"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
messagenews:7509ed6759c94ad711fc9f03af91e9d8@remailer.cyberiade.it...

rem...@aol.com wrote:

The debate about abortion
<snips>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

There is no "debate" over the murder of unborn children.

Because "unborn children" is a totally meaningless, and intentionally
ignorant, phrase

There is only the reality that approximately 50 million
abortions occur each year worldwide, with over 1 million
of those occurring each year in the United States alone.

God made the Universal Law, not men. And God's Judgment
is perfect: each man according to his works of good and
evil. No exceptions. No exclusions. Same as it ever was.

God who?
Who is thos "god" you speak of?
Do you have any valid evidence for this "god"?
Do you havbe any valid reason anyone ELSE should take what you "excerpt"
from what this unproven god supposedly says?
What is "universal law"; or is it just another meaningless thing YOU
invented?
What does this imaginary god, and this imaginary universal law have to do
with abortion?

Do What Thou Wilt (Leviticus 5:17...good luck with that)!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/

Leviticus?
Daniel Joseph Min?

Who are they, and why should I, or anyone else, give a damn what they
bellow?

On Mar 14, 9:28 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

There is no "debate" over the murder of unborn children.

There is only the reality that approximately 50 million
abortions occur each year worldwide, with over 1 million
of those occurring each year in the United States alone.

If all the effort to end abortions was put into medically valid birth
control and sex education, then the number of unwanted pregnancies
would be much lower than it is today. Preventing unwanted pregnancies
is the best way to end abortions.

God made the Universal Law, not men. And God's Judgment
is perfect: each man according to his works of good and
evil. No exceptions. No exclusions. Same as it ever was.

That means God will smite those who violate the Universal Law
(wantever that is). There hasn't been a good God smitting in over
2000 years. Now why is that?

Meanwhile the drug companies work toward drugs to reduce the necessity
for most abortions. RU486 and Plan B are simply small beginnings.

On Mar 15, 1:49 am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:

On Mar 15, 11:20 am,

5>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS

The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.

No it doesnt.
The question is when does a human life become a *person*.
Killing a wart ( a mass of living human tissue) is not murder because
a person has not been killed.
Killing your neighbour Mss Gertrude Smith ( a mass of living human
tissue) is murder because a person has been killed.
Grass is alive - ants are alive. Warts are human and alive - a tumor
is human and alive.
The question is not "is it human" nor "is it alive" the question is it
a person.

Very well written and argued. That being said, I (and I'm certainly
no Fundie Christer) have a problem with the willful destruction of a
developing human being.

I know it can be argued that the gestating human inside a woman is (1)
her property, a part of her body, and (2) is really just insensate
flesh until well along in gestation, yet I don't find those arguments
very strong or satisfying.

The life developing inside a woman -- it can be argued -- is a
different "self" from her own. She has no right to harm it any more
than she has a right to harm anyone. If it continues to develop to
term, it will emerge with its own being and life. Even if it is
removed before term is complete, it can still survive and thrive,
depending on when and how it is removed.

At the earliest stages of gestation, human life is not just a ball of
cells; it's a developing being. It only takes 9 months to come to
term, and babies have been born, and survived, in the 6th month and
even earlier. While I know there is a line that can be drawn
somewhere, I don't know where that line is and I wouldn't know how to
determine it. Given that doubt, as long as a viable developing human
exits in a woman's body, I'd fall on the side of life and let it
continue to develop. I know that raises other ethical issues -- care
of the child, what happens if the child is viable but horribly
deformed, suppose the child is viable but mentally incapacitated, et
cetera. But, given a "normal" fetus, which is what happens in the vast
majority of cases, I think it should be allowed to develop and to live
its life.

The argument that women "need" abortion as a resort for unwanted
pregnancies is, in my thinking, specious. Women don't have to get
pregnant. There are plenty of methods very available and very cheap,
even free, that can prevent it. In the vast, vast majority of cases,
women don't even have to have sex. Most abortions occur because women
have not taken precautions and have carelessly engaged in unprotected
sex. I don't think their negligence or stupidity should be
accommodated by killing the life developing in them. The argument, "my
body, my choice" is not only irreducibly selfish and mean, it's simply
not true. The gestating being inside is dependent on the body but not
necessarily an integral part of it.

I know my position is extremely unpopular among atheists, but, believe
me, it's not derived from some distorted interpretation of scripture
or the injunctions of some preacher. It is possible not to believe in
the Divinity, yet believe that abortion is wrong, and that abortion at
an advanced stage of pregnancy is tantamount to murder. In any event,
I have a great deal of trouble understanding how anyone could take a
procedure as brutal as abortion and raise it to the level of a noble
cause. It isn't. It's dirty work, bloody and disgusting, and it
results in death. There's nothing I can see that's good or noble or
elevating about it.

On Mar 15, 1:49 am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:

On Mar 15, 11:20 am,

5>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS

The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.

No it doesnt.
The question is when does a human life become a *person*.
Killing a wart ( a mass of living human tissue) is not murder because
a person has not been killed.
Killing your neighbour Mss Gertrude Smith ( a mass of living human
tissue) is murder because a person has been killed.
Grass is alive - ants are alive. Warts are human and alive - a tumor
is human and alive.
The question is not "is it human" nor "is it alive" the question is it
a person.

Very well written and argued. That being said, I (and I'm certainly
no Fundie Christer) have a problem with the willful destruction of a
developing human being.

I know it can be argued that the gestating human inside a woman is (1)
her property, a part of her body, and (2) is really just insensate
flesh until well along in gestation, yet I don't find those arguments
very strong or satisfying.

The life developing inside a woman -- it can be argued -- is a
different "self" from her own. She has no right to harm it any more
than she has a right to harm anyone. If it continues to develop to
term, it will emerge with its own being and life. Even if it is
removed before term is complete, it can still survive and thrive,
depending on when and how it is removed.

At the earliest stages of gestation, human life is not just a ball of
cells; it's a developing being. It only takes 9 months to come to
term, and babies have been born, and survived, in the 6th month and
even earlier. While I know there is a line that can be drawn
somewhere, I don't know where that line is and I wouldn't know how to
determine it. Given that doubt, as long as a viable developing human
exits in a woman's body, I'd fall on the side of life and let it
continue to develop.

I know that raises other ethical issues -- care
of the child, what happens if the child is viable but horribly
deformed, suppose the child is viable but mentally incapacitated, et
cetera. But, given a "normal" fetus, which is what happens in the vast
majority of cases, I think it should be allowed to develop and to live
its life.

The argument that women "need" abortion as a resort for unwanted
pregnancies is, in my thinking, specious. Women don't have to get
pregnant. There are plenty of methods very available and very cheap,
even free, that can prevent it. In the vast, vast majority of cases,
women don't even have to have sex. Most abortions occur because women
have not taken precautions and have carelessly engaged in unprotected
sex. I don't think their negligence or stupidity should be
accommodated by killing the life developing in them. The argument, "my
body, my choice" is not only irreducibly selfish and mean, it's simply
not true. The gestating being inside is dependent on the body but not
necessarily an integral part of it.

I know my position is extremely unpopular among atheists, but, believe
me, it's not derived from some distorted interpretation of scripture
or the injunctions of some preacher.

It is possible not to believe in
the Divinity, yet believe that abortion is wrong, and that abortion at
an advanced stage of pregnancy is tantamount to murder.

In any event, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how
anyone could take a procedure as brutal as abortion and
raise it to the level of a noble cause.

It isn't. It's dirty work, bloody and disgusting, and it
results in death. There's nothing I can see that's good or noble or
elevating about it.

On Mar 15, 1:49 am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:

On Mar 15, 11:20 am,

5>
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS

The debate about the abortion issue really boils
down to a question of WHEN human life begins.

No it doesnt.
The question is when does a human life become a *person*.
Killing a wart ( a mass of living human tissue) is not murder because
a person has not been killed.
Killing your neighbour Mss Gertrude Smith ( a mass of living human
tissue) is murder because a person has been killed.
Grass is alive - ants are alive. Warts are human and alive - a tumor
is human and alive.
The question is not "is it human" nor "is it alive" the question is it
a person.

Very well written and argued. That being said, I (and I'm certainly
no Fundie Christer) have a problem with the willful destruction of a
developing human being.

I know it can be argued that the gestating human inside a woman is (1)
her property, a part of her body, and (2) is really just insensate
flesh until well along in gestation, yet I don't find those arguments
very strong or satisfying.

The life developing inside a woman -- it can be argued -- is a
different "self" from her own.

She has no right to harm it any more
than she has a right to harm anyone. If it continues to develop to
term, it will emerge with its own being and life. Even if it is
removed before term is complete, it can still survive and thrive,
depending on when and how it is removed.

At the earliest stages of gestation, human life is not just a ball of
cells; it's a developing being. It only takes 9 months to come to
term, and babies have been born, and survived, in the 6th month and
even earlier. While I know there is a line that can be drawn
somewhere, I don't know where that line is and I wouldn't know how to
determine it. Given that doubt, as long as a viable developing human
exits in a woman's body, I'd fall on the side of life and let it
continue to develop. I know that raises other ethical issues -- care
of the child, what happens if the child is viable but horribly
deformed, suppose the child is viable but mentally incapacitated, et
cetera. But, given a "normal" fetus, which is what happens in the vast
majority of cases, I think it should be allowed to develop and to live
its life.

The argument that women "need" abortion as a resort for unwanted
pregnancies is, in my thinking, specious. Women don't have to get
pregnant. There are plenty of methods very available and very cheap,
even free, that can prevent it. In the vast, vast majority of cases,
women don't even have to have sex. Most abortions occur because women
have not taken precautions and have carelessly engaged in unprotected
sex. I don't think their negligence or stupidity should be
accommodated by killing the life developing in them. The argument, "my
body, my choice" is not only irreducibly selfish and mean, it's simply
not true. The gestating being inside is dependent on the body but not
necessarily an integral part of it.

I know my position is extremely unpopular among atheists, but, believe
me, it's not derived from some distorted interpretation of scripture
or the injunctions of some preacher. It is possible not to believe in
the Divinity, yet believe that abortion is wrong,

and that abortion at
an advanced stage of pregnancy is tantamount to murder.

In any event,
I have a great deal of trouble understanding how anyone could take a
procedure as brutal as abortion and raise it to the level of a noble
cause. It isn't. It's dirty work, bloody and disgusting, and it
results in death. There's nothing I can see that's good or noble or
elevating about it.