On 9 Jan 2005 02:53:49 -0800,
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation)...

It also does it after the 7th month.

You jumped the gun. The REST of my paragraph continued
to describe enities only up TO that point.

I jumped no gun. I pointed out what you tried to gloss over.

You complete moron. Even after I *explained* the sequence in
which I was presenting the facts, you STILL don't get it.

There ARE (per JAMA's documentation) between 500 and 600
abortions in the USA annually -- out of 1,200,000 -- that are 3rd-
trimester ones. ALL of which would be as a result of medical
exigency/necessity. So that's moot. NO woman waits that long
to get an *elective* one.

...which have ALL of these characteristics in common with
sperm and ova:

-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future

-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive

The same is true of babies who are born comatose without ever
having been conscious. You are an advocate of limited

Wrong. This is an abortion discussion, and abortion has

to do with babies. Comatose ones or otherwise.

Whether this is an abortion discussion has nothing to do with

what I said was right or wrong.

You claimed I was "an advocate of limited infanticide," and I
pointed out that you were a blatent LIAR (and bone-STUPID) for making
that ludicrous claim. How much plainer do I have to make it that you
are WRONG?

...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.

Sperm and ova don't have the requisite number of chromosomes

make it hypocritical.

Number of chromosomes is irrelevant. Is their DNA **human?**

Human in what sense?

[[[ READERS: Please pay attention in THIS post. He's rapidly
proving himself to be one of the BEST examples ever of just
HOW dumb the Antii-Choicers really are! ]]]

Yes. And THAT is what is relevant. Gametes comprise a stage

the HUMAN reproductive process, and as such all are **potential**
people.

And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:

-- In NO way condemns abortion

Does it condemn polygamy? Must Christians therefore approve

polygamy?

No. They NEED not "approve" of it. ###--> But they CAN mind
their own business! SENSIBLE ones DO, when it comes to other
people's personal matters. <--###

In that case they need not approve of abortion either.

[[[ READERS: having NO FACTS that support their loathsome
stance against women available to them, THIS is the sort of
dishonesty that those hateful and bigoted loons feel the

to resort to. ]]]

Look up "Busybody," loser. Then find a mirror.

-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion

It mentions polygamy in a positive light. Abraham and Moses
had several wives concurrently.

Good for them. Who cares.

People like you who pretend that the Bible is the be-all and
end-all of morality for "the majority of Americans".

No pretending necessary. It IS.

-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.

Fratricide has the most ancient lineage of all (Cain and
Abel). Should that be legal too?

That was condemned. (Can you spell "R-E-D H-E-R-R-I-N-G,"
coward?)

But your position is that anything that was around for a long

must be OK. Whether it was condemned is beside the point.

No. That IS the point. Abortion was already present and
practiced in Biblical times, but was NEVER condemned in the Bible.
Abel's murder WAS.

-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the

of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.

What about this:

"For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears,
the babe in my womb leaped for joy." (Luke 1:44 RSV)

(1) Luke wasn't even there to document that. Hearsay.

Duh! For Christians the Bible isn't just the word of Luke,

word of God who is presumed to know everything.

Not to INTELLIGENT Christians. Most of whom know that
the Bible contains, for example, many contradictions.

(2) The term, "fetus," hadn't been coined yet.

(1) So what?

So lots of people of your ignorant ilk try to pretend that

Bible defends fetuses as though they were babies, just because the
word, "fetus." wasn't yet available when the Bible was written.

(2) You're an ignorant fool. "Fetus" is latin for

offspring, progeny, brood"! The term occurs,

example, in the writings of Cicero who died in

The ignorance is all yours. NONE of the writers of the books of
the bible wrote in Latin.

(3) It almost certainly was nothing more than a normal
fetal kick. Interpreted as she had WANTED to interpret

The bible doesn't say that. It states as a fact that the fetus

joy.

What part of "interpreted as she had WANTED to interpret it"

SAILED right over your head just now?

You can argue about whether the Christian view of the Bible as
God's word is right or wrong, but there is no question that it
ascribes human consciousness to [a fetus].

"Interpreted as she had WANTED to interpret it."

-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth

Because the ancient Israelites wouldn't have known what it
was talking about. They'd never heard of ova.

Really? Then what was that "SEED" which is referred to in
the Bible? In Biblical times, there already was some knowledge
of gametes.

The "seed" was sperm. They knew about sperm, but not ova.
They had no concept of "gamete".

No kidding? You think that they were smart enough to know what
an invisible sperm was, despite not yet having microscopes -- but
ignorant enough not to at least guess that a counterpart was to be
found in women? I doubt that!

Abortion-on-request enables women to:

<propagandistic LIE flushed>

Legal abortion-on-request:

-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions

And Jew-killing became exponentially safer when Hitler
legalized it.

Which involved killing PEOPLE.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that it was much safer.

Killing people is the most sociopathic act of all.

Abortion kills nothing but unwanted entities having NO
more intrinsic value than the Stage One *potential* people
of the reproductive process.

Abortion kills a human being.

Wrong. "Human being" is a SOCIETAL term... NOT a
legal, medical, or scientific one. Anbd it **always** applies
to already-BORN **people.**

All human beings are entitled to all human rights.

INCLUDING the right to control their own reproduction -- a right
you so stupidly and hatefull seek to DENY to tens of millions of
women. Making you a mindless and bigoted *****.

The fetus is not a potential person.

Yes it is, since ACTUAL people don't exist until the moment of
BIRTH. **All** entities of the four stages of the reproductive
process are merely **potential** people, no matter HOW much you
may whine otherwise.

Other related facts include:

-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better

And many of those kids are subconsciously aware of the
aborted child. It's not a situation that makes for good mental
health.

The FIRST thing that should be pointed out to ANY child who's
mother had previously had an abortion is the fact that if she had

had the abortion, then HE/SHE (the child that was born later)

would have existed!! Because her life would have taken a

path, and thus the gametes that led to him/her **never** would

MET. And therefore, he/she can be very THANKFUL that the abortion
had taken place.

But that's not what happens. No child is thankful their brother

sister was aborted.

Of course not. Since if an entity was previously aborted, it
NEVER WAS either a brother or a sister. It was the equivalent
of an expelled egg during a mensrual cycle.

But if the abortion were explained FACTUALLY, any child learning
about it would have reason to be thankful that it had been done!

They know it was just luck it wasn't them.

You are TRULY dumber than a dead rock. (But that doesn't
surprise me; I learned many years ago that almost NO Anti-Choicer
has sufficient intelligence to do abstract reasoning. And to them,
that which I just described seems abstract to the point of being
beyond their comprehension capabilities.)

-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children

LESS prone to criminal behavior.

It doesn't make the ... child [that was born] feel loved to
know that its brother or sister was killed by mummy before birth.
They know it was just luck that mummy didn't kill them instead.

There was NO "brother" or "sister." There was merely an

that was the EQUIVALENT, in all important ways, to the ovum that

expelled routinely every month via menstruation.

In all important ways? The ovum was not a human being.

NEITHER was the embryo/fetus.

And which WOULD have been expelled in that particular case
had it not been merely for her having had sex. (And hopefully,

children hearing those explanations would be a lot smarter than

and thus would have NO problem understanding that.)

-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered

every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had

the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the

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

And that's why its OK to...

...seek the harmless and hugely-beneficial REMEDY of abortion.
Along with everything else that I pointed out in this outline.

I see you've [edited] my post. Afraid of what will happen if

reads it, huh?

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. etc
...
And thus you are a sociopath who is totally without excuse.