"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote

LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

This is not even remotely analogous to the discussion of parenting a
child. I am not responsible for supporting other people children. The
law states that the parents are.

...which is why adoption is illegal. (Idiot!)

Adoption is illegal?????

Oh brother....
Paul, you are in serious need of mental help

"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40a520ac.519598680@news.la.sbcglobal.net...

On 14 May 2004 13:23:12 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:38:23 GMT,

LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)

For the woman involved the embryo is unwanted and is threatening to
harm her and poses a serious risk to her health and life. She values
her health more than she values the embryo. So she has the embryo
removes and you obtain it. What value is this embryo to you?

I am not opposed to abortions required to save the life of the mother.

If a woman may be forced to give her freedom and money and risk her
health and her life in order to keep a fetus alive, then why should we
make the same demands of YOU in order to keep people alive?

This is what is expected of her after the baby is born, why not
before?

Nice dodge, but a parent is not expected to give up freedom and money
and health and life to keep a child alive. If a child threatens the
woman's health and tries to take her money against her wishes she can
have that child removed. I would *expect* that a woman who was being
physically attacked by her child to do *something* to stop that child
from inflicting harm upon her.

This is some warped messed up thinking.

One reason I find it VERY difficult to believe pro-aborts have any value
what so ever on life at all. You will go to any length to justify abortion,
even so much as to come up with the crap you just came up with.

"same demands of YOU in order to keep people alive?"

It is not my child.

So? You are demanding that she gives up a freedom that she enjoys
with a born child of hers in order to keep the fetus -- that YOU find
of 'value' -- alive. Why should you not face the same demand?

This is not even remotely analogous to the discussion of parenting a
child. I am not responsible for supporting other people children. The
law states that the parents are.

...which is why adoption is illegal. (Idiot!)

Adoption is illegal?????

Oh brother....
Paul, you are in serious need of mental help

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:38:23 GMT,

LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)

For the woman involved the embryo is unwanted and is threatening to
harm her and poses a serious risk to her health and life. She values
her health more than she values the embryo. So she has the embryo
removes and you obtain it. What value is this embryo to you?

I am not opposed to abortions required to save the life of the mother.

If a woman may be forced to give her freedom and money and risk her
health and her life in order to keep a fetus alive, then why should we
make the same demands of YOU in order to keep people alive?

This is what is expected of her after the baby is born, why not
before?

"same demands of YOU in order to keep people alive?"

It is not my child.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:07:44 GMT,

Ah.... Sort of like I value grass clippings and organic kitchen
waste more than those who do not compost. No *actual* value, just the
old "one man's trash is another man's treasure."

Since we are talking of a convenient abortion for birth control it
would be a very early abortion, under 8 weeks -- and thus we are
talking about an embryo, not a fetus.

For the woman involved the embryo is unwanted and is threatening to
harm her and poses a serious risk to her health and life. She values
her health more than she values the embryo. So she has the embryo
removes and you obtain it. What value is this embryo to you?

I am not opposed to abortions required to save the life of the mother.

If she values her health and she is too incompetent to use birth
control, then she should be sterilized.

What value is this embryo to you?

I have further described why I am opposed to abortion in my response
to June Gill.

The value of the fetus is the central point of this entire thread.
My posts have all been directed at showing why I see a fetus as
having more value than those that prefer the convenience of using
abortion as a form of birth control.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:16:57 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On 11 May 2004 18:26:32 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<4an2a092hm8e9tba9aagifvkd6jo89giuc@4ax.com> wrote:

Sure there are differences. There are also differences between a child
and an adult. What's your point? The more dependent the child is on
the mother, the less valuable it is?

Value is irrelevant. As are the differences between a child and an
adult since are both independent entities.

Value is not irrelevant. It is the only thing that is relevant in
these discussions.

Value is subjective and thus useless in such a discussion. No two
people would ever agree on value in such a situation.

The value of the fetus is the central point of this entire thread.
My posts have all been directed at showing why I see a fetus as
having more value than those that prefer the convenience of using
abortion as a form of birth control.

A fetus is not an independent entity and does not have a separate
existence as far as it's life is concerned. Prior to live birth only
one person exists and is involved - the pregnant woman.

A fetus is an independent entity and does have a separate
existence as far as it's life is concerned.

Which does not matter, unless you likewise demand ever woman have as
many children as possible so as to maximize the amount of this
valuable live you are talking about. A cancer is made up of live
cells. Do you likewise object to it's removal?

I addressed this in an earlier post. Cancer is not a stage in the life
cycle of human beings.

The human zygote is a stage in the development of the human
animal. A newborn is another stage. The child, adolescent, adult, and
elderly adult can all be seen as stages in the life of a human. At
every stage, the human animal is dependent on it's environment for
sustenance in order to reach the next stage.
It is doubtful that any scientists would make the claim that the
human zygote is not one of the stages in the life cycle of humans.
You, in order to hold your opinion that abortion is OK, must convince
yourself that the zygote stage is much less important than the rest of
the stages.

This seems odd to me

since it is the primary stage, the
stage on which every other stage is founded. The combination of all
the stages is a spectrum of forms of the human animal, each one
important to what makes humans what they are. It seems unfortunate
that the actions of those in the most intelligent stages of the cycle
show so little regard for the stages where the human animal begins its
journey, the stage where human intelligence begins to take shape, the
defenseless stage.

It is true that a zygote is not the "whole human being", but
neither is a child or an adult. The "whole human being" encompasses
the entire spectrum of all the stages of life. There is no individual
stage that can be said to be a "whole human being"

There is nothing
intrinsically different about the fetus itself two days before birth
than two days after its birth.

Irrelevant. Live birth is the clear point of debarkation at which a
new separate individual starts it's existence.

It starts it's existence at birth?

That is just plain nonsense.

I don't believe that you even believe that ridiculous claim.

A brain scan two days before birth shows very little difference to
that of a scan done after the child is born.

A quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
[they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the
beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is
a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this
point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary
Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9,
the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of
which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins
at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several
out-standing authorities who testified personally:

On 11 May 2004 09:25:57 -0700,

If the unborn aren't a living organism, Paul, then what are they -
scientifically speaking? Please provide evidence.

What difference does it make? Being an organism is no big deal -
there are billions of them around all the time. They are nothing
special.

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<409fb4af.164231604@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

On 10 May 2004 06:36:09 -0700,

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<q5dp909lbf6bq6qr96g9m3oj6d6h1p2nfb@4ax.com>...

Piggyback..........

The original poster needs to stop equivocating between "human life"
and "a human being".

It would be nice if you stopped dodging questions and cutting posts.
Why do you feel the need to do this??

Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?

No.

Really? Any evidence to back that up?

...www.teenwire.com....

What difference (between the unborn and born) is there that matters?

The fetus is a part of the single human organism that is a pregnant
woman.

LOL! Any evidence or just another one sentence assertion.

A baby is a single human organism, maintaining life by the use of it's
own organs, not a part of another organism.

....

You've yet to prove or even explain how birth - a simple change in
location changes the unborn (which according to you isn't an organism)
into an organism - please provide some evidence - please

Your ignorance of reality is apparent.....

Then an acorn is equivalent to an oak tree?

An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is still an oak- in the early stages
of development.

Nope. "An oak" is "an oak tree" (m-w.com: oak: 1 a : any of a genus
(Quercus) of trees or shrubs of the beech family that produce acorns)
An acorn is not a tree.

A sapling isn't a tree either - it's a sapling - your word games are
weak - that definition isn't completely scientifically accurate and
you know it. Try to find a scientific definition.

...

Is an oak sapling equivalent to an oak tree?

An oak sapling *IS* an oak tree. (m-w.com: sapling: 1 : a young tree;
specifically : one not over four inches in diameter at breast height.)

So when a little one inch sapling with a leaf is an oak tree - ok -
you live in your own world man.

If you have to get all your "evidence" - unscientific as it is from MW
- it shows how weak your case is -