| 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: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:16:03 PM |
|
|
In article <9hz8e.103$L03.22@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> wrote:
osprey wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
osprey wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
.
Check laws involving human beings and see if they cover a
fetus
without being written specifically to cover a fetus.
That's why people go to jail for killing a fetus..explain that
ROFL!!!! The guard doesnąt understand the law.
This guard knows more about law than the fictional lawyer knows
any
day.
Your knowledge of the law is pathetic
You are just ***** because I have become educated and learning
more about law and you can't counter. Go back to bed moron.
Am I the only one who finds "You are just ***** because I have
become educated and learning more about law and you can't counter"
very
indictive of someone's mental abilities?
To each his own.
But if you wish to talk about someone's mental abilities, and one who
claims to be a lawer, watch Barnes..:o)
Personally, I distrust anyone who will openly admit to being a lawyer.
I enjoy it. But I agree that out legal system has holes in it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 10:26:51 AM |
|
|
In article <uC48e.6287$bc2.283@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> wrote:
osprey wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
.
Check laws involving human beings and see if they cover a
fetus
without being written specifically to cover a fetus.
That's why people go to jail for killing a fetus..explain that
ROFL!!!! The guard doesnąt understand the law.
This guard knows more about law than the fictional lawyer knows any
day.
Your knowledge of the law is pathetic
You are just ***** because I have become educated and learning
more about law and you can't counter. Go back to bed moron.
Am I the only one who finds "You are just ***** because I have
become educated and learning more about law and you can't counter" very
indictive of someone's mental abilities?
No - I caught it too. His gaffs have become old hat. I just smile at
how pathetic he is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 07:07:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:08:42 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<uC48e.6287$bc2.283@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
osprey wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
.
Check laws involving human beings and see if they cover a
fetus
without being written specifically to cover a fetus.
That's why people go to jail for killing a fetus..explain that
ROFL!!!! The guard doesnąt understand the law.
This guard knows more about law than the fictional lawyer knows any
day.
Your knowledge of the law is pathetic
You are just ***** because I have become educated and learning
more about law and you can't counter. Go back to bed moron.
Am I the only one who finds "You are just ***** because I have
become educated and learning more about law and you can't counter" very
indictive of someone's mental abilities?
No. I was wondering if I should make any of the obvious retorts
myself. With references.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 02:00:28 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
.
Check laws involving human beings and see if they cover a
fetus
without being written specifically to cover a fetus.
That's why people go to jail for killing a fetus..explain that
ROFL!!!! The guard doesn=B9t understand the law.
This guard knows more about law than the fictional lawyer knows any
day.
Your knowledge of the law is pathetic
You are just ***** because I have become educated and learning
more about law and you can't counter. Go back to bed moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 07:05:23 AM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2005 19:02:39 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113616490.159557.40560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your source
is a "qualified expert".
This simply emphases your basic total lack of either honesty or
integrity.
No wonder everything you say is viewed with suspicion and doubt by so
many here.
.that still doesn't refute
what was stated in my source. The fetus is a human being. A person?
No, human being yes.
A person and a human being are the same, and live birth is required.
Check any law that refers to a human being and see if it applies in
general to a fetus.
two problems with your theory
a) law doesn't determine when you are a human being
Yes it does. In our society, which is all that matters to us.
b) law is not universal
It is universal throughout all human cultures.
Law in some form always exists.
The fact that you have to fight against it so
hard and can't demonstrate or support your case, only proves my
claim
that pro-aborts like yourself have to cling to terms.
No, it only shows what regular followers here already know - you pick
and chose your definitions.
Nope, it's just a fact. A fetus is a human being. You can't accept
that because it would hurt your agenda and support for abortion
Every law involving a human being requires live birth for that law to
apply. Some esoteric definition you may or may not be able to find
really doesn't matter when it comes to practical reality does it?
When it hatches it is a chicken.
When the acorn is fertilized and has begun the process of a
new
tree,
it is an oak tree.
When it sprouts it is a tree, until then it is an acorn.
That's
why
it is called an acorn.
An acorn is a unfertilized seed. Simple as that. It is the fruit
of
the oak.
No, an acorn is fertilized. Plant it and it will grow a tree.
The acorn is the fruit of the oak.
Irrelevant. It still is not an oak.
It is once it is fertilized
No, until it sprouts it is an acorn. After that it is a tree. It
cannot be both.
When the sperm and the egg have combined, the process of
conception
has
begun, we have a new human being, also referred to as the
zygote.
No human being exists until live birth.
Denial is your middle name.
Is that the best you can do?
Better than you have done so far.
Not as far as I am concerned.
Well, I don't think anyone actually expects you to admit your error
I don't think anyone actually accepts your opinion about anything.
And a fetus is still not a human being.
The law is unchanged.
The law doesn't determine this.
Yes, it does.
No, it does not.
Check laws involving human beings and see if they cover a fetus
without being written specifically to cover a fetus.
That's why people go to jail for killing a fetus..explain that
The same reason people have gone to jail for killing a dog. They
violated a statute that defined killing a fetus (or a dog) under the
conditions outlined in the statute as a crime.
A fetus is a human being. Period. From conception, the fetus has
EVERYTHING needed to live. Not half, like the egg and sperm alone,
but
everything.
Fine. Remove it from the pregnant woman and put it on a table.
After
all, it has everything it needs.
Remove an egg and/or sperm alone from a persons body and see what you
have.
The same result? No human being?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 06:22:21 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 10:56:11 PM |
|
|
In article <d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
To Osprey, if you have a college degree, you are an expert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 12:17:42 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
To Osprey, if you have a college degree, you are an expert.
No, to ***** he is the only expert and anybody who proves him wrong
must be lying or deluded.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 07:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 07:50:28 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area
and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who
do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a
human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your
source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda
and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so ever.
He is the true Ostrich, he would stick his head in the sand if it meant
avoiding facing the truth. I am afraid, you are right beside him.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of chromosomes.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception. Thus, a new human being has been created.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
pro-choicers, such as yourself, hinges on terms like zygote, embryo,
fetus...any term other than baby, human being, a life. I have seen some
even say that the unborn is nothing more than a glob of cells, while
medical science has shown otherwise.
I know the game you play, I know it all too well.
Even though these terms are used, they are no different than other
terms we use to describe a human being during a certain stage of life.
zygote - the first cells have begun division
embyro
fetus
newborn
infant
toddler
child
teen
and so forth
All terms to describe a stage in "life", and yet in each stage we still
have a human being.
Ray's response echo's the attitude of most pro-choicers who are afraid
to face the truth, or admit it. To attack the person or the source,
instead of the information. This is common, and most who know the
extreme pro-choicer (pro-abortion), knows their tactics well.
You still can't refute or prove otherwise that a fetus is not a human
being.
The fetus is a human being
And you, Ray, and many other extreme pro-choicers are pathetic,
whining, little peon's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 08:31:01 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 17:50:28 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113699028.589830.90430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this area
and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those who
do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a
human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your
source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda
and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so ever.
He is the true Ostrich, he would stick his head in the sand if it meant
avoiding facing the truth. I am afraid, you are right beside him.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of chromosomes.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception. Thus, a new human being has been created.
No, all of that is involved with being human. The only criteria for
being a human being is established by society and has three
components:
1. Species human
2. Being born
3. Being alive.
A corpse is not a human being since it is dead. A dog is not a human
being since the species is not human.. And a fetus is not a human
being because birth has not occurred.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
pro-choicers, such as yourself, hinges on terms like zygote, embryo,
fetus...any term other than baby, human being, a life. I have seen some
even say that the unborn is nothing more than a glob of cells, while
medical science has shown otherwise.
In the early stages a 'glob of cells' would be an accurate
description, since they could only be seen under a microscope.
I know the game you play, I know it all too well.
Even though these terms are used, they are no different than other
terms we use to describe a human being during a certain stage of life.
zygote - the first cells have begun division
embyro
fetus
newborn
Which is now a human being because birth has occurred.
infant
toddler
child
teen
and so forth
All terms to describe a stage in "life", and yet in each stage we still
have a human being.
No more than a newborn is also an adult.
Ray's response echo's the attitude of most pro-choicers who are afraid
to face the truth, or admit it. To attack the person or the source,
instead of the information. This is common, and most who know the
extreme pro-choicer (pro-abortion), knows their tactics well.
You still can't refute or prove otherwise that a fetus is not a human
being.
It has repeatedly ben refuted and pointed out that the laws involved
all require live birth.
The fetus is a human being
No, it isn't.
But for the sake of a totally abstract discussion (as dangerous as
this is with you).
So what? What difference does the term used make?
And you, Ray, and many other extreme pro-choicers are pathetic,
whining, little peon's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 08:44:44 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 17:50:28 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113699028.589830.90430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this
area
and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those
who
do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a
human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your
source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda
and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so
ever.
He is the true Ostrich, he would stick his head in the sand if it
meant
avoiding facing the truth. I am afraid, you are right beside him.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of
chromosomes.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception. Thus, a new human being has been created.
No, all of that is involved with being human. The only criteria for
being a human being is established by society and has three
components:
1. Species human
Fetus is human
2. Being born
Nope, that is for legal purposes only and weak due to the fact that
laws are not universal.
3. Being alive.
The fetus is alive
A corpse is not a human being since it is dead. A dog is not a human
being since the species is not human.. And a fetus is not a human
being because birth has not occurred.
Wrong
But I know why you are saying it, it's the pro-choice game. You have to
say it.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at
no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
pro-choicers, such as yourself, hinges on terms like zygote, embryo,
fetus...any term other than baby, human being, a life. I have seen
some
even say that the unborn is nothing more than a glob of cells, while
medical science has shown otherwise.
In the early stages a 'glob of cells' would be an accurate
description, since they could only be seen under a microscope.
Nope, using that logic we are all just a glob of cells.
I know the game you play, I know it all too well.
Even though these terms are used, they are no different than other
terms we use to describe a human being during a certain stage of
life.
zygote - the first cells have begun division
embyro
fetus
newborn
Which is now a human being because birth has occurred.
Nope
infant
toddler
child
teen
and so forth
All terms to describe a stage in "life", and yet in each stage we
still
have a human being.
No more than a newborn is also an adult.
A newborn is a human being, an adult is a human being, a fetus is a
human being, an old lady is a human being, an old man is a human
being...and so on.
Ray's response echo's the attitude of most pro-choicers who are
afraid
to face the truth, or admit it. To attack the person or the source,
instead of the information. This is common, and most who know the
extreme pro-choicer (pro-abortion), knows their tactics well.
You still can't refute or prove otherwise that a fetus is not a
human
being.
It has repeatedly ben refuted and pointed out that the laws involved
all require live birth.
Nope, only for legal recognition purposes only.
The fetus is a human being
No, it isn't.
Yes, the fetus is.
But for the sake of a totally abstract discussion (as dangerous as
this is with you).
So what? What difference does the term used make?
It makes a BIG difference in regards to the pro-choicers. Because they
would have to admit that abortion kills a human being, and they can't
do that.
And you, Ray, and many other extreme pro-choicers are pathetic,
whining, little peon's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 10:55:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1113745484.579922.17520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 17:50:28 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113699028.589830.90430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this
area
and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those
who
do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a
human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your
source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda
and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so
ever.
He is the true Ostrich, he would stick his head in the sand if it
meant
avoiding facing the truth. I am afraid, you are right beside him.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of
chromosomes.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception. Thus, a new human being has been created.
No, all of that is involved with being human. The only criteria for
being a human being is established by society and has three
components:
1. Species human
Fetus is human
2. Being born
Nope, that is for legal purposes only and weak due to the fact that
laws are not universal.
What county do you think you live in?
3. Being alive.
The fetus is alive
So is a chipmunk.
A corpse is not a human being since it is dead. A dog is not a human
being since the species is not human.. And a fetus is not a human
being because birth has not occurred.
Wrong
But I know why you are saying it, it's the pro-choice game. You have to
say it.
You sure did a poor job of supporting your position - "Wrong"
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at
no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
pro-choicers, such as yourself, hinges on terms like zygote, embryo,
fetus...any term other than baby, human being, a life. I have seen
some
even say that the unborn is nothing more than a glob of cells, while
medical science has shown otherwise.
In the early stages a 'glob of cells' would be an accurate
description, since they could only be seen under a microscope.
Nope, using that logic we are all just a glob of cells.
You are. What did you think you were?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 09:55:51 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2005 06:44:44 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113745484.579922.17520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 17:50:28 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113699028.589830.90430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:21 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3s6nc$hsb$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
Cute, you posted someone elses comments..
Of course I did you moron - I am hardly an expert in this
area
and
dod
not do origional case studies r research. I refer to those
who
do.
Your so called expert didn't dispute the fact that a fetus is a
human
being. Meanwhile, my source is a qualified expert.
I find it amusing my source is a "so called expert" while your
source
is a "qualified expert".
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda
and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so
ever.
He is the true Ostrich, he would stick his head in the sand if it
meant
avoiding facing the truth. I am afraid, you are right beside him.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of
chromosomes.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception. Thus, a new human being has been created.
No, all of that is involved with being human. The only criteria for
being a human being is established by society and has three
components:
1. Species human
Fetus is human
Of course it is. DNA proves that. So is my finger, by the way.
2. Being born
Nope, that is for legal purposes only and weak due to the fact that
laws are not universal.
Irrelevant since the term 'human being' is a legal term and not a
scientific term.
3. Being alive.
The fetus is alive
Correct. The point is being born dead means no human being ever
existed.
A corpse is not a human being since it is dead. A dog is not a human
being since the species is not human.. And a fetus is not a human
being because birth has not occurred.
Wrong
Your worthless opinion.
But I know why you are saying it, it's the pro-choice game. You have to
say it.
I have to say nothing, and yes, I am pro-choice.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at
no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
pro-choicers, such as yourself, hinges on terms like zygote, embryo,
fetus...any term other than baby, human being, a life. I have seen
some
even say that the unborn is nothing more than a glob of cells, while
medical science has shown otherwise.
In the early stages a 'glob of cells' would be an accurate
description, since they could only be seen under a microscope.
Nope, using that logic we are all just a glob of cells.
Why not? "glob" is hardly a very exact term.
I know the game you play, I know it all too well.
Even though these terms are used, they are no different than other
terms we use to describe a human being during a certain stage of
life.
zygote - the first cells have begun division
embyro
fetus
newborn
Which is now a human being because birth has occurred.
Nope
Your worthless opinion is noted.
infant
toddler
child
teen
and so forth
All terms to describe a stage in "life", and yet in each stage we
still
have a human being.
No more than a newborn is also an adult.
A newborn is a human being, an adult is a human being,
Yes.
a fetus is a
human being,
No.
an old lady is a human being, an old man is a human
being...and so on.
Yes.
A corpse is not a human being.
Ray's response echo's the attitude of most pro-choicers who are
afraid
to face the truth, or admit it. To attack the person or the source,
instead of the information. This is common, and most who know the
extreme pro-choicer (pro-abortion), knows their tactics well.
You still can't refute or prove otherwise that a fetus is not a
human
being.
It has repeatedly ben refuted and pointed out that the laws involved
all require live birth.
Nope, only for legal recognition purposes only.
What else matters?
The fetus is a human being
No, it isn't.
Yes, the fetus is.
Your worthless opinion is noted.
But for the sake of a totally abstract discussion (as dangerous as
this is with you).
So what? What difference does the term used make?
It makes a BIG difference in regards to the pro-choicers. Because they
would have to admit that abortion kills a human being, and they can't
do that.
Why? What is the big deal about that? An abortion kills a fetus, no
matter what you call it, and whatever term or label is used makes no
difference as far as I am concerned. Call it a human being or a
kumquat - the purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy and
anything else is an irrelevant and unimportant side effect no matter
what you want to call it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 12:13:29 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so ever.
Heishman's too stupid to notice that his "expert" isn't a scientist
and has no apparent expertise in the subject.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of chromosomes.
Says who, *****? There are millions of cells in your body, EACH of
which has "a complete set of chromosomes". Then there are people who
walk around and look like people but apparently are not because they
do NOT have "a complete set of chromosomes".
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception.
Wrong, *****.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
***** Heishman is a dumbshit who thinks that everybody who disagrees
with him and his 6th grade education must be wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 10:59:56 AM |
|
|
In article <d3sr9o$7ot$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
His source isn't an expert at all. Just somebody with propaganda and
an opinion.
Sometimes I am easily amused.
Actually Ray's response comes at absolutely no surprise what so ever.
Heishman's too stupid to notice that his "expert" isn't a scientist
and has no apparent expertise in the subject.
What makes a human being is when we have a complete set of chromosomes.
Says who, *****? There are millions of cells in your body, EACH of
which has "a complete set of chromosomes". Then there are people who
walk around and look like people but apparently are not because they
do NOT have "a complete set of chromosomes".
Osprey: Ray just made you look like a fool.
The genetic map has been laid out. The sex, hair color, eye color,
even personality, and many other features has been decided at the
moment of conception.
Wrong, *****.
Your response, Ray's response, most pro-choicers responses comes at no
surprise. It is a tactic to avoid using the term human being. Most
***** Heishman is a dumbshit who thinks that everybody who disagrees
with him and his 6th grade education must be wrong.
And is a bigot....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 12:16:41 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
It's still a chicken, it's still an oak tree.
So you eat scrambled chickens and build with planks from an acorn.
On second thought, you probably do.
When the egg is fertilized and the life has begun, it is a chicken.
And if the waitress delivers a fried egg when you ask for fried
chicken you're not at all surprised.
When the acorn is fertilized and has begun the process of a new tree,
it is an oak tree.
Which means you can build a table with an acorn.
Stupid *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 02:01:53 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005 07:58:14 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113490694.353275.182870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 14:52:02 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113429122.436094.184810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 05:48:13 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113396493.813274.240300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
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?
It's called a fetus.
Yea and? A toddler is called a toddler, an infant is called an
infant,
a newborn is called a newborn, a teenager is called a teenager,
an
adult is called an adult, elderly is called elderly.
A chicken is called an egg, an oak tree is called an acorn. Would
you
like some more?
It's still a chicken, it's still an oak tree.
So you eat scrambled chickens and build with planks from an acorn.
On second thought, you probably do.
When the egg is fertilized and the life has begun, it is a chicken.
It is a chicken-to-be, not a "chicken".
When the acorn is fertilized and has begun the process of a new tree,
it is an oak tree.
So, the squirrels in my backyard are burying trees? Can I call up my
insurance company and tell them that trees are falling on my car? I
should be able to squeeze a pretty penny out of my insurance company, if
they believed that.
An acorn is NOT a tree, moron! But, then, you wouldn't believe me if I
showed you the proof. (Trees, having sprouting leaves, branches, roots,
etc.)
When the sperm and the egg have combined, the process of conception has
begun, we have a new human being, also referred to as the zygote.
Incorrect. Human life begins before conception. A human sperm is human
life, so is the human ovum. When they join, they create human "life",
starting as a human blastocyst, turning into a human zygote, followed by
a human embryo, followed by a human fetus, followed by a human baby,
whereupon it gains the title "human being".
During the "human zygote/embryo/fetus" phase of gestation, they're known
simply as "human life".
Those terms are all descriptive terms applying to a person after
birth.
Nope, and I have already in another post provided medical testimony
that the fetus is a human being.
But all the medical testimony in the world simply does not matter
because it is a legal issue not settled by a scientific opinion.
I provided a legitimate source, you provided nothing.
I have read of your source all the "Myths" provided. She provides some
valid, yet somewhat misleading testimony. It is true that "human life"
begins at conception, however, this "human life" is not, in fact a
"human being" legally.
According to Roe V Wade, "human being" begins at birth.
Also, it's hard to find testimony from our side of the aisle because
doctors are leery of attaching their name to a very controversial side
of the subject, due to the abrasive and harrasive nature of the "other
side".
Heck, it's nearly impossible for a woman to get a "check-up" at a
"women's clinic" without being assaulted verbally by "pro-lifers" who
call her a *****, and accost her with violent imagery of dead fetuses.
Is it any wonder doctors whose profession and perhaps very life is on
the line, refuse to attach their name to potentially explosive quotations?
Johns Hopkins Hospital says that there are just as many doctors on the
pro-choice side as on the pro-life side, but pro-choice doctors are
afraid of "coming out of the closet", if you will, on this subject.
You lose
Lose/win is an arbitrary decision here. We're not trying to 'win' an
argument on this. From your vantage point, you are the 'winner', but
from my vantage point, you are the 'loser'.
Here's a better quote than Irving's quote:
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
If you see something you hate, act. Do not yell at people on
Newsgroups; they'll do one of three things:
1) Ignore you
2) Blow you off
3) Killfile you
Now, either work to change the law that you find horrid, or shut up.
If you think I've lost, think again. I act on my words. I'm well in
touch with my congressperson. Are you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 08:43:24 AM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2005 07:58:14 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
It's still a chicken, it's still an oak tree.
Your roast chicken dinners must be a bit hit-and-miss.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 08:42:16 AM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:i7hv51pgbqr0o0pk7cnctltb65nvi2q840@4ax.com...
On 14 Apr 2005 07:58:14 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
It's still a chicken, it's still an oak tree.
Your roast chicken dinners must be a bit hit-and-miss.
<Snicker> :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 05:13:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:43:24 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005 07:58:14 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
It's still a chicken, it's still an oak tree.
Your roast chicken dinners must be a bit hit-and-miss.
Nah, like Hershmann, it's hunt'n peckers.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:24:50 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
Those terms are all descriptive terms applying to a person after
birth.
Nope, and I have already in another post provided medical testimony
that the fetus is a human being.
Heishman is either lying or stupid. He provided NO medical testimony.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 08:01:17 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid *****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
07 May 2005 01:58:59 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid
*****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
At the risk of, no doubt being called names, I'll chime in here. A
FETUS tells us nothing about what it is. It only tells us that it is at
a certain stage of development. The word FETUS denotes a stage of
development, not what it actually is a stage of development of.
Therefore, when someone asks you "What is it?" and you respond "Fetus",
you are not answering the question...you are evading it. I think that
the use of the example of "puppies" misses the mark just a bit because
it also denotes a stage of canine development and does not actually
indicate what it is. A puppy, is in fact a dog. It would be silly to
insist that you didn't shoot a dog when you shoot a puppy. That being
said, you extrapolate your own conclusion as it is applied to the human
model.
Hopefully, that will drill down to your cranium as long as the hard
bedrock of special interests and special agendas aren't lodged between
the skull and the brain.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
07 May 2005 02:37:09 PM |
|
|
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid
*****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
At the risk of, no doubt being called names, I'll chime in here. A
FETUS tells us nothing about what it is. It only tells us that it is at
a certain stage of development.
A HUMAN fetus.
The word FETUS denotes a stage of
development, not what it actually is a stage of development of.
Therefore, when someone asks you "What is it?" and you respond "Fetus",
you are not answering the question...you are evading it.
Most people are smart enough to figure out what kind of fetus is being
discussed from the context. Sorry to hear that you are not.
I think that
the use of the example of "puppies" misses the mark just a bit because
it also denotes a stage of canine development and does not actually
indicate what it is. A puppy, is in fact a dog. It would be silly to
insist that you didn't shoot a dog when you shoot a puppy. That being
said, you extrapolate your own conclusion as it is applied to the human
model.
And when you order fried chicken and are presented with a fried egg
do you not object that you weren't given what you asked for?
Or do you really think that an egg is the same as a chicken?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
09 May 2005 10:58:38 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid
*****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
At the risk of, no doubt being called names, I'll chime in here. A
FETUS tells us nothing about what it is. It only tells us that it is
at
a certain stage of development.
A HUMAN fetus.
A human fetus that is a live..so it is a life...it is human...so, in
abortion, a human life is destroyed. Thank you for that clarification.
The word FETUS denotes a stage of
development, not what it actually is a stage of development of.
Therefore, when someone asks you "What is it?" and you respond
"Fetus",
you are not answering the question...you are evading it.
Most people are smart enough to figure out what kind of fetus is
being
discussed from the context. Sorry to hear that you are not.
Well, most people with your position wouldn't admit that it is a
human life that is destroyed in abortion.
I think that
the use of the example of "puppies" misses the mark just a bit
because
it also denotes a stage of canine development and does not actually
indicate what it is. A puppy, is in fact a dog. It would be silly to
insist that you didn't shoot a dog when you shoot a puppy. That
being
said, you extrapolate your own conclusion as it is applied to the
human
model.
And when you order fried chicken and are presented with a fried egg
do you not object that you weren't given what you asked for?
False analogy.
Or do you really think that an egg is the same as a chicken?
False analogy. The sperm or the egg are not the same as a human
embryo...there is a fundamental genetic change that takes place during
conception that creates a genetically distinct fingerpirint(from that
of either parent) organism.
Now, do you have an accurate analogy that you would like to share?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
10 May 2005 11:46:34 PM |
|
|
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid
*****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
At the risk of, no doubt being called names, I'll chime in here. A
FETUS tells us nothing about what it is. It only tells us that it is
at
a certain stage of development.
A HUMAN fetus.
A human fetus that is a live..so it is a life...it is human...so, in
abortion, a human life is destroyed. Thank you for that clarification.
Fallacy of equivocation.
In an ejaculation there are several million human lives that are
destroyed.
So what?
I think that
the use of the example of "puppies" misses the mark just a bit because
it also denotes a stage of canine development and does not actually
indicate what it is. A puppy, is in fact a dog. It would be silly to
insist that you didn't shoot a dog when you shoot a puppy. That being
said, you extrapolate your own conclusion as it is applied to the human
model.
And when you order fried chicken and are presented with a fried egg
do you not object that you weren't given what you asked for?
False analogy.
What's false about it?
Or do you really think that an egg is the same as a chicken?
False analogy. The sperm or the egg are not the same as a human
embryo...there is a fundamental genetic change that takes place during
conception that creates a genetically distinct fingerpirint(from that
of either parent) organism.
Just as there's a "fundamental genetic change that takes place during
[meiosis] that creates a genetically distinct fingerpirint(from that
of either parent) organism."
Thus, sperm and egg are like an embryo in that they're human, alive,
and genetically distict.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 May 2005 11:04:16 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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?
Idiot Heishman keeps askign the same stupid questions, getting
the
same answers, and then wonders why people think he's a stupid
*****.
It's a FETUS, moron.
At the risk of, no doubt being called names, I'll chime in here.
A
FETUS tells us nothing about what it is. It only tells us that it
is
at
a certain stage of development.
A HUMAN fetus.
A human fetus that is a live..so it is a life...it is human...so,
in
abortion, a human life is destroyed. Thank you for that
clarification.
Fallacy of equivocation.
In an ejaculation there are several million human lives that are
destroyed.
Fallacy of equivocation? hahahahaha..
I was not aware that sperms can, if given a proper environment, by
themselves naturally develop into an adult human. Have you any
scientific data to support this claim? You may wish to start with what
environment a sperm needs in order to develop into a fully grown adult
human. Please enlighten us. Could you perhaps cite any examples of a
human being that came to be in this way?
Please stop blowing smoke and if you can't contribute any legitimate
arguments in this discussion, go to a thread (maybe macrame discussion)
where you can hold your own in a discourse.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 May 2005 12:10:54 PM |
|
|
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com in alt.abortion
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 | | | | | | | |
