In article <74GdnQ29ousEkhLdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af8b8e3fe72556c98976d@news.individual.net...

Some idiot pro-lie movement fanatics were on campus today with their
doctored photos of aborted fetuses. I engaged 5 or 6 of them in a
discussion about abortion for over an hour. Many of them were very
poorly educated on the topic of abortion, though they travel the

spreading their propaganda. They seemed unaware of techniques like
Manual vacuum aspiration which can be used at from 3 to 6 weeks of
gestation. They seemed to think that RU486 was the only drug which
could induce abortions. When I started listing some others they later
claimed to have heard of methotrexate, but didn't seem aware that many
women also use misoprostol (without RU486) to induce abortions.

In terms of their rationales, they offered ridiculous reasons to

abortion. They made an argument similar to one Ann Coulter makes,

is that if it's wrong to kill a baby seconds after it's born it must

wrong to kill it in the womb too. Of course this doesn't follow,
because you've be killing it at 9 months when it's viable, as opposed

about 3 or 4 weeks gestation when it's nowhere close to being mature,
even by fetal standards.

They didn't seem to be aware that the 14th amendment to the US
constitution specifies that a citizen is someone who is born or
naturalized in the US. Therefore, the constitution defines

to begin at birth.

So what is that supposed to prove?

I'm just telling you what it says. I wanted to make sure your were
aware of the fact that the 14th amendment, written after the civil war,
specified that citizenship began at conception. The people writing the
amendment were doubtless aware that medical abortions were possible at
the time, but they still didn't define citizenship as starting at
conception.

That we need a law to determine we are a person?

At leas it's a standard. Some of you folks try to maintain that a
zygote is human

weeks after the moment of conception. The standard that they use in the
constitution is far more pragmatic.

They couldn't really deal with the fact that fetuses develop over a
continuum and particular at early times, like before the fetus's brain
develops, it can't even be considered alive by the standards of brain
activity/ brain death. Since death is defined legally by when the

dies, aborting an embryo several weeks into gestation does not even

an entity with a brain.


Furthermore at many stages in the first trimester, where 90% of
abortions occur, the fetus shows no more brain activity than a person

a persistent vegetative state. Abortion is no more than removing
fetuses from life support at a stage in which they cannot come close

caring for themselves, much less being aware of what is occurring.


They claimed that they weren't worried about children born with
deformities because there weren't a lot of deformed children being

in the first place. However, they didn't seem to grasp that the

for this is that many parents choose to abort severely deformed

Abortion has made severe deformed children a relative rarity. If
parents were compelled to carry these deformed fetuses to term it

create a huge financial burden which would have to be picked up by
someone, including possibly the parents, insurance companies or the
government. The upshot would probably be that money would get drained
away from caring for healthier kids, so that we could try to make

efforts to save deformed kids who will probably only survive for a few
months or years anyway.


Oh and issues like overpopulation weren't even on their radar screen.
Then seemed to think that Zero Population Growth was a bad thing, when
in fact countries like India or China would be ecstatic to even

that.

We talked about a bunch more but I'll stop it here for now. If you

have any comments then feel free.

Anyway, it was fun thrashing these pro-lie dorks. Any other pro-lie
dorks here who want some can bring it.

I started to really respect your opinions Quibbler, until I read this.
You are no different than many of the other idiotic pro-choicers in this
NG who just want to bash and insult.

I don't just bash and insult. But I've been talking for hours to these
people and maybe I'm just taking out some of my frustrations. I'm sorry
if you feel offended, but you've said some insensitive things to me in
the past few days too.

since it was just a little trash talking. Don't get so worked up.
Maybe my comments weren't aimed directly at you.

I am very dissappointed, I was enjoying some of our conversations

you were a bit more rational and tollerant of differing opinions and not

quick to judge and want to belittle other people simply because they
don't hold the same view points as you do.
I was sadly mistaken, you are like them. That is a shame.

That was a good guilt trip you laid down :) It was a veritable work of
art, as guilt trips go. Unfortunately your Jedi mind tricks will not
work on Master Quibbler :))

One thing I have found most common about most pro-choice is that
they are very immature, violent, quick tempered,

You seem to have flown off the handle pretty quick yourself. Abortion
is an emotional issue.

fetus while listening to people tell me that condoning the death of a
fertilized ovum is equivalent to condoning the Nazi holocaust. So you
could say that I'm a bit wired.

I found it to be hateful,
spiteful, aimed at angering
and attacking.

I didn't see it that way. But I believe it's better to express my views
than to live in fear that I might offend someone.



--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins