inside a vagina during
intercourse, well, what can I say?
It shows that you are a rapist.
You can say whatever you like, it will not affect anyone here.
There's not much point trying to
have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone who thinks
those two things are fundamentally the same.
You cannot have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone
who's only concern is getting babies into the world, while giving no
thought or consideration, and being unconcerned, as to the physical
and mental well being of the female, or what is going to happen to the
child once the birthing female, turns her back on it.
he wants as much misery as possible, he wants to rape and rape and
rape . .. we can't take care of the humans here already and he wants
to force women to gestate . ..he is insane, he should have beeen
aborted, and the woman whose ***** spurted him should be spayed like a
dog and fed to pit bulls.
The reason there are men like this in the world is because women need
to abort more, and learn to kill those men whose mothers should have
aborted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: When life begins |
14 Apr 2007 05:37:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:32:35 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 12:30:19 -0700, "CE" <jlrisdon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 5:01 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
The unborn baby has no more right to her body, than a date
would have.
Well, two things spring to mind from this statement of yours. The
first is encouraging. I see you're admitting the unborn baby is indeed
a baby since you're referring to it as such.
Not so. He is merely using your emotive terminology, because you seem
incapable of understanding anything else.
And guess what happens when he does.
But this is why CE insists on that language, apart from his being
incapableof grasping nuances of meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: When life begins |
13 Apr 2007 05:09:24 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 12:30 pm, "CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems you see no qualitative
difference between a baby being nurtured, protected and nourished in
his or her mother's womb and a man's penis being thrust into that
woman's vagina during intercourse.
Exactly. The key issue in both cases is consent. Either is just fine
with consent and a violation of the sanctity of her body without it.
If you can't see the qualitative difference between an unborn baby and
a man's erect penis or the difference between a baby growing within
his or her mother's womb and a penis inside a vagina during
intercourse, well, what can I say? There's not much point trying to
have an intelligent discussion about abortion with someone who thinks
those two things are fundamentally the same.
They are both an intrusion on the person's body without her consent
and wonderful things with it. What do you think the difference is?
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
