Abortion Issues

[Jet]

At the heart of your viewpoint is the notion that the more in need, the more vulnerable, a human may be, the less protection society should afford.  Does that absence a right to live also extend to the ill, the disabled, the aged?  For the Eugenicist, neo-Nazi or atheist, the answer must logically be, yes.

Hold on there Ronnie...
30 yrs ago there were a whole lot more of those ill, aged, and disabled dieing because the technology wasn't there yet. Now it is, but it opens another whole can of worms with the question "just because we CAN, should we?" I have an acquaintance who is a highly respected neurosurgeon (and a practicing Pentecostal). His greatest fear, and as he relayed it to me, the greatest fear of his colleagues  is that medicine is soon to advance to the point where the body can be kept working long after the mind has outlived its usefulness, and will not function properly. His contention is that "life" with no "quality of life" is not worth having. He is adamant that many of the men who were saved on the battlefield in Iraq over the past 7 years, should NOT have been, because there will be no "quality of life" for them or their families - ever. How can this be considered moral or ethical?

As for the abortion question, I am totally with you regarding those who would choose to use abortion as a means of birth control because they were too careless or lazy to think about the ramifications of their actions beforehand BUT I also feel very strongly that there are circumstances where it is necessary and appropriate, and "quality of life" factors into those scenarios. If you strongly disagree with me on that point, feel free to voice your opinion, just don't expect that you're going to change my mind, by trying to jam your personal morals down my throat or the throats of any of the ladies that have shared an opposing viewpoint to your own. It's not the end of the world if a bunch of people who will likely never meet in real life, disagree, as long as you and your wife are on the same page about the things that are important to you 

[roykirk]

This deplorable world view stems from Darwinism which affords no moral distinction between humans and animals. 

There is no moral distinction between humans and animals.  Believing we're somehow better or different than all of the other animals on this planet is what's led us to causing the extinction of so many species.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't kill a bear if my life was threatened, because Darwin would say Mr. Bear ought to grow an opposable thumb and learn how to pull a trigger.  I'm so very happy that they can only teach about Darwin in our schools and not religion (although I wouldn't be opposed to teaching religion, as long as they spent equal time covering all of the major religions).

[Ronnie]

There is no moral distinction between humans and animals.  Believing we're somehow better or different than all of the other animals on this planet is what's led us to causing the extinction of so many species.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't kill a bear if my life was threatened, because Darwin would say Mr. Bear ought to grow an opposable thumb and learn how to pull a trigger.  I'm so very happy that they can only teach about Darwin in our schools and not religion  (although I wouldn't be opposed to teaching religion, as long as they spent equal time covering all of the major religions).

Interesting (non) point.  Man, because he is man has prevented, not caused, the extinction of many species.  Did you not question anything your Darwinian teachers told..you just take their word for it?  Look around you, man! 

Recently, PBS or Discovery did a program on "Life after Man" showing what would happen if mankind vanished.  Many species would not survive.  You should try to see it.  You might come realize the nonsense and sheer goofiness of your sophomore biology teacher.  Mine said man was not supposed walk on two legs.. Huh?  :whirling:

[Ronnie]

I admit to being angry at the comments some have made.  And maybe I've reacted in an emotional way.  But it is demeaning to me and all mankind to spout off about Darwin and how humans are no different from dumb animals.  These same people, when they see the inevitable end of life drawing too close to them, change their view.    There truly are no atheists in foxholes. Which means they never really believed it in the first place.. they just thought it was hip to make all the arguments.

At least be honest with yourselves, folks.   

[roykirk]

Interesting (non) point.  Man, because he is man has prevented, not caused, the extinction of many species.  Did you not question anything your Darwinian teachers told..you just take their word for it?  Look around you, man! 

Recently, PBS or Discovery did a program on "Life after Man" showing what would happen if mankind vanished.  Many species would not survive.  You should try to see it.  You might come realize the nonsense and sheer goofiness of your sophomore biology teacher.  Mine said man was not supposed walk on two legs.. Huh?  :whirling:

Actually, scientists estimate that most of the extinctions since around 1500 AD (estimated to be nearly 800 species), have been caused either directly or indirectly, by humans.  It is further estimated that if this current rate of extinction continues, that nearly HALF of all species will be extinct by 2100. 

I haven't seen the PBS documentary you speak of, but I've read the book that I believe it was based on, "Without us."  By my recollections, the author stated that many more species would thrive than would die off.  Even well domesticated animals like cats would do quite well.

I didn't question much of what I was taught in high school or college, because when it came to biology and ecology, it was all backed up by scientific evidence that I understood.  But I understand that some say carbon dating is a lie and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.  So maybe I do need to ask more questions.   

[Blues Fairy]

By claiming that a person only has a right to live if he/she can survive without the life-supporting physical maternal attachment, you leave no obstacle to the extension of such reasoning to those who may no longer be physically attached yet cannot feed themselves or maintain vital body temperature without assistance from another human. 

At the heart of your viewpoint is the notion that the more in need, the more vulnerable, a human may be, the less protection society should afford.  Does that absence a right to live also extend to the ill, the disabled, the aged?  For the Eugenicist, neo-Nazi or atheist, the answer must logically be, yes. 

Again you twist and distort every idea I offer, Ronnie, as is your habit.

A creature/person only has a CLAIM to a right to live if it doesn't HAVE to happen at the expense of another person's BODY.  Did I at any point mention my denial of life-support machines, or support killing the sick and disabled?  

But if I hook up my 5-month fetus to your beating heart, Ronnie, explaining that it's the only way to bring him/her to term, will you uphold your belief that he/she has a RIGHT to live at your expense?  Naturally the right to decide life and death is yours, and only yours.

As is the case with pregnant women.  The right to decide is theirs, unless the wee one can tolerably function on its own.

[Wienerin]

I already expressed a mild curiosity on why these are mainly men who claim as right to judge and pass laws on women's pregnancy issues. And so forcefully too! Well, guys, let me tell you the news - we are here and now, with no man's (as in male, and no woman too) right to dictate when a woman should or should not bear a child, how many children to have, etc.

And it's really quite beautiful (though, I'm afraid, he won't see the irony) that the guy spouting about how the milk won't flow from mother's breast and a peace of meat won't get into a Synday stew without some guy taking care of it - is the same one who defended his intended fiancee knowing nothing about his material circumstances (i.e. not knowing what she was letting herself in for )... THe real stone age male would dazzle his love with his prowess as a provider, wooing her with choice hunks of beef, handsome pelts and curious shining pebbles. But here we have an example of acting one way - and demanding from others that they act differently (since the context is totally different)

[steviej]

Life in various forms has been around for about 1 bilions years. Almost every species that has evolved (way before man) is now extinct. There isn't anything sacrosanct about anything becoming extinct or not. The species that cannot survive in a world where man dominates will become extinct. There have been many periods of major extinctions, even in the range where 60% to even 90% of all species became extinct in a relatively short time (geologically speaking). The time when man becomes extinct will also arrive. It is inevitable. Dinosaurs reigned for more than 150 million years, and they are gone. We've been around less than 1 million (and homo sapien sapien only for around 200,000 max) and we will never make it as long as the dinosaurs. We will be one of nature's short lived species. It is inevitable because of fundamental laws of nature involving chaos and entropy.

My motto? Marry a wonderful FSUW and enjoy it while it lasts !! )

[ScottinCrimea]

I have to smile to myself when I hear people debate the prolonging life and quality of life issues when they have never been in the situation to have to make such decisions, unless it was maybe grandma or grandpa.  In my career I have been required to do just that far too many times.  In the face of each individual consideration, one's own philosophical beliefs become moot.

[Ronnie]

Again you twist and distort every idea I offer, Ronnie, as is your habit.

A creature/person only has a CLAIM to a right to live if it doesn't HAVE to happen at the expense of another person's BODY.  Did I at any point mention my denial of life-support machines, or support killing the sick and disabled?  

But if I hook up my 5-month fetus to your beating heart, Ronnie, explaining that it's the only way to bring him/her to term, will you uphold your belief that he/she has a RIGHT to live at your expense?  Naturally the right to decide life and death is yours, and only yours.

As is the case with pregnant women.  The right to decide is theirs, unless the wee one can tolerably function on its own.

Nothing I wrote twisted or distorted anything you wrote - that is just your frustration rising through when you can't defend your statements.  No, you did not "mention" those things, what you did say is clear in is in print.  I simply pointed out the fallacy of you reasoning, and the logical extension of your position on who has a right to live.

You twice now have used the expression "at the expense of someone's body."  What are saying?  Normal pregnancy causes a woman to expend or deplete her body?   Where is that coming from?  I have read and witnessed that pregnant women are healthier during pregnancy than any other time.  Expense of her body?  Are talking about fear of stretch marks?  It seems someone is coming across as a being tremendously vain and self-centered.

In answer to your hypothetical about attaching a 5-month old fetus to my heart..I'm probably missing your point.  Are you saying it would over tax my heart?  A two-pound fetus?  Actually her heart is one of the few organs already functioning, I'd just be sharing my functioning organs to scrub and oxygenate her blood until her organs have matured.     

What I think you're talking about is would I choose be inconvenienced in order that a new life begin?  It was not "convenient" for my mother and father to raise me and my siblings, and I suspect your mother and father could be said to be inconvenienced by you.  Is that the criterion for such decisions?  For an ego-centric atheist, I suspect that is exactly the criterion.

[steviej]

... in my opinion *if* there is ANYONE who might be qualified to determine the state of a person's brain function ...

We debate "what is life" both at the beginning and at the end. With our technology being increasingly able to deliver earlier and earlier pre-mature babies, and keep folks almost expired at the other end alive for longer and longer, our agonizing over these bourgoise philosophical questions will become more intense. It's part of the luxury of being a wealthy and advanced society. Do we really think we have such unlimited resources to put so much effort into both extreme ends of the spectrum? Nature is a sloppy and inexact thing. For the first few weeks, you cannot even tell the difference between a lizard and a human embryo. At the end, with advance alzheimers and organic deterioration, the brain function is so deteriorated as to make the question of a functioning human almost ridiculous. It's easy to scream about the sanctity of "life" at each end of the spectrum, but the farther it goes, the more unjustified to put enormous amounts of society's common resources into it. We do a similar sort of thing in education in the US now. We spend something like 80% of our educational dollars on the bottom 10% of students and "special needs" students, because of our "values". This is just not a sustainable approach. Some "values" are luxuries that simply cannot be afforded forever. [OK, now I will duck behind the wall while all the tomatos and rotten eggs come flying my way!]

[Ronnie]

As for the abortion question, I am totally with you regarding those who would choose to use abortion as a means of birth control because they were too careless or lazy to think about the ramifications of their actions beforehand BUT I also feel very strongly that there are circumstances where it is necessary and appropriate, and "quality of life" factors into those scenarios. If you strongly disagree with me on that point, feel free to voice your opinion, just don't expect that you're going to change my mind, by trying to jam your personal morals down my throat or the throats of any of the ladies that have shared an opposing viewpoint to your own. It's not the end of the world if a bunch of people who will likely never meet in real life, disagree, as long as you and your wife are on the same page about the things that are important to you 

Jet,
At the heart of my argument is disgust and disappointment with men and women who make decisions with only near-term considerations to guide them.  Why do so many women who have abortions regret having done so years later?  Because they realize they were not thinking beyond that day, that hour when they made the decision to abort. 

I'm not in favor of making laws one way or the other on abortion and other issues.  We can't force people to donate organs, give blood or raise a child.  Nor can one be forced to feed the hungry, clothe the naked or administer to the sick and injured.  Such are the decisions we make that I believe will enter into the measure of who we are as men and women individually and collectively and will determine the level of happiness we enjoy, now and in the future.  You can call it, as some do, Karma-Phala.  I just call it reaping what one sows which, as far as I can tell, is a powerful natural law.

[Blues Fairy]

Nothing I wrote twisted or distorted anything you wrote - that is just your frustration rising through when you can't defend your statements.  No, you did not "mention" those things, what you did say is clear in is in print.  I simply pointed out the fallacy of you reasoning, and the logical extension of your position on who has a right to live.

The "logical extension" is one of the usual demagogical tricks.  You could as well say that my pro-choice stance naturally extends to hating all children and those tho choose to have them.  No, Ronnie, it's you whose reasoning is fallacious but being the dogmatic zealot that you are you'll never admit it.  Your purpose is to show that all I say is pure devilry, and you'll stop at nothing in attaining it.  :evil:

You twice now have used the expression "at the expense of someone's body."  What are saying?  Normal pregnancy causes a woman to expend or deplete her body?   Where is that coming from?  I have read and witnessed that pregnant women are healthier during pregnancy than any other time.  Expense of her body?  Are talking about fear of stretch marks?  It seems someone is coming across as a being tremendously vain and self-centered.

What I think you're talking about is would I choose be inconvenienced in order that a new life begin?  For an ego-centric atheist, I suspect that is exactly the criterion.

 

Have you ever been pregnant, Ronnie?    Is it news to you that child-bearing takes a toll on a woman's health, even if she's fully willing and committed?  And for some women, pregnancy may be physically debilitating and emotionally disastrous.  Who are you to decide the measure of this damage, and who are you to judge them if they choose not to go through with it?

Seriously, I'm sick of your religious hysteria.  If this topic is too sensitive for you to discuss without resorting to judgemental labels, maybe you should stay the heck away from it. 

[OlgaH]

GEORGE CARLIN - ABORTION

[youtube=425,350]61IE-SkAtug&feature=related[/youtube]

For the first few weeks, you cannot even tell the difference between a lizard and a human embryo.

When does an embryo become a person?  by Swomley, John M

A major effort at redefining the word "person" is taking place today. Along with a linguistic change, if "pro-life" efforts are successful, will come important sociological, psychological and theological change. Biological and other scientific factors are being bent to accommodate the religious argument that a human being exists at conception, or when sperm meets egg.

The conceptus - weighing a very small fraction of an ounce -- obviously is not an Independent or autonomous human being, and certainly not a person, because it has no way to exist except in the body of another human being that feeds and protects it.

It is also obvious that no two persons can exist in one body with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In effect the Vatican and its dependent right-to-life movement can only promote the rights of an embryo or fetus by treating the woman who carries it as an incubator who may not control her own body, take medication or other substances that may harm the fetus, or make other choices that would be injurious to it.

A human being and certainly a person is not determined solely by its biology at conception, when it has no sex, no brain, no eyes, ears or other senses. A "person" is determined only at birth, when it is welcomed into the human community as a living reality.

Actually, the Vatican position is self-contradictory. Consider in vitro fertilization, a process whereby male sperm fertilizes a female egg in a test tube or dish. Can it be argued that such a fertilized egg has all the rights of a living person? Does it have the right to be implanted in a woman's uterus, without which there could be no expectation of childbirth? In vitro fertilization is forbidden by the Vatican's "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation."

Fr. Donald McCarthy of the Pope John Paul XXII Medical, Moral and Educational Center in St Louis, has called for the endowment of civil rights to every fertilized egg, includIng the right not to be created at all except as a consequence of "personal, self-giving and conjugal love." Here two fictional legalisms conflict: A human being exists at conception, but that human being has a right not to be implanted. Who makes that decision? Certainly not the fertilized egg!

In 1988 when the Webster case1 was being argued before the Supreme Court, 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, told the Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief, "There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception ..." They referred to the argument made by others to the Court that "as surely as the Earth moves around the sun, it is an undisputed biological fact that a human life begins at conception." In reply, the scientists said, "Such arguments are attempts to distort the teachings of science to fit preconceived conclusions based upon values that science alone does not and cannot dictate."2

The National Academy of Sciences was equally emphatic. They declared that Senate Bill 158 cannot stand up to the scrutiny of science. One section of the bill reads, "The Congress finds the present day scientific evidence Indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." The scientists said, '"his statement purports to derive its conclusions from science, but It deals with a question to which science can provide no answer. The proposal in S.158 that the term "person" shall include "all human life" has no basis within our scientific understanding."

Also in the same brief before the Supreme Court, Joseph Boyle, MD, chair of the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, stated: '"he question of when a human life truly begins calls for a conclusion as to which characteristic defines the essence of life. While science can tell us wheR certain biological attributes can be detected, science cannot tell us which biological attributes establish the existence of a human being."3

Some distinguished scientists indicate that you cannot speak of a human being or person without the development of the brain. Michael Bennett, professor and chair of the Department of Neuroscience at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, wrote: There is none, not heart, kidney, lung or spleen that we cannot transplant, do without, or replace artificially. The brain is the essence of our existence. If in fiction, a brain is transplanted from one body to another (which is not a realistic possibility because of the multiplicity of connections required), personhood goes with the brain and does not reside in the recipient body (which is not to deny that the body influences and indeed is necessary for the brain to function)."4

Dr. Bennett also added another analysis that deals with certain rightto-life claims that there is a heartbeat in an embryo or fetus. He wrote: "The recently adopted criteria for death provides a further example of the centrality of the brain. The vital signs of heartbeat and respiration are no longer considered a valid indicator of human life, and electroencephalographic techniques permit us to determine whether there is brain activity or chance of its resumption; if a person is brain dead, he or she is dead."5

The impossibility of brain life in a conceptus means that it is not a human being or person, any more than an egg is a chicken.

Charles Gardner, who did his doctoral research on the genetic control of brain development at the University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, writes, The 'biological' argument that a human being is created at fertilization ... comes as a surprise to most embryologists ... for it contradicts all that they have learned in the past few decades."

... in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one ... the resulting person may be completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals, such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different... and would not unite. But here the cells seem unaware of any distinction between themselves.... The only explanation is that the individual is not fixed or determined at this early stage.6

What, then, constitutes personhood? It is not present at conception, any more than there is an oak present in an acorn. There Is the biblical account. Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul." The Hebrew word "nephesh," or "the breathing one," appears more than 700 times in the Bible as the definition of a human being or person.

Paul D. Simmons, while Professor of Christian Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological School in Louisville, wrote: "The fallacy of believing a zygote is a person is also seen when the argument Is reduced ad absurdum: Every body cell of a person contains one's DNA or genetic code. That is why theoretically, at least, persons may be cloned or duplicated. If one uses the genetic definition of 'person' one would have to regard every cell as a human being, since each cell has the potentiality for becoming another person through cloning."

Simmons went on to say, "A fertilized ovum (zygote) ... Is a cluster of cells, but hardly complex or developed enough to qualify as a 'person.' A person or human being has capacities of reflective choice, relational response, social experience, moral perception and self-awareness."7

In the Christian scriptures, the Incarnation, or "the Word made flesh" (John 1:4) was celebrated at Jesus' birth, not at a speculative time of conception. The biblical tradition is followed today by counting age from the date of birth, rather than from conception, a date people do not know or seek to estimate. The state issues no conception certificate -- only birth certificates. It issues no death certificates for the countless fertilized eggs that do not implant, nor for miscarriages.

Pope John Paul II, who started and controls the "Right to Life, movement, has abandoned both the scriptural definition of a human being and scientific data. The idea that a human being exists at conception is entirely his idea, which he wants the "Right to life" movement to establish in law, despite the extensive evidence that contradicts his wishes. Will he win? The answer depends on the political power of his movement and on public opinion.

END NOTES

1 Webster v. Reproductive Health Care Services, October 1988 term of U.S. Supreme Court

2 Amicus Curaie (friend-of-thecourt) brief presented to the Supreme Court In Webster Idem. Text cited in John M. Swomley, Abortion and Public Policy, Monograph No. 4, Americans for Religous Liberty, 1995

3 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congression, lst Session, 1981

4 James Boyle, In Amicus Curiae brief, Ibid. Text cited in Swomley, ibid.

5 Michael F. L. Bennett, "Personhood from a Neuroscientist's Perspective," In Doerr and Prescott, Abortion Rights and Fetal Personhood, Centerline Press, 1991, P. 77

6 Charles Gardner, "Is an Embryo a Person?" Nation, Nov. 13,1989, cited In Swomley, ibid.

7 Paul Simmons.- "The Fetus as Person: A Biblical Perspective," in Doerr and Prescott, ibid, p. 18

John M. Swomley has a Ph.D. in political science and international affairs from the University of Colorado and is professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, MO and chairperson of The Churchman Co.

I think there would be more common good from the pro-life movement if every anti-abortionist, tissue lover, adopts even one abandoned child (not a child in conception) , and especially a child with physical or mental defects   

[Misha]

It should be noted that half or more pregnancies end before birth even when the woman wants to have a child: if an error occurs at conception, the embryo will be evacuated by the mother's body. Often, this happens within a few days of conception: a woman will be "late" but in reality she was pregnant and the child was lost within days. Sadly, in other cases a miscarriage will occur. The greatest risk is in the first twenty weeks after conception.

[Ronnie]

The "logical extension" is one of the usual demagogical tricks.  You could as well say that my pro-choice stance naturally extends to hating all children and those tho choose to have them.  No, Ronnie, it's you whose reasoning is fallacious but being the dogmatic zealot that you are you'll never admit it.  Your purpose is to show that all I say is pure devilry, and you'll stop at nothing in attaining it.  :evil:
 
Have you ever been pregnant, Ronnie?    Is it news to you that child-bearing takes a toll on a woman's health, even if she's fully willing and committed?  And for some women, pregnancy may be physically debilitating and emotionally disastrous.  Who are you to decide the measure of this damage, and who are you to judge them if they choose not to go through with it?

Seriously, I'm sick of your religious hysteria.  If this topic is too sensitive for you to discuss without resorting to judgemental labels, maybe you should stay the heck away from it. 

Making a logical extension of an outrageous statement is a trick and my only goal is to make you look devilish.  I see.  Well, I have a news flash madam.  I don't know you and have no desire to make you look devilish, angelic or anything of the sort.  I've given you numerous compliments on this board and you well know that.  It may be hard to imagine, but believe it or not, discussions of ideas are not about the people themselves...it's about the ideas.  Nothing more. 

The words "religion" and "religious" are not a kind of epithet. Adding "religious hysteria" to your description of my arguments seems inappropriate to me, but then who can tell you your off the mark? You have your own definition of what the words mean.. I have mine.  I am not insulted by being called religious.  It's just that it's inaccurate, that's all.  The last time I was in a church service, your feet were dangling under your school desk too short to reach the floor. 

Beliefs are beliefs...convictions are convictions.  We all have them.     
If using terms like administering to the sick and injured, or clothing the naked and reaping what is sown, is in your mind, religious hysteria, then maybe you need to get past that.  Religion does not have an exclusive patent on charity and acts of goodwill.  I think you may have said something similar yourself in another thread.

You ask if I've been pregnant?  Rhetorical of course.  I have been through three pregnancies, attending lamaze training and assisted in all three deliveries.  I can tell you my wife never looked or felt better than during her pregnancies...she was not a woman to suffer in silence.  Like many husbands, I was involved with her from start to finish and did the 2 am bottle preparation and feeding.  Let's not forget the diaper changing and 103 degree fevers and still going to work the next day.  Why do women want to minimize a husband/father's role?  What did I miss other than pain at the hour of delivery?  We know the pain is great.  Most of us have experienced excruciating pain ourselves.  What is your point madam?   

Again, I can only conclude from the information given is that the issue is inconvenience and selfishness.  Giving blood, donating a kidney, bone marrow transplants are not without pain and sacrifice, but they are done daily by people of goodwill and compassion.  When all we focus on is our own discomfort or immediate desires, then our society suffers.  That's why I speak up in opposition to the attitudes that have been presented here from time to time, usually by the same cast of characters who seem to want to convince themselves of their rectitude as much as convince others. 

[Blues Fairy]

Ronnie,

Congratulations on your highly moral and unselfish life of sympathetic pregnancies, child rearing, and donating bone marrow and kidneys.  I, mere selfish mortal, will never compare to your brilliant virtues.  But I will not, under any circumstances, throw a stone at another mere mortal for not wanting to go through with a complicated pregnancy, or give birth to a sick child, or raise a child in a single-mom household on a minimum wage.   

But that's just me, the immoral selfish atheist.

[OlgaH]

   
But that's just me, the immoral selfish atheist.

the immoral selfish atheist who cares more about real living people than about conception.

[OlgaH]

Ronnie,

we also have a Mother's Day (The last Sunday of November)  in Russia that was officially established in 1998. And even in such case there are many abandoned children and in America too in spite of Mothers and Father's Day.

As I have written the pro-life movement would bring more common good to these real living abandoned children if every pro-life member adopted them instead to sputter about the fantasy of conception.

I guess every men should think that with a condom that is full of sperm they throw out the lives in conception. 

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,

we also have a Mother's Day (The last Sunday of November)  in Russia that was officially established in 1998. And even in such case there are many abandoned children and in America too in spite of Mothers and Father's Day.

As I have written the pro-life movement would bring more common good to these real living abandoned children if every pro-life member adopted them instead to sputter about the fantasy of conception.

I guess every men should think that with a condom that is full of sperm they throw out the lives in conception. 

Olga, I was going to drop this abortion/pro-choice/pro-life/anti-choice topic but I'm afraid you're trying to lump me with the life-begins-at-conception crowd just as BF has tried to label me religious fanatic.
I am neither. 

In my view no one can say without equivocation when a fetus becomes a person.  Every person I suppose draws their own line or like me the just say, "no one can know,"  I do know that killing of a pregnant woman results in double murder charges as with Scott Peterson.  I haven't looked it up but I suppose California law says something about the stage of pregancy.  So when something is so unknown as to when a life becomes a life, then we will invariable err in that determination.  And if we are to err, on which side would it be best to err? 

My concern is with attitudes of my fellow human beings and how the are very negative consequences to society and the individual when we abandon the wider view. I thought I had expressed that. 

[OlgaH]

Olga, I was going to drop this abortion/pro-choice/pro-life/anti-choice topic but I'm afraid you're trying to lump me with the life-begins-at-conception crowd just as BF has tried to label me religious fanatic.
 

Ronnie,

Nobody try to lump you. And BF's label was just her reaction on your attempt to accuse her of lack of religious moral because she holds the scientific opinion about embryo and I do it as well. 

[Kuna]

Ronnie,

You should know you can't debate with a rabid abortionist - it's a waste of time.

Some of the things BF has said are simply revolting.  If she wants to really debate abortion I'd welcome her to open a thread in Anything Goes because I can't say what I want to say in this thread.

Kuna

[OlgaH]

Ronnie,

You should know you can't debate with a rabid abortionist - it's a waste of time.

Kuna

Same thing I would say about rabid anti-abortionist who is first of all is a rabid anti-humanist.

Oh, pro-life men, tell us how many of you, great humanist, are married to a woman with the terrible birth defects to make her the happiest woman in the world.

[Kuna]

Same thing I would say about rabid anti-abortionist who is first of all is a rabid anti-humanist.

Oh, pro-life men, tell us how many of you, great humanist, are married to a woman with the terrible birth defects to make her the happiest woman in the world.

Olga,

I know you're not stupid so if you want to debate this open the thread in Anything Goes or shut thy mouth!

Kuna

[OlgaH]

Administration can the split the thread.

How about this, pro-life humanists

The Right to Die

I did not know my son. I do not know his thousands of brothers and sisters, of whom it has been written, "Oh, what a mortal pity He was ever born," and I do not know the parents of these children. I do not speak for them, just for myself and perhaps for Philip. I believe that it is time for a sane and civilized and humane approach to euthanasia.

I do not know how it should be practiced, or what committee should have a voice in the decisions, or what pill or injection might best be employed. I do know that there are thousands of children on this earth who should never have been born. Their lives are a blank. They do not play; they do not read; they do not grow; they do not live or love. Their life is without meaning to themselves, and an agony to their families.

http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=fletcher.html