| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2005 04:43:20 PM |
| Object: |
ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
are also against artificial birth control, which would
PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
(Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore, if an aborted
fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
fetus is biologically terminated IN-side the womb, then that
abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery
but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called an
"AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist Gordon-
Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar
Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around people. The
Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed a way to locate
the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA becomes
weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering drugs,
alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes invade and
cause insanity, possession, multiple personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this world
KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be aborted before
birth or terminated immediately after birth, and will simply
STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the United
States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and prevent
it from being violated by others, NOT to stifle it in the
name of power, control, exploitation, ORTHODOX RELIGION, or
the money-god. Any man-made law which fails that test is
automatically and immediately UN-Constitutional, null and
void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to control
her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for ALL
People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before birth, the
world could rapidly become a decent place to live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want to
create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE their self-
righteous religious values against the rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 12:19:31 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 02:47:57 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
Name calling again Ray...doesn't take much to expose your lack of
knowledge. The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
lable you wanna' use. The point is that the unborn of our species are
the same species and deserve to have their lives respected and
tolerated.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No sperm is human not A human. look up human (noun) then do some
research about human development.
Try to dispute this quote and you might have a case ....good luck!!!
"The first week of human development begins with fertilization of the
egg by sperm forming the zygote..."
You are suggesting that humans begin their development at birth
(without one piece of evidence) , when a quick search of a reputable
site on the internet says you are a liar (or very ignorant).
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:57:07 AM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
Name calling again Ray...
If you don't like it then don't start it, *****.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No sperm is human not A human.
You just said that it was, moron. According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:37:57 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No conditions on
being born
Name calling again Ray...
If you don't like it then don't start it, *****.
Doesn't worry me, just makes you look even more silly.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it! Look up human being and learn for yourself. Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn being the
same species as us.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
No sperm is human not A human.
You just said that it was, moron. According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human. An unborn human will
develop their OWN sex cells once they are mature enough. That SHOULD be
enough of a clue for you. Female unborn actually start to lose some of
their gamete producing cells before they are even born!!!!
Your denial is astounding, they really did a good job brainwashing you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:49:12 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No conditions on
being born
Yes, there are.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it!
Try not to be stupider than you have to be,
Look up human being and learn for yourself.
I have. That's how I know you're wrong.
Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn being the
same species as us.
Likewise sperm and egg. Are they also human beings?
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
Just above.
No sperm is human not A human.
You just said that it was, moron. According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human.
Except that gametes are NOT part of a human. They exist separately.
(Unlike an embryo, BTW).
An unborn human will
develop their OWN sex cells once they are mature enough.
Likewise sperm and egg.
That SHOULD be
enough of a clue for you.
It's obvious that your only rule is that people should obey you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
19 Apr 2005 10:43:11 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth,
simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history
the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant
about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the
type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No conditions
on
being born
Yes, there are.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it!
Try not to be stupider than you have to be,
didn't think you'd have any proof...
Look up human being and learn for yourself.
I have. That's how I know you're wrong.
So you can't read either, there is NO condidtion on being born to be a
human being.
Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn being
the
same species as us.
Likewise sperm and egg. Are they also human beings?
No they are sex cells, no human can begin their life until the TWO
parts that form them (sperm and egg) have joined. Which is why
fertilisation is the beginning of a humans development.
The unborn, when mature enough, produce their own sex cells. Sex cells
on their own can be nothing more than sex cells.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
Just above.
Nope, living sperm are sex cells. They are human they are NOT 'A'
human. Do you get confused because each sperm is'unique'?
No sperm is human not A human.
You just said that it was, moron.
No I have NEVER said that
According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
No sperm are sex cells.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human.
Except that gametes are NOT part of a human. They exist separately.
(Unlike an embryo, BTW).
Humans produce sex cells, they are and always will be sex cells, they
(on their own do not develop into anything else. Once human
reproduction is complete (fertilisation) there is no sex cell...the NEW
cell is a zygote. A NEW organism, distinctly different to the mother.
An unborn human will
develop their OWN sex cells once they are mature enough.
Likewise sperm and egg.
No sperm and egg do NOT develop anything.
That SHOULD be
enough of a clue for you.
It's obvious that your only rule is that people should obey you.
Its obvious you have no idea about human reproducton of development.
Talking to reminds me of a dilbert cartoon i read recently. A girl in
dilberts office wrote a letter to an editor complaining about the use
of a certain word. The editor wrote back with a dictionary definition,
she decided to call him a racist...because she had nothing else to say!
reminds me of you.
A human embryo is a distinctly different organism from the mother.
Humans begin their life as single cells, then grow. You don't become
more human with development. Are you suggesting that a teenager is less
than human because they haven't matured enough?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
19 Apr 2005 11:02:41 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth,
simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history
the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant
about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the
type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No conditions
on
being born
Yes, there are.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it!
Try not to be stupider than you have to be,
didn't think you'd have any proof...
LOL! You dont know the difference between an individual and a
species!
Look up human being and learn for yourself.
I have. That's how I know you're wrong.
So you can't read either, there is NO condidtion on being born to be a
human being.
Yes there is.
Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn being
the
same species as us.
Likewise sperm and egg. Are they also human beings?
No they are sex cells,
And embryos are just embryos.
no human can begin their life until
Sperm and egg are already alive.
Why do you think that you get to decide when a human being's life
begins?
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
Just above.
Nope, living sperm are sex cells.
Irrelevant.
They are human they are NOT 'A'
human.
"There is NO conditions to being a human other than, being alive and,
of the family hominidae."
According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
No sperm are sex cells.
According to YOUR definition, just a few lines up, a living sperm is a
human being.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human.
Except that gametes are NOT part of a human. They exist separately.
(Unlike an embryo, BTW).
Humans produce sex cells,
And infants.
they are and always will be sex cells,
Until they're zygotes.
they
(on their own do not develop into anything else.
Neither do embryos.
Once human
reproduction is complete (fertilisation)
LOL! Try not to be such a stupid liar.
An unborn human will
develop their OWN sex cells once they are mature enough.
Likewise sperm and egg.
No sperm and egg do NOT develop anything.
Neither do embryos.
That SHOULD be
enough of a clue for you.
It's obvious that your only rule is that people should obey you.
Its obvious you have no idea about human reproducton of development.
And yet you're the one contradicting yourself and spouting all manner
of *****.
A human embryo is a distinctly different organism from the mother.
Stop lying, *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 01:33:47 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination
of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth,
simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history
the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant
about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is
a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with
reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for
the
type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No
conditions
on
being born
Yes, there are.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it!
Try not to be stupider than you have to be,
didn't think you'd have any proof...
LOL! You dont know the difference between an individual and a
species!
You don't know the difference between a mother and her unborn child
Look up human being and learn for yourself.
I have. That's how I know you're wrong.
So you can't read either, there is NO condidtion on being born to be
a
human being.
Yes there is.
Nope
"The life of the individual begins at conception. An egg is usually
fertilized inside the female by the male through sexual intercourse,
though in vitro fertilization methods are also used. The developing
individual is first called a zygote; as it grows through successive
stages inside the female's uterus over a period of 38 weeks, it is
called an embryo, then a fetus. At birth, the fully grown fetus, now
called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes
independently for the first time, at which point the baby is recognized
as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some
jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in
the uterus. Human life ends with the individual's death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn
being
the
same species as us.
Likewise sperm and egg. Are they also human beings?
No they are sex cells,
And embryos are just embryos.
And an human embryo, is the first stage in a human beings development.
no human can begin their life until
Sperm and egg are already alive.
Who said they weren't? read carefully...no human can begin their life
until the two parts that make them are combined.
Why do you think that you get to decide when a human being's life
begins?
I don't. Placental mammals, when young develop in their mothers womb,
its just a fact of life.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
Just above.
Nope, living sperm are sex cells.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant, they are no more a human being than any of your skin
cells. They happen to share a few characteristics of a human being
(being alive, unique), see if you can find any they don't share...
They are human they are NOT 'A'
human.
"There is NO conditions to being a human other than, being alive and,
of the family hominidae."
According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
No sperm are sex cells.
According to YOUR definition, just a few lines up, a living sperm is
a
human being.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human.
Except that gametes are NOT part of a human. They exist
separately.
(Unlike an embryo, BTW).
Yes they share some characteristics of a human being, they also have
differences see if you can find them... a human embryo depends on their
mother for survival yes, and they are not 'seperate' from their mother.
This is irrevelant, as the young human developing in their mothers womb
is a new human life. Although they are not parasites, they human young
use the mothers body in the same way. A human embryo is not the same
organism as their mother, they have genes from their mother and father
and are a distinctly different organism.
Humans produce sex cells,
And infants.
if the two sex cells are combined, and the conceptus lives long enough
to be called an infant
they are and always will be sex cells,
Until they're zygotes.
They aren't zygotes, they never will be or were zygotes.
"Because each zygote inherits an equal number of chromosomes from
each parent, the biological ancestors from each side of the family line
contribute genetic information to the new human being" McGraw-Hill
Book Company Australia Pty. Ltd. 2001. Psychological Science, An
Introduction. Bond, Nigel et al. p5.12
"When a spermatozoon has entered a secondary oocyte, the tail is shed
and the nucleus in the head develops into a structure called the male
pronucleus. The nucleus of the oocyte develops into female pronucleus.
After the pronuclei are formed, they fuse to produce a segmentation
nucleus. The segmentation nucleus is diploid since it contains 23
chromosomes (n) from the male pronucleus and 23 chromosomes (n) from
the female pronucleus. Thus the fusion of the haploid (n) pronuclei
restores the diploid number. The fertilized ovum, consisting of a
segmentation nucleus, cytoplasm, and zona pellucida, is called a zygote
(ZI-got; zygosis = a joining)" Tortora, G. (1995) Harper Collins
College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p776.
Feel free to try and put some spin on these quotes...
they
(on their own do not develop into anything else.
Neither do embryos.
Yes they do, they develop into the foetal, then neonatal stages of life
and continue to develop until death. Death may naturally occur anytime
from fertilisation onwards.
Once human
reproduction is complete (fertilisation)
LOL! Try not to be such a stupid liar.
?? Its a simple statement, no cites are even required as it's common
knoledge that reproduction ends once they two adult organisms have
reproduced!. The product of fertilisation then develops, hence this
time is marked as the beginning of a human beings development, and
life!
Pregnancy is the process by which a mammalian female carries a live
offspring from conception until it develops to the point where the
offspring is capable of living outside the womb. It starts with
conception, the process of fertilization to form a zygote, and ends in
childbirth, miscarriage, or abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation
An unborn human will
develop their OWN sex cells once they are mature enough.
Likewise sperm and egg.
No sperm and egg do NOT develop anything.
Neither do embryos.
Embryos will, sperm and eggs will not. A female feotus is already
losing her gmatete producing cells.
That SHOULD be
enough of a clue for you.
It's obvious that your only rule is that people should obey you.
Its obvious you have no idea about human reproducton of development.
And yet you're the one contradicting yourself and spouting all manner
of *****.
And you you cannot refute one single fact with anything other than
....'because i said so'
A human embryo is a distinctly different organism from the mother.
Stop lying, *****.
See, you are in denial, this statement is proof.
Why do you think a death certificate is required for a human conceptus
post 20 weeks development?
Why do you think the unborn child is recognised by law in some
(tolerant) places?
Why do you think pregnant women refer to the unborn as their baby?
How do you explain the clear images were we can SEE the young child in
the womb?
How can the offspring of both parents, with their own life processes,
be just a 'part of the mother'? How is it she has two hearts?
Why is it that most (all?) laws recognise the life of a young human as
a 'person' before they are even 'seperate' from their mother?
You are in denial Ray, clearly. Not even very many
pro-choice-of-abortion supporters will support you on this. Why do you
think 'pro-choice-of-abortion' people like the American bloke John
Kerry (he ran for president), publically state that life begins at
conception? Because they know its the TRUTH! and he woulda' been made
to look like a total idiot if he had said otherwise.
Yours is indeed a radical view. If it weren't such a serious topic it'd
be funny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 01:21:42 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination
of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth,
simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history
the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant
about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is
a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with
reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for
the
type
of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
You error, look up human being. You will find there is No
conditions
on
being born
Yes, there are.
The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
Wrong. A human being is not a species.
Prove it!
Try not to be stupider than you have to be,
didn't think you'd have any proof...
LOL! You dont know the difference between an individual and a
species!
You don't know the difference between a mother and her unborn child
Lying about me won't make you less of a stupid *****.
Look up human being and learn for yourself.
I have. That's how I know you're wrong.
So you can't read either, there is NO condidtion on being born to be
a
human being.
Yes there is.
Nope
"The life of the individual begins at conception.
An obvious lie. Sperm and egg are invidual and alive before
conception.
Whatever name you
want to call the species which we are doesn't stop the unborn
being
the
same species as us.
Likewise sperm and egg. Are they also human beings?
No they are sex cells,
And embryos are just embryos.
And an human embryo, is the first stage in a human beings development.
Except for the stages that precede it.
no human can begin their life until
Sperm and egg are already alive.
Who said they weren't?
You did, moron.
read carefully...no human can begin their life
until the two parts that make them are combined.
But the sperm and egg are alreday alive.
Why do you think that you get to decide when a human being's life
begins?
I don't.
Stop lying, *****.
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No I've NEVER insisted that.
Just above.
Nope, living sperm are sex cells.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant, they are no more a human being than any of your skin
cells.
No more a human being than a fertilized egg.
They happen to share a few characteristics of a human being
(being alive, unique), see if you can find any they don't share...
Like, birth?
They are human they are NOT 'A'
human.
"There is NO conditions to being a human other than, being alive and,
of the family hominidae."
According to YOUR definition, just
a few lines up, a living sperm is a human being.
No sperm are sex cells.
According to YOUR definition, just a few lines up, a living sperm is
a
human being.
NO, a living sperm is a sex cell, part of A human.
Except that gametes are NOT part of a human. They exist
separately.
(Unlike an embryo, BTW).
Yes they share some characteristics of a human being, they also have
differences see if you can find them... a human embryo depends on their
mother for survival yes, and they are not 'seperate' from their mother.
Which means that they're not human beings.
they are and always will be sex cells,
Until they're zygotes.
They aren't zygotes, they never will be or were zygotes.
And a fetus will never be an infant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "_GODS__CREATOR_" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 02:05:03 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
== Space saver snipper activated ;-) ===
.....
....
But the sperm and egg are alreday alive.
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive *****!)
If they *BOTH* are alive, that implies (2) living
thingy(s)... So which one was aborted ?
GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wise men face unknowns, and boldly looks for reality!
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
Todays War News:
http://www.antiwar.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 03:09:25 PM |
|
|
In article <z5Sae.12691$go4.12196@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
_GODS__CREATOR_ <Really_God@Go.Com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
== Space saver snipper activated ;-) ===
....
...
But the sperm and egg are alreday alive.
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive *****!)
If they *BOTH* are alive, that implies (2) living
thingy(s)... So which one was aborted ?
There was probably some blood "murdered" too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 10:18:56 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2005 23:33:47 -0700,
"Damien" [Remember "The Omen" trilogy of movies,
Readers? This sociopath -- who doesn't give a flying
rat's ***** for people and their rights -- thus chose a VERY
appropriate alias for himself!] <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
"Damien" <legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history,
the start of a human's life has been marked by birth. ...
...AS a "human being," a.k.a., a person. And as all people having
working brains know, all PEOPLE have been BORN. You know that
well, Ray, but clueless losers like "Damien," here, don't even under-
stand things that are *that* basic and obvious.
It's a common cognitive deficiency that afflicts people ignorant
enough to *be* RRR cultists/homophobes/Anti-Choicers.
You don't know the difference between a mother and her
unborn child.
And you -- ludicrously -- don't even know the obvious difference
between fetuses and children.
All *children* have been BORN, so an "unborn" one is imaginary.
Your terminology reflects the desperation of losers like you who seek
to CON society's most profoundly mentally-impaired (and thus more
prone to being gullible) into falling for the obvious cluelessness (as
in, having NO supporting FACTS that could back it up) of your hateful
agenda that seeks to FORCE millions of women who don't want to,
into gestating full-term. By employing vacuous and emotionally-
charged, phony-baloney word-games. The savvy and sociopathic
leaders of the cult (such as James Dobson... whose specialty is
psychology!... D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson,
Beverly La Haye, Jerry Falwell, and Donald Wildmon) concocted
that strategy for recruitment, and brainwashed lemmings like you
carry it out for them.
Well, the RRR's potential victims (for indoctrination into their
cult of hate) is out there. Around 2% of all Americans have IQs of
62 and under. And those having 75 and below probably constitute
very fair game, from a gullibility standpoint -- due to their reduced
capability to discern the abundant facts that make dog meat of
the cult's objectives -- for the RRR's dishonest deceptions.
From: http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed602lesson7.htm
The Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelligence IQ is also a standard
score with a mean of 100 but with a standard deviation of 16.
Thus a Wechsler IQ of 115 (one SD above the mean) would be
equivalent to a Binet IQ of 116 (also one SD above the mean).
A Wechsler IQ of 130 (two SDs above the mean) would be equiv-
alent to a Binet IQ of 132. In some definitions of mental retard-
ation, the cut off for an IQ score indicative of mental retarda-
tion is set at two standard deviations below the mean of the
general population. This would be equivalent to a Wechsler IQ
of 70 but a Stanford-Binet IQ of 68. We would also expect that
2.27% (.13% + 2.14% = 2.27%) of the population would have IQs
this low.
Which reflects the normal (i.e., unskewed) nature of the
distribution of IQs in a large and random population. 2% of that
population has an IQ that qualifies them for membership in Mensa
(i.e., Stanford-Binet 138 and higher). And 2% are 62 and lower. *
* See table, farther down, for additional clarification.
And RRR cultists comprise only a mere (but noisy *and* noisome)
5% of Americans. (Which is 6% of Americans who *profess* to be
Christians... even though there is nothing much *farther* removed
from being a practicing (i.e., tolerant, kind, fair-minded, sensible,
and compassionate) Christian than to be an RRR cultist who espous-
es, supports, and promotes hateful and loathsome agendas against
personal liberties, and who seeks to impose unconscionable and
immense hardship upon millions of people for NO good reason. (Sadly,
many of the least intelligent of the lemmings don't even realize that
their agendas ARE inherently hateful, and actually (although wrongly)
believe that they are acting as Christians should act.) **
** See APENDIX of this post.
I'd love to see a peer-reviewed study that looks at the average IQ
of people who actively (to any degree) and fervently espouse the
hate-agendas of the RRR cult. Sooner or later, that's bound to be
done. And when it is, I'm betting that the distribution of IQ from
*that* segment of the population will be found to be PROFOUNDLY
skewed into the lower end of the scale. If the MEAN (i.e., average)
IQ of RRR cult lemmings is higher than 80, I'd be very surprised.
This would be a **fascinating** study to pursue!
It would be a GREAT topic for a Master's thesis. Or as a
dissertation for a Ph.D.
And what a *phenomenal* book for general consumption could
then follow, based upon it. Talk about generating a best-seller!!
* From the same statistical website, here's how the
normal curve of distribution for random & large
populations breaks down, by Z-scores. (A Z-score
is the number of standard deviations above (+) and
below (-) the mean. Mean IQ is 100. Wechsler IQ
scores are used, below. Standard deviation for
Wechsler is 15. ---
IQ = 145 (z=+3) to 160 -- 0.13% of population
IQ = 130 (z=+2) to 145 -- 2.14% of population
IQ = 115 (z=+1) to 130 -- 13.59% of population
IQ = 100 (mean) to 115 -- 34.13% of population
IQ = 85 (z=-1) to 100 -- 34.13% of population
IQ = 70 (z=-2) to 85 -- 13.59% of population
IQ = 55 (z=-3) to 70 -- 2.14% of population
IQ = 40 (z=-4) to 55 -- 0.13% of population
The Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelligence IQ is also a
standard score with a mean of 100 but with a standard
deviation of 16. Thus a Wechsler IQ of 115 (one SD
above the mean) would be equivalent to a Binet IQ of
116 (also one SD above the mean). A Wechsler IQ of
130 (two SDs above the mean) would be equivalent
to a Binet IQ of 132. In some definitions of mental retar-
dation, the cut off for an IQ score indicative of mental
retardation is set at two standard deviations below the
mean of the general population. This would be equiva-
lent to a Wechsler IQ of 70 but a Stanford-Binet IQ of
68. We would also expect that 2.27% (0.13% + 2.14%
= 2.27%) of the population would have IQs this low.
APPENDIX
I posted the following article to Usenet on Dec. 11, 2004.
It explains in detail just why it can be pointed out that only a mere
5% of Americans (which is 6% of its *professing* Christians) are
RRR cultists... and how the General Election of Nov. 2, 2004
actually *verified* that. Most of the article details that, and then
the conclusion, based on its facts, is drawn near the end of it.
= = = =
The Big CON: "Religious Right" as Bush's "Base!"
Here are the Indisputable FACTS
It has been well-documented by Nov. 2nd's accurate exit polls
that only 17.16% of voters who went to the polls voted for Bush
on the basis of so-called "moral" issues. (Derived thusly: 22%
voted primarily of the basis of "values," and 78% of those who
did so voted for Bush... for a total of 17.16% voters who voted
for "values" from the standpoint of REPRESSING liberties. The
remainder voted for Kerry, having **defending** personal liberties
as *their* most important issue.) That means that 82.64% of those
who voted for Bush -- FOR BUSH! -- not voters *overall* -- voted
for him for OTHER reasons than "values" being foremost. For
them, if "values" were an issue for some, they took back burner
position to such RELEVANT issues and the war and the econ-
omy. Thus, the control-freakish bigots who voted for Bush were
**outnumbered** by those who voted for him based upon
*relevant* issues by a ratio of about SIX to ONE.
(Bush can consider himself very lucky that 82.84% of his
voters actually were obtuse enough to vote for him based on ANY
issues, considering what a proven dishonest and thug-employing
warmonger that he is.) (It's like the "Mirror" in the UK correctly
asked: "How can 59,[000,000+] Americans be so DUMB?")
That's the KINDEST possible cut to the bigots. But another
aspect to the reality of all of this comes from factoring in the
voters who went for Kerry... virtually NONE of whom (obviously)
did so in hopes of seeing the above repressive agendas being
supported.
Let's use these total vote tallies (which each have probably
increased a bit since they were reported, but the percentages
would not have changed)...
Bush 59,459,785
Kerry 55,949,407
Nader 400,706
...and omit Nader, since I haven't seen exit polls regarding how
"moral"-issues-voters related to voting for him. If I could include
those votes in this analysis, though, it probably would be even
WORSE for the bigots, since Nader supporters tend to siphon off
more would-be Democratic votes than Republican ones. So that's
a point worth remembering.
17.16% of Bush's vote comes to 10,203,299, using the above
tallies. 0% of bigots voting for Kerry, of course, is zilch, numbers-
wise. So -- without factoring in the lukewarm morons who were
eligible to vote, but *didn't*, that means that out of a total of
115,409,192 votes actually cast for Bush & Kerry on Nov. 2nd,
only a mere 8.84% were cast by neocon/RRR cult-type "values"
voters; voters who had NO regard for some of out most important
personal liberties.
*Then* it REALLY goes downhill fast for those pathetic bigots!
Those who **didn't** vote, even though they were eligible to, no
doubt included some passive sympathizers to the RRR cult's agendas.
But, for however more of those there may have been, those bigots
were of the HARMLESS variety that are of no concern at all
for fair-minded and egalitarian defenders of human rights. Why?
Because for a person to pose ANY kind of threat to human rights,
they must in SOME respect be *activists* in that manner.
Consider the fact that pretty much the EASIEST way to be an
activist in the most *minimal* degree these days is to VOTE. Why?
Because recently it has become universally possible, in America, to
vote by mail, or ahead of time in person, or via absentee ballot. So
when a person doesn't even make THAT minimal an effort to
support agendas that interest them, then they have proven their
passivity on these issues. So the percentages of bigots among
those voters doesn't matter, since **passive** bigots are not the
sort of bigots that anyone needs to be concerned with.
(For example -- there probably still are countless thousand, and
maybe even a million or more, closet racists living in America who
used to be segregationists, up until THEIR loathsome agenda
became extinct, 40 years ago. By being **closet** racists, they
are harmless. No one cares about a person's *thoughts.* What
counts is the way he ACTS toward others.
I've been unable to find an exact figure for the percentage of
eligible voters that didn't get to the polls, but extrapolating from
the figures cited in this article...
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Oct/27-717452.html
...it must have been very close to 44%. That gives us a total
of around 206,087,824 total eligible voters: both the ones who
went to the polls, and the 90,678,632 or so who weren't sufficiently
motivated by any of the issues, either real or misperceived, to bother
to vote.
Again -- there is no reason for pro-human rights activists to be
concerned about the eligible voters who didn't vote, because such
lukewarm people don't do human rights any harm, nor do they do
the forces of bigotry any good. Their like the neutrons in an atom;
they add mass/bulk/volume to the population, but when it comes
to these issues, they do little or nothing else.
So we have a total 90,678,632 lukewarm people who proved
that bigoted agendas have such LITTLE importance to them that
they couldn't even be bothered with voting for the candidate most
likely to have aligned himself with those issues.
Of the U.S. electorate eligible to vote on Nov. 2, 2004, we thus
have a total of only 10,203,299 out of 206,087,824 who supported
bigoted agendas by voting for Bush with that being the foremost
reason for casting that vote. That's only a mere 5%.
An "X" factor could be the 80 million or so NON-eligible voters
living in America. Exit polls showed that the **younger** voters who
were old enough and who *did* vote tended to support Kerry by
around 56% to 44%. And the voters over 65 tended to support Bush
in higher percentages than average, but there are fewer of those
than of younger voters. But there's no real way to come up with
figures for how NON-eligible voters **might** have voted if their
viewpoints could be considered, so we're forced either to ignore
them, or simply figure that they were fairly evenly split, as was the
case for the election... which went 51% bush, 49% Kerry, and less
than 1% Nader.
BOTTOM LINE: Of the American electorate eligible to vote, only
a mere 5% are active supporters of the RRR cult's heinous agendas
against human rights and personal liberties. FIVE PERCENT. That's
a ratio of 20-1 of people who either support human rights actively or
for whom opposition to them is of a low enough priority that they
didn't even bother to support those loathsome agendas against safe
& legal abortion-upon-request and **equal** rights for gays by voting
for Bush.
VERY heartening!!
There is NO mandate for Bush that can be ascribed to the
Religious Radical Right, and it is ludicrous for him to consider those
hateful loons to be his "base." Only 5% of America's eligible voters
supported him on that basis!
19 out of every 20 of America's 206 million eligible voters either
are opposed to the loathsome agendas of the RRR cult, or are
not sufficiently interested in them to even minimally support them!
Out of that, the only bad news is this: A glass of drinking water
that's comprised of 5% arsenic would be deadly poisonous. And
that is precisely the danger currently posed to personal freedom in
America by the hateful and control-freakish RRR cult as it exists
today.
More than ever before, thinking, sensible, and egalitarian
Americans need to work HARD to OPPOSE the loathsome RRR
cult on all fronts, and **remove** that poisonous threat to out
personal liberties. STARTING with **vigorous** and vocal opposition
to any Anti-Choice/anti-liberties U.S. Supreme court nominees.
We CAN make America a Bigotry-Free Zone. The arsenic CAN
be filtered out! Especially when 95% of the population is comprised
of human rights activists and apathetic people who pose no oppo-
sition to doing that.
And we MUST do so. Starting today!!!
= = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 04:35:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
< > wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
< > wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development?
You're an idiot who doesn't realize that "human being" is a
social/legal term that has nothing to do with reproduction.
Human being is not a social legal term, it is a term for the type of
species we are.
Wrong again, moron. The species name is "homo sapiens".
Name calling again Ray...doesn't take much to expose your lack of
knowledge. The species name is human/human being/homo sapiens whatever
lable you wanna' use. The point is that the unborn of our species are
the same species and deserve to have their lives respected and
tolerated.
First of all, "human" is an English word. In German we are
"Menschlich", in French we are "humain", in Italian we are "umano", etc.
The term "human" in English is used to define a member of the
Hominidae-Homininae-Homo-Homo-sapiens-sapiens group. The "human" begins
its life at birth, and ends its life at death.
Until the "life" is born, it cannot be considered human. This is where
the point of contention comes in. There are those that are trying to
redefine "human" as being that which isn't human. No one can seem to
agree when a "human" becomes a "human".
There is no conditions to being a human other than,
being alive and, of the family hominidae.
So you insist that living human sperm are human beings.
No sperm is human not A human. look up human (noun) then do some
research about human development.
We have. A sperm is as much a human as a fetus. Where do you draw your
arbitrary line?
Try to dispute this quote and you might have a case ....good luck!!!
Already have. Look above.
"The first week of human development begins with fertilization of the
egg by sperm forming the zygote..."
You are suggesting that humans begin their development at birth
(without one piece of evidence) , when a quick search of a reputable
site on the internet says you are a liar (or very ignorant).
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week1.htm
Sorry, but "human" and "human being" are two different terms.
A "human" is simply one that is part of the homonid race.
A "human being" is a living human.
Albert Einstein is no longer a human being.
Socrates is no longer a human being.
Adolph Hitler is no longer a human being.
Richard Nixon is no longer a human being.
George Washington is no longer a human being.
However, they're all still human.
Human being is made up of two words:
Human "which is a member of the hominid class" and
Being "which is that which is alive and currently existing"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Now Heres Clayton With The Weather" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 01:48:44 AM |
|
|
But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
Abortion is no more the killing of a human than cutting your fingernails is
the amputation of a limb!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 02:03:59 AM |
|
|
Now Here's Clayton With The Weather wrote:
But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
Abortion is no more the killing of a human than cutting your
fingernails is
the amputation of a limb!!!
No. Abortion is the death/killing of a very young human being. An
embryo developing in a womans womb is her and her partners
young/offspring. She is in a sense, an incubator for someone else in
their early stages of development.
If you amputate the limb of a foetus in the womb, the womans young has
had an amputation not the mother. Pregancy is a unique situation, it is
not an illness or a disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 03:56:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Now Here's Clayton With The Weather wrote:
But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
Abortion is no more the killing of a human than cutting your
fingernails is
the amputation of a limb!!!
No. Abortion is the death/killing of a very young human being. An
embryo developing in a womans womb is her and her partners
young/offspring. She is in a sense, an incubator for someone else in
their early stages of development.
So, where do you define the start of the "human being" phase of
existence? The boundary line is different for everyone.
You'll probably say "conception" but why conception?
Before conception, the sperm of the father and the ovum of the mother
are "life", are they not?
Therefore, the average male kills about 100,000,000 babies per
ejaculatory episode. Isn't that mass-murder? How about a woman that
doesn't conceive at all? Isn't she guilty of 350 babies' deaths?
Where is your dividing line, and what makes you right over someone else
that has a different dividing line?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:39:57 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2005 00:03:59 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1113375839.671397.136500@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Now Here's Clayton With The Weather wrote:
But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
Abortion is no more the killing of a human than cutting your
fingernails is
the amputation of a limb!!!
No. Abortion is the death/killing of a very young human being.
No human being exists before live birth.
An
embryo developing in a womans womb is her and her partners
young/offspring. She is in a sense, an incubator for someone else in
their early stages of development.
Except that 'someone else' does not exist before live birth.
If you amputate the limb of a foetus in the womb, the womans young has
had an amputation not the mother. Pregancy is a unique situation, it is
not an illness or a disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:48:13 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 00:03:59 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1113375839.671397.136500@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Now Here's Clayton With The Weather wrote:
But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
Abortion is no more the killing of a human than cutting your
fingernails is
the amputation of a limb!!!
No. Abortion is the death/killing of a very young human being.
No human being exists before live birth.
What are they puppies?
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not a human
being?
<snip - space left for excuses to not answer the questions>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 08:01:55 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not a human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 04:52:48 PM |
|
|
Scotmc wrote:
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not a
human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
So the statement "a fetus is not a human being" can not be supported.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 06:22:18 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2005 14:52:48 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113429168.380266.119130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Scotmc wrote:
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not a
human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
So the statement "a fetus is not a human being" can not be supported.
No, the position that a fetus is a human being cannot be supported.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 11:07:41 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 14:52:48 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113429168.380266.119130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Scotmc wrote:
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not
a
human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
So the statement "a fetus is not a human being" can not be
supported.
No, the position that a fetus is a human being cannot be supported.
If that is true, you should be able to tell us what kind of a being it
is. Can you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 03:35:17 PM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2005 09:07:41 -0700, in alt.abortion with
message-id <1113494861.337499.193770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 14:52:48 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113429168.380266.119130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Scotmc wrote:
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is not
a
human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
So the statement "a fetus is not a human being" can not be
supported.
No, the position that a fetus is a human being cannot be supported.
If that is true, you should be able to tell us what kind of a being it
is. Can you?
It is a fetus, species human. Nothing more or less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 09:42:22 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005 09:07:41 -0700, in alt.abortion with
message-id <1113494861.337499.193770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 14:52:48 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113429168.380266.119130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Scotmc wrote:
Attila wrote:
No human being exists before live birth.
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you find any medical reference that will say a fetus is
not
a
human
being?
The issue is not going to be decided by a medical
reference book.
So the statement "a fetus is not a human being" can not be
supported.
No, the position that a fetus is a human being cannot be
supported.
If that is true, you should be able to tell us what kind of a being
it
is. Can you?
It is a fetus, species human. Nothing more or less.
Are you evading the question? I asked you what kind of being it is.
Can we expect an answer anytime soon or have you just admitted that it
is a "human being", since you state it is "species human" and the word
human is in fact a part of your answer???? How am I to understand your
response? Please be more direct.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
