| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible Bob" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 04:14:17 PM |
| Object: |
To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
The whole purpose of mankind is to provide God with a family. The
first commandment and the commandment upon which all other
commandments and laws are made is "to be fruitful and multiply."
Anything that hinders or gets in the way of that goal would not be the
primary will of God.
According to the Bible, human life begins when a child is born; takes
it's first breath. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7). Jesus when speaking to
Nicodemus in John 3 said that unless man is born of water and the
spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Natural birth
commences with the breaking of the water and and the child leaving the
womb where it takes its first breath. Jesus while in the womb was
called a "holy thing" (Luk 1:35). In Matthew 1:18 where it says Mary
"was found with child" and in Luke 2:5 where it says she was "great
with child"; there is no word for child in the Greek text. But in
Luke 1:41&44 where it speaks of the fetus that would be John leaping
in Elizabeths' womb the word babe (brephos) is used. In 1 Cor 7:14 is
speaks of the children (teknon - a living child) of believers as holy.
The implications of this are that a fetus is not a child because it
has not been born. Born children of believers are made holy, but
there is no indication that a fetus is made holy; except in the case
of Jesus. When women abort a fetus the fetus is prevented from
breathing into his nostrils the breath of life and becoming a living
soul and is therefore prevented from becoming holy, or becoming saved,
and therefore has no chance of gaining eternal life.
I wonder how many women that abort their children stop to consider
that the fetus they are allowing to be destroyed will not make it to
paradise. According to some people in our society it is within the
rights of the woman to abort a child because she will not look good in
public with a big belly in a bikini. But what about the rights of the
father of the fetus. Biblically, progeny are the offspring of the
father and soul life is carried forward through the male sperm. From
the Hebrew point of view, the soul life of a man who had no male
off-spring died when he died. Of course in or society many women have
no clue who the father of a child is and I suppose that men who
consider women to be sperm spittoons wouldn't care anyway.
Any comments?
BB
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
10 Mar 2005 04:54:38 PM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:8tpu219h1ekim750lfngk4hqooagts0cf8@4ax.com...
The whole purpose of mankind is to provide God with a family.
Well God is not going too well with his venture so far. So far he's only
managed to make more enemies than friends.
The
first commandment and the commandment upon which all other
commandments and laws are made is "to be fruitful and multiply."
He gave us such a strong sex drive and he still needs to make procreation a
commandment?
Talk about redundant commandments.
Anything that hinders or gets in the way of that goal would not be the
primary will of God.
His tendency to make enemies is something I would definitively call a
hindrance.
According to the Bible, human life begins when a child is born; takes
it's first breath. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7). Jesus when speaking to
Nicodemus in John 3 said that unless man is born of water and the
spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Natural birth
commences with the breaking of the water and and the child leaving the
womb where it takes its first breath. Jesus while in the womb was
called a "holy thing" (Luk 1:35). In Matthew 1:18 where it says Mary
"was found with child" and in Luke 2:5 where it says she was "great
with child"; there is no word for child in the Greek text. But in
Luke 1:41&44 where it speaks of the fetus that would be John leaping
in Elizabeths' womb the word babe (brephos) is used. In 1 Cor 7:14 is
speaks of the children (teknon - a living child) of believers as holy.
The implications of this are that a fetus is not a child because it
has not been born. Born children of believers are made holy, but
there is no indication that a fetus is made holy; except in the case
of Jesus. When women abort a fetus the fetus is prevented from
breathing into his nostrils
The foetus is prevented from breathing into who's nostrils?
the breath of life and becoming a living
soul and is therefore prevented from becoming holy, or becoming saved,
and therefore has no chance of gaining eternal life.
Maybe the soul will then go into another baby to try again.
Maybe babies that do not get born are not given souls in the first place.
Why would God put a soul into a foetus that he knows full well he's only
going to have to take out again?
I wonder how many women that abort their children stop to consider
that the fetus they are allowing to be destroyed will not make it to
paradise.
How do you know? Maybe the soul will just seek another baby.
According to some people in our society it is within the
rights of the woman to abort a child because she will not look good in
public with a big belly in a bikini.
That's not why women have abortions and you know it.
Women have abortions for pretty much the same reason
that animals sometimes reject their offspring. They feel that they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. Abortion is not as
unnatural as people think.
But what about the rights of the
father of the fetus.
Huh? The father is usually long gone.
Biblically, progeny are the offspring of the
father and soul life is carried forward through the male sperm.
Don't be ridiculous. The soul is not carried by the male sperm.
Those who wrote the bible knew nothing about the human reproductive process
or the creation of life or how souls are infused.
From
the Hebrew point of view, the soul life of a man who had no male
off-spring died when he died.
And do you believe that crap?
Of course in or society many women have
no clue who the father of a child is
Really? Are you sure many women have no clue?
What percentage would you say have no clue who the father is?
and I suppose that men who
consider women to be sperm spittoons wouldn't care anyway.
Any comments?
BB
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
10 Mar 2005 08:56:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:54:38 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:8tpu219h1ekim750lfngk4hqooagts0cf8@4ax.com...
The whole purpose of mankind is to provide God with a family.
Well God is not going too well with his venture so far. So far he's only
managed to make more enemies than friends.
The
first commandment and the commandment upon which all other
commandments and laws are made is "to be fruitful and multiply."
He gave us such a strong sex drive and he still needs to make procreation a
commandment?
Talk about redundant commandments.
Anything that hinders or gets in the way of that goal would not be the
primary will of God.
His tendency to make enemies is something I would definitively call a
hindrance.
More accurately people choose to be the enemies of God.
According to the Bible, human life begins when a child is born; takes
it's first breath. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7). Jesus when speaking to
Nicodemus in John 3 said that unless man is born of water and the
spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Natural birth
commences with the breaking of the water and and the child leaving the
womb where it takes its first breath. Jesus while in the womb was
called a "holy thing" (Luk 1:35). In Matthew 1:18 where it says Mary
"was found with child" and in Luke 2:5 where it says she was "great
with child"; there is no word for child in the Greek text. But in
Luke 1:41&44 where it speaks of the fetus that would be John leaping
in Elizabeths' womb the word babe (brephos) is used. In 1 Cor 7:14 is
speaks of the children (teknon - a living child) of believers as holy.
The implications of this are that a fetus is not a child because it
has not been born. Born children of believers are made holy, but
there is no indication that a fetus is made holy; except in the case
of Jesus. When women abort a fetus the fetus is prevented from
breathing into his nostrils
The foetus is prevented from breathing into who's nostrils?
the breath of life and becoming a living
soul and is therefore prevented from becoming holy, or becoming saved,
and therefore has no chance of gaining eternal life.
Maybe the soul will then go into another baby to try again.
Some may think that. I don't.
Maybe babies that do not get born are not given souls in the first place.
Why would God put a soul into a foetus that he knows full well he's only
going to have to take out again?
The fetus gets its oxygen supply the mother until born and its lungs
are filled with amniotic fluid until it begins breathing and expels
the liquid. Leviticus 17:11 says that the life (soul) of the flesh
is in the blood. The fetus has its own blood supply but is not a
living soul until it breathes into its nostrils the breath of life.
Does that mean that something in the first breath mixes in the blood
to produce soul life?
I wonder how many women that abort their children stop to consider
that the fetus they are allowing to be destroyed will not make it to
paradise.
How do you know? Maybe the soul will just seek another baby.
A religion may teach that, but that does not make it true.
According to some people in our society it is within the
rights of the woman to abort a child because she will not look good in
public with a big belly in a bikini.
That's not why women have abortions and you know it.
Women have abortions for pretty much the same reason
that animals sometimes reject their offspring. They feel that they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. Abortion is not as
unnatural as people think.
I didn 't say women did it, I said some people say a woman has a right
to abort for any reason.
But what about the rights of the
father of the fetus.
Huh? The father is usually long gone.
Sometimes, but what about in the case of a married couple with both
present?
Biblically, progeny are the offspring of the
father and soul life is carried forward through the male sperm.
Don't be ridiculous. The soul is not carried by the male sperm.
Those who wrote the bible knew nothing about the human reproductive process
or the creation of life or how souls are infused.
That's another matter. You look at is if some goatherders wrote it, I
look at it from what it is the Word of God.
From
the Hebrew point of view, the soul life of a man who had no male
off-spring died when he died.
And do you believe that crap?
Any reason why I shouldn't?
Of course in or society many women have
no clue who the father of a child is
Really? Are you sure many women have no clue?
What percentage would you say have no clue who the father is?
I don't know, watch Jerry Springer.
and I suppose that men who
consider women to be sperm spittoons wouldn't care anyway.
Any comments?
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 12:24:06 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:m9m131h4sh24i3hti3j2vv3ppbi999q001@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:54:38 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:
His tendency to make enemies is something I would definitively call a
hindrance.
More accurately people choose to be the enemies of God.
Bullcrap. No one chooses to be the enemy of God. It is just part of the
christian delusion resulting from their sick finger pointing tradition.
The fetus gets its oxygen supply the mother until born and its lungs
are filled with amniotic fluid until it begins breathing and expels
the liquid. Leviticus 17:11 says that the life (soul) of the flesh
is in the blood.
That's because people back then observed that when a person's blood ran out
of their body they died, so naturally they thought that the life of the body
was in the blood.
Also christians back then were obsessed with blood sacrifice which they had
adopted from earlier false blood sacrificing cults.
The fetus has its own blood supply but is not a
living soul until it breathes into its nostrils the breath of life.
Does that mean that something in the first breath mixes in the blood
to produce soul life?
No. We don't know when the soul comes into the body. We don't even know what
a soul is.
It's even possible that a baby forms a soul gradually after birth similar to
how a snowball gathers snow as it goes along.
How do you know? Maybe the soul will just seek another baby.
A religion may teach that, but that does not make it true.
You don't know what could be true.
Don't be ridiculous. The soul is not carried by the male sperm.
Those who wrote the bible knew nothing about the human reproductive
process
or the creation of life or how souls are infused.
That's another matter. You look at is if some goatherders wrote it, I
look at it from what it is the Word of God.
There is no reason that I have seen to conclude that the bible was authored
by the creator of all things - unless of course you want to take the bible's
own word for it, but then that would make the bible a self witnessing
object.
From
the Hebrew point of view, the soul life of a man who had no male
off-spring died when he died.
And do you believe that crap?
Any reason why I shouldn't?
Because after thousands of years you cannot possibly verify the identity of
the supposed authors let alone their honesty or even sanity - unless you
want to take the text's own word for such.
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dwacon" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
10 Mar 2005 07:36:55 PM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:8tpu219h1ekim750lfngk4hqooagts0cf8@4ax.com...
According to the Bible, human life begins when a child is born; takes
it's first breath.
So that would mean that abortion would not be murder in the classical
sense... but is it still a form of killing? Looks that way...
--
During the Passion of the Christ
there was a NAKED BOY running around...
http://www.cafepress.com/powerpress
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
10 Mar 2005 09:12:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:36:55 -0500, "dwacon" <aunt.jemima@pancake.mix>
wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:8tpu219h1ekim750lfngk4hqooagts0cf8@4ax.com...
According to the Bible, human life begins when a child is born; takes
it's first breath.
So that would mean that abortion would not be murder in the classical
sense... but is it still a form of killing? Looks that way...
dwacon,
Smarter people than me have tried to figure that out. That's why I am
asking for comments. Thus far we have input from the Christian
standpoint that a fetus is known by God in the womb and from the
secular side we have a woman's right to choose. Then there is the
arguement that a soul does not exist until birth, that soul could
transfer to another host, that soul would not exist if God knew the
fetus would not live, etc.
In my opinion a fetus is not a child till it is born, so it would not
be murder; but it would be a termination of potential life.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 08:22:37 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:7n223119l1dabkjf5bdgq38e5mfmtm5rms@4ax.com...
In my opinion a fetus is not a child till it is born, so it would not
be murder; but it would be a termination of potential life.
Hi Bob,
The thing that has baffled me if that it is legal to have an abortion, why
is someone convicted of two murders if they kill a pregnant woman? Is the
fetus considered a child only if it is wanted? Did you know that in late
stage abortions, if the poor thing happens to come out alive, the Drs. by
law have to save it's life?
Patty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 09:23:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:22:37 GMT, "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:7n223119l1dabkjf5bdgq38e5mfmtm5rms@4ax.com...
In my opinion a fetus is not a child till it is born, so it would not
be murder; but it would be a termination of potential life.
Hi Bob,
The thing that has baffled me if that it is legal to have an abortion, why
is someone convicted of two murders if they kill a pregnant woman? Is the
fetus considered a child only if it is wanted? Did you know that in late
stage abortions, if the poor thing happens to come out alive, the Drs. by
law have to save it's life?
Patty
I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they convict Scott Peterson of that?
On a personal emotional basis I am all for throwing the book at the
killer because it is a horrendous crime. Might be that it will
eventually be used as a basis for future court decisions. I didn't
know that, but if the baby is alive they should. I wonder what kind
of shape the baby would be in.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 11:24:40 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:acd33195kbppeuolsp8a9dsggi842clu5f@4ax.com...
I didn't
know that, but if the baby is alive they should. I wonder what kind
of shape the baby would be in.
Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.
My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from
California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have
cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half
months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am
the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.
Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived
alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was
early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he
would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be
here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to
take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a
result of a job not well done.
There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother
and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their
babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment.
Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and
had me transferred to a hospital.
I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope
for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller
than I was have survived.
A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life.
I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or
walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication
of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to
sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly
before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's
daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department
of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.
I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of
four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy.
Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19
years.
I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do
not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any
other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any
person conceived to be any of those things.
I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only
a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah.
She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is
not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides
injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was
injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When
I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like
Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...
Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the
time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two,
three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an
abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no
difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...
The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great
gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it
is the answer.
There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our
state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is
not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding
the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive
and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 11:52:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:24:40 GMT, "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:acd33195kbppeuolsp8a9dsggi842clu5f@4ax.com...
I didn't
know that, but if the baby is alive they should. I wonder what kind
of shape the baby would be in.
Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.
My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from
California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have
cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half
months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am
the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.
Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived
alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was
early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he
would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be
here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to
take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a
result of a job not well done.
There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother
and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their
babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment.
Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and
had me transferred to a hospital.
I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope
for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller
than I was have survived.
A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life.
I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or
walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication
of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to
sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly
before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's
daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department
of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.
I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of
four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy.
Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19
years.
I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do
not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any
other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any
person conceived to be any of those things.
I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only
a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah.
She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is
not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides
injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was
injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When
I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like
Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...
Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the
time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two,
three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an
abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no
difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...
The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great
gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it
is the answer.
There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our
state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is
not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding
the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive
and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.
Kewl.
Thanks.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 12:12:19 PM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:0mm3319s2h6p2c06uaek1f7204o5kqdvm8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:24:40 GMT, "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:acd33195kbppeuolsp8a9dsggi842clu5f@4ax.com...
I didn't
know that, but if the baby is alive they should. I wonder what kind
of shape the baby would be in.
Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.
My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from
California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have
cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and
one-half
months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am
the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.
Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived
alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I
was
early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he
would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be
here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is
to
take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a
result of a job not well done.
There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological
mother
and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their
babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical
moment.
Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services
and
had me transferred to a hospital.
I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much
hope
for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller
than I was have survived.
A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my
life.
I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.
I
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or
walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication
of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to
sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly
before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's
daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The
Department
of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.
I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total
of
four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy.
Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling
19
years.
I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I
do
not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any
other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any
person conceived to be any of those things.
I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life.
Only
a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is
Sarah.
She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is
not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides
injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was
injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done.
When
I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like
Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...
Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when
the
time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two,
three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an
abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no
difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...
The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a
great
gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how
it
is the answer.
There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our
state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is
not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is
shedding
the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive
and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.
Kewl.
Thanks.
Welcome, BB!! Thanks for bringing up the topic, as it is a very important
one.
Blessings,
Patty
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 02:37:42 PM |
|
|
P.T. wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:acd33195kbppeuolsp8a9dsggi842clu5f@4ax.com...
I didn't
know that, but if the baby is alive they should. I wonder what kind
of shape the baby would be in.
Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.
My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from
California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have
cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half
months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am
the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.
Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived
alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was
early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he
would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be
here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to
take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a
result of a job not well done.
There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother
and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their
babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment.
Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and
had me transferred to a hospital.
I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope
for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller
than I was have survived.
A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life.
I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or
walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication
of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to
sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly
before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's
daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department
of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.
I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of
four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy.
Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19
years.
I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do
not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any
other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any
person conceived to be any of those things.
I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only
a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah.
She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is
not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides
injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was
injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When
I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like
Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...
Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the
time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two,
three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an
abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no
difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...
The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great
gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it
is the answer.
There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our
state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is
not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding
the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive
and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.
Assuming that this account of a saline abortion at 33 weeks gestation is
true, that's what happens when the authorities deny abortion on demand,
which would eliminate late term abortions and illegal abortions. Let me
repeat what I said to Bob earlier, adding to human misery with synthetic
morality borne of false consciousness is an atrocity, and it leads to
further atrocities such as this. Ban abortion and these will happen
more, not less frequently.
Society has to choose between reality and theological abstractions, any
civilised society will choose the former. Look to Iran or the Taliban
for an example of the latter. Abstinence only sex education is already
causing a tide of human misery with increased rates of underage
pregnancy. Making abortion illegal will leave thousands of desperate
young women at the mercy of illegal abortionists.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 03:08:55 PM |
|
|
"Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
news:eLGdnZ779OsFnK_fRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
Assuming that this account of a saline abortion at 33 weeks gestation is
true, that's what happens when the authorities deny abortion on demand,
which would eliminate late term abortions and illegal abortions.
Let me
repeat what I said to Bob earlier, adding to human misery with synthetic
morality borne of false consciousness is an atrocity, and it leads to
further atrocities such as this. Ban abortion and these will happen more,
not less frequently.
Society has to choose between reality and theological abstractions, any
civilised society will choose the former. Look to Iran or the Taliban for
an example of the latter. Abstinence only sex education is already causing
a tide of human misery with increased rates of underage pregnancy. Making
abortion illegal will leave thousands of desperate young women at the
mercy of illegal abortionists.
This still doesn't make it right in God's eyes. Look at all the people that
beat and abuse their children. Should we make it legal to give them a shot
to kill them? It would be much more sympathetic. Where do you draw this
line? What about the elderly or terminally ill? Should we do away with them?
Look at the suffering it would end. No, there is another solution.
Patty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:06:16 PM |
|
|
P.T. wrote:
"Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
news:eLGdnZ779OsFnK_fRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
Assuming that this account of a saline abortion at 33 weeks gestation is
true, that's what happens when the authorities deny abortion on demand,
which would eliminate late term abortions and illegal abortions.
Let me
repeat what I said to Bob earlier, adding to human misery with synthetic
morality borne of false consciousness is an atrocity, and it leads to
further atrocities such as this. Ban abortion and these will happen more,
not less frequently.
Society has to choose between reality and theological abstractions, any
civilised society will choose the former. Look to Iran or the Taliban for
an example of the latter. Abstinence only sex education is already causing
a tide of human misery with increased rates of underage pregnancy. Making
abortion illegal will leave thousands of desperate young women at the
mercy of illegal abortionists.
This still doesn't make it right in God's eyes. Look at all the people that
beat and abuse their children. Should we make it legal to give them a shot
to kill them?
How the F&^% does that follow?
It would be much more sympathetic. Where do you draw this
line?
1 word. VIABILITY. You've been told this time and time again. I know you
have.
What about the elderly or terminally ill? Should we do away with them?
Look at the suffering it would end. No, there is another solution.
I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your asses.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:16:36 PM |
|
|
"Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your asses.
Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't answer this
one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an atheism group
I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your brother
"Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
Patty
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:22:15 PM |
|
|
"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
|
| > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your asses.
|
| Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't answer
this
| one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an atheism
group
| I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your brother
| "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
|
Hey Patty,
Can I get a question in here some where?
Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree with when
a woman has an abortion?
Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent, unsuspecting
women in this regard?
Thanks in advance,
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
| User: "P.T." |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:31:16 PM |
|
|
"lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
|
| > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your asses.
|
| Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't answer
this
| one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an atheism
group
| I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your brother
| "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
|
Hey Patty,
Can I get a question in here some where?
Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree with
when
a woman has an abortion?
Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
unsuspecting
women in this regard?
Hi there! No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an
abortion. But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum. But
what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
Patty
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 06:15:33 PM |
|
|
"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
|
| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >
| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| > |
| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
asses.
| > |
| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't answer
| > this
| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an atheism
| > group
| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your brother
| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| > |
| > Hey Patty,
| >
| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >
| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree with
| > when
| > a woman has an abortion?
| >
| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| > unsuspecting
| > women in this regard?
|
| Hi there!
Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try to
legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
That's fine. No problem there.
| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women are
mutually exclusive.
Thanks for your responses!
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:38:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
<kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
|
| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >
| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| > |
| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
asses.
| > |
| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't answer
| > this
| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an atheism
| > group
| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your brother
| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| > |
| > Hey Patty,
| >
| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >
| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree with
| > when
| > a woman has an abortion?
| >
| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| > unsuspecting
| > women in this regard?
|
| Hi there!
Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try to
legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
That's fine. No problem there.
| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women are
mutually exclusive.
Thanks for your responses!
How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
fetus.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:45:26 PM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >|
| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >
| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| > |
| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
| >asses.
| >| > |
| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
answer
| >| > this
| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
atheism
| >| > group
| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
brother
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| > |
| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >
| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree
with
| >| > when
| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| >| > unsuspecting
| >| > women in this regard?
| >|
| >| Hi there!
| >
| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >
| >
| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| >
| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try to
| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >
| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >
| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >
| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| >
| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women are
| >mutually exclusive.
| >
| >Thanks for your responses!
|
| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| fetus.
I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of them
do.
Is there a point here? You seem to be rebutting a point I never made.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
11 Mar 2005 11:54:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:45:26 GMT, "lizzard woman"
<kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >|
| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >
| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| > |
| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
| >asses.
| >| > |
| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
answer
| >| > this
| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
atheism
| >| > group
| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
brother
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| > |
| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >
| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree
with
| >| > when
| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| >| > unsuspecting
| >| > women in this regard?
| >|
| >| Hi there!
| >
| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >
| >
| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| >
| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try to
| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >
| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >
| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >
| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| >
| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women are
| >mutually exclusive.
| >
| >Thanks for your responses!
|
| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| fetus.
I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of them
do.
Is there a point here? You seem to be rebutting a point I never made.
Maybe I misunderstood. I understood that a woman could not be a
fetus, but not the part about the fetus "can't be a woman".
Thanks
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
12 Mar 2005 08:40:34 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:qs0531t4lahg6263nt6r2pb8olipl3r3cd@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:45:26 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
| >news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| >| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >|
| >| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in
message
| >| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
| >| >asses.
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
| >answer
| >| >| > this
| >| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
| >atheism
| >| >| > group
| >| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
| >brother
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree
| >with
| >| >| > when
| >| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| >| >| > unsuspecting
| >| >| > women in this regard?
| >| >|
| >| >| Hi there!
| >| >
| >| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| >| >
| >| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try
to
| >| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >| >
| >| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >| >
| >| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >| >
| >| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| >| >
| >| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women
are
| >| >mutually exclusive.
| >| >
| >| >Thanks for your responses!
| >|
| >| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| >| fetus.
| >
| >I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of them
| >do.
| >
| >Is there a point here? You seem to be rebutting a point I never made.
|
| Maybe I misunderstood. I understood that a woman could not be a
| fetus, but not the part about the fetus "can't be a woman".
Oh I see. I wasn't clear.
Yes, half of non-viable fetuses eventually develop into women. But at the
point where you have:
1. an extant woman,and
2. a non-viable fetus,
they don't overlap.
They are mutually exclusive at that point.
Then the question is who gets to decide whether that extant woman carries
that non-viable pregnancy?
Is it the extant woman? The non-viable fetus? Some Fundamentalist
theocrat?
Clearly the answer is the woman because it is her body and the non-viable
fetus is obligatory dependent on that body. And even the non-viable fetus
has more say so than some fundamentalist theocrat who is just trying to jam
his religion down the throats of innocent,unsuspecting women for the sake of
doing so.
As I said at the very beginning of this thread, you don't want to get into
the business of telling grown women what they can and can't do with their
bodies when it doesn't involve other extant human beings. If you
countenance that for woman, some day you will wake up and find you have no
privacy rights either.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
12 Mar 2005 11:24:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:40:34 GMT, "lizzard woman"
<kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:qs0531t4lahg6263nt6r2pb8olipl3r3cd@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:45:26 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
| >news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| >| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >|
| >| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in
message
| >| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
| >| >asses.
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
| >answer
| >| >| > this
| >| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
| >atheism
| >| >| > group
| >| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
| >brother
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree
| >with
| >| >| > when
| >| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| >| >| > unsuspecting
| >| >| > women in this regard?
| >| >|
| >| >| Hi there!
| >| >
| >| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| >| >
| >| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try
to
| >| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >| >
| >| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >| >
| >| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >| >
| >| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| >| >
| >| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women
are
| >| >mutually exclusive.
| >| >
| >| >Thanks for your responses!
| >|
| >| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| >| fetus.
| >
| >I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of them
| >do.
| >
| >Is there a point here? You seem to be rebutting a point I never made.
|
| Maybe I misunderstood. I understood that a woman could not be a
| fetus, but not the part about the fetus "can't be a woman".
Oh I see. I wasn't clear.
Yes, half of non-viable fetuses eventually develop into women. But at the
point where you have:
1. an extant woman,and
2. a non-viable fetus,
they don't overlap.
They are mutually exclusive at that point.
Then the question is who gets to decide whether that extant woman carries
that non-viable pregnancy?
Is it the extant woman? The non-viable fetus? Some Fundamentalist
theocrat?
Clearly the answer is the woman because it is her body and the non-viable
fetus is obligatory dependent on that body. And even the non-viable fetus
has more say so than some fundamentalist theocrat who is just trying to jam
his religion down the throats of innocent,unsuspecting women for the sake of
doing so.
As I said at the very beginning of this thread, you don't want to get into
the business of telling grown women what they can and can't do with their
bodies when it doesn't involve other extant human beings. If you
countenance that for woman, some day you will wake up and find you have no
privacy rights either.
Shanon,
Thanks.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
14 Mar 2005 08:24:36 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:40:34 GMT, "lizzard woman"
<kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:qs0531t4lahg6263nt6r2pb8olipl3r3cd@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:45:26 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
| >news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| >| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >|
| >| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >| >
| >| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote
in
message
| >| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out
of your
| >| >asses.
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you
probably won't
| >answer
| >| >| > this
| >| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost
to an
| >atheism
| >| >| > group
| >| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware
that your
| >brother
| >| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you
don't agree
| >with
| >| >| > when
| >| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on
innocent,
| >| >| > unsuspecting
| >| >| > women in this regard?
| >| >|
| >| >| Hi there!
| >| >
| >| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an
abortion.
| >| >
| >| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong
to try
to
| >| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >| >
| >| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >| >
| >| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >| >
| >| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the
fetuses?
| >| >
| >| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses
and women
are
| >| >mutually exclusive.
| >| >
| >| >Thanks for your responses!
| >|
| >| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and
women grow
| >| fetus.
| >
| >I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half
of them
| >do.
| >
| >Is there a point here? You seem to be rebutting a point I never
made.
|
| Maybe I misunderstood. I understood that a woman could not be a
| fetus, but not the part about the fetus "can't be a woman".
Oh I see. I wasn't clear.
Yes, half of non-viable fetuses eventually develop into women. But
at the
point where you have:
1. an extant woman,and
2. a non-viable fetus,
they don't overlap.
They are mutually exclusive at that point.
Then the question is who gets to decide whether that extant woman
carries
that non-viable pregnancy?
Is it the extant woman? The non-viable fetus? Some Fundamentalist
theocrat?
Clearly the answer is the woman because it is her body and the
non-viable
fetus is obligatory dependent on that body. And even the non-viable
fetus
has more say so than some fundamentalist theocrat who is just trying
to jam
his religion down the throats of innocent,unsuspecting women for the
sake of
doing so.
As I said at the very beginning of this thread, you don't want to
get into
the business of telling grown women what they can and can't do with
their
bodies when it doesn't involve other extant human beings. If you
countenance that for woman, some day you will wake up and find you
have no
privacy rights either.
Shanon,
Thanks.
Um, thanks.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
12 Mar 2005 09:53:04 AM |
|
|
lizzard woman monitored:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
|
| >
| >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >|
| >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| >| >
| >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
| >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| >| > |
| >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of your
| >asses.
| >| > |
| >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
answer
| >| > this
| >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
atheism
| >| > group
| >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
brother
| >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| >| > |
| >| > Hey Patty,
| >| >
| >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't agree
with
| >| > when
| >| > a woman has an abortion?
| >| >
| >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| >| > unsuspecting
| >| > women in this regard?
| >|
| >| Hi there!
| >
| >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >
| >
| >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| >
| >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try to
| >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| >
| >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| >
| >That's fine. No problem there.
| >
| >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| >
| >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women
are
| >mutually exclusive.
| >
| >Thanks for your responses!
|
| How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| fetus.
I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of them
do.
Not if you go murdering them they don't.
As it is, 40% of them grow into women, 40% grow into men, and 20% go into
the clinical waste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
13 Mar 2005 12:19:55 PM |
|
|
"David" <nugatory@pension.com> wrote in message
news:d11vhc$7aq$a@pita.alt.net...
|
| lizzard woman monitored:
| > "Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
| > news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| > | On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| > | <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | >|
| > | >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > | >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| > | >| >
| > | >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in
message
| > | >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of
your
| > | >asses.
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably won't
| > answer
| > | >| > this
| > | >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
| > atheism
| > | >| > group
| > | >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that your
| > brother
| > | >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > Hey Patty,
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't
agree
| > with
| > | >| > when
| > | >| > a woman has an abortion?
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| > | >| > unsuspecting
| > | >| > women in this regard?
| > | >|
| > | >| Hi there!
| > | >
| > | >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an abortion.
| > | >
| > | >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to try
to
| > | >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| > | >
| > | >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| > | >
| > | >That's fine. No problem there.
| > | >
| > | >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| > | >
| > | >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and women
| are
| > | >mutually exclusive.
| > | >
| > | >Thanks for your responses!
| > |
| > | How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women grow
| > | fetus.
| >
| > I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of
them
| > do.
|
| Not if you go murdering them they don't.
You can't "murder" a non-viable fetus.
You can effectively "murder" the privacy laws by telling women what they can
and can't do with their own bodies when there are no other extant humans
involved.
Care to take another whack???
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: To Abort or Not To Abort, That is the Question |
13 Mar 2005 12:26:23 PM |
|
|
lizzard woman monitored:
"David" <nugatory@pension.com> wrote in message
news:d11vhc$7aq$a@pita.alt.net...
|
| lizzard woman monitored:
| > "Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
| > news:sgs431165odmmt8bdagf24p1f8ncv4b419@4ax.com...
| > | On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:15:33 GMT, "lizzard woman"
| > | <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | >"P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >news:8TpYd.89079$H05.2733@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | >|
| > | >| "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > | >| news:rSoYd.646843$8l.518438@pd7tw1no...
| > | >| >
| > | >| > "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >| > news:8NoYd.130126$nC5.5034@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| > | >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in
message
| > | >| > | news:U5WdnclcPq3Ei6_fRVnyrQ@brightview.com...
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > | > I rest my case. You theists need to get your heads out of
your
| > | >asses.
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > | Meaning....you can't answer my question. And you probably
won't
| > answer
| > | >| > this
| > | >| > | one either: Why are you here? If I accidently crosspost to an
| > atheism
| > | >| > group
| > | >| > | I get "the boot". Attention Atheists - are you aware that
your
| > brother
| > | >| > | "Secular Fundamentalist" is straying?
| > | >| > |
| > | >| > Hey Patty,
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Can I get a question in here some where?
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Do you think it is imposing a morality on you that you don't
agree
| > with
| > | >| > when
| > | >| > a woman has an abortion?
| > | >| >
| > | >| > Do you think it is correct to impose YOUR morality on innocent,
| > | >| > unsuspecting
| > | >| > women in this regard?
| > | >|
| > | >| Hi there!
| > | >
| > | >Hi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >| No, and would not impose my thoughts on a woman having an
abortion.
| > | >
| > | >Well alrighty then. Do you also agree that it would be wrong to
try
to
| > | >legislate bans on abortion using the same logic?
| > | >
| > | >| But I will answer if asked, especially on a Christian forum.
| > | >
| > | >That's fine. No problem there.
| > | >
| > | >| But what if the "innocent, unsuspecting women" are the fetuses?
| > | >
| > | >Women can't be fetuses and fetuses can't be women. Fetuses and
women
| are
| > | >mutually exclusive.
| > | >
| > | >Thanks for your responses!
| > |
| > | How are they mutually exclusive? Fetus grow into women and women
grow
| > | fetus.
| >
| > I never stated fetuses can't grow into women. Clearly about half of
them
| > do.
|
| Not if you go murdering them they don't.
You can't "murder" a non-viable fetus.
You can effectively "murder" the privacy laws by telling women what they
can
and can't do with their own bodies when there are no other extant humans
involved.
Care to take another whack???
Women are very welcome to do what they like with their own bodies, and those
own bodies of theirs stop where the placenta starts. Anything on the far
side of where the placenta, which is not | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
