A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

[Naughty Nurse]

urethra, i think i really like you! between you me and the nurse, evil bitches could rule!

When I get back from my trip, I think I'll change my avatar back to "Satanic Nurses" in your honour!

 

[Grandmadale]

No im here and i enjoy being here

 

[labwitch]

When I get back from my trip, I think I'll change my avatar back to "Satanic Nurses" in your honour!

AWRIGHT EVIL BITCHES RULE! I AM UNWORTHY! :twisted: :drink

in fact, i owe you both a twisted drink!

 

[Fantasea]

No matter how many times we go over this issue, one thing is absolutely clear. There will be no agreement on the fundamentals involved. People for the most part are set in there ways. I for one have broaded my view on abortion thanks in large part to your arguements. I could not make the personal choice to terminate a pregnancy unless the womans life was at stake or some similar tragedy. But I could not tell someone else what they must do, and I have to defend the rights of women exercising their legal rights in this free nation.

You continually come up with claims such as your comment: "One can rationalize anything. The fact, according to published statistics is that the vast majority of abortions occur in order to avoid embarrassment or because of inconvenient timing."

Frankly, you are guilty of your own acquisation. You are right. YOU can rationalize anything. You have brought forward claims that are obviously slanted to fit your agenda. Everyone does it, and you're no different, but don't cast stones (ooops, alittle christian humor!) at others for doing what you do.

Do I buy into all that you have said?.. obviously not. Do I buy into the Republican crafted slavery (code) arguement?.. nice try, but to use your term, "hogwash" packaged in selective hypocracy. Do I buy your comment that religion has nothing to do with abortion positions?.. not really (what a surprise!). They have a great deal to do with the entire agenda including but not limited to the parameters surrounding the time life begins etc etc etc. But I do agree that it is a major problem that needs more direct attention. The fact that the Pro Life administration has failed to put more resources, and I mean BIG BUCKS behind this to provide support for babies born and in need of adoption or institutional care (what a horror) indicates to me that it either (1) isn't as important to them as it is to you - just a political convenience that they can use to rally votes from guys like you... OR (2) they are hypocrits and won't commit the dollars needed to fund support for pregnant Moms; money incentives to women who don't abort; free adoptions (no legal costs etc), deep tax incentives for people adopting, allowing gays to adopt (what a crime against nature that would be! Oh my), free medical care for all "rescued" babies...whatever it would take to drop that rate dramatically. They simply like to talk about it, yet the do nothing to fix the problem (sound familiar?)

Through all these threads I haven't heard ANYONE come up with any viable plan or alternative to mitigate this problem. You personally refuse to do you bit and adopt a few babies... Most Republicans (and many Dems) would freak out at the evolution of a quasy "socialist" system to support and care for those who were "rescued". Hell, Bush is trying to figure out social security for old people... he can't deal with millions of unwanted babies too! One of the easiest answers also hits a brick wall with your crowd...I have also heard the nonsensical conservative christian drivel over birth control information and distribution to young people because that might give them "impure" thoughts. I hate to break it to you Fant... you don't have to "give" them anything... THEY HAVE THEM ALREADY, and isn't it better to prevent the genetic interlude before anyone has to debate the issue of it being a "baby" at conception? Get over it! People have sex! Lots of it, and sometimes accidents happen in the heat of passion. Just ask a priest or a tele-evangalist... sometimes they "sin" too.

You have some very salient points and honorable intentions, but you need to pack you puritanical mindset and leave it in the past, and offer some MODERN solutions rather than trying to mandate other peoples behavior. Because it's never going to happen.

Your entire argument is emotional. You have not presented a single medical or scientific fact that justifies the killing of a child in the womb.

If you could furnish a fact or two, perhaps you might sway me a bit.

Those who argue against abortion on religious grounds err. No one can win an argument on any subject on religious grounds with an opponent who is not of the identical belief. An argument about abortion, if on religious grounds, quickly shifts from an argument on abortion to an argument on religion.

However, it’s not at all necessary to discuss abortion on religious grounds. There is sufficient factual evidence to establish that abortion kills a living human being. The question really becomes whether it is legitimate for any human can have the power of life or death over another human.

The argument that an unborn cannot survive outside womb begs the question. After all, that same child, outside the womb cannot survive either, unless it receives the same nourishment, shelter, and protection that it received while still in the womb. If the child can be aborted anytime up to nine months after conception, why not at twelve months, eighteen months, twenty-four months?

At the time Roe v. Wade was being debated, persons of good faith could honestly say, paraphrasing Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, we just don’t know when human life begins so we’ll leave the question to a court in the future when the question can be answered.

These same persons were advocating legalized abortion as an alternative to what they referred to as ‘back alley butchers’. In their wildest dreams, who could have predicted that just thirty-two years later, the death toll of aborted children would be approaching fifty million?

Today, medical, obstetric, and scientific advances have provided the answer to the question. Even an untrained relative or friend, viewing real time ultrasound full-motion images of a weeks old child inside a womb understands the consequences of abortion.

At this point, the problem is twofold. First, it is a matter of political economics. The abortion industry is immense and the amount of money it generates guarantees a steady and substantial flow of campaign contributions.

Second, it is an emotional phenomenon that politicians are unable to gauge. The noise generated by liberal groups, whose decibel volume belies their numbers strikes fear in the hearts of political incumbents who depend on the liberal vote.

 

[Fantasea]

Billions, honey! Having sex is a basic human drive, like hunger and thirst. People WILL have sex (yes, even those who aren't married), and teenagers WILL have sex.

Irresponsible persons who do not exercise reasonable self-control never cease to cause themselves all sorts of trouble.

You oppose abortion and you also oppose adequate sex education. That, as our beloved Contrarian has suggested elsewhere, is a rediculous stance.

I notice that you include the qualifier, 'adequate'. No doubt the teaching of personal responsibility and self-control is not considered to be adequate. As I observed in an earlier post, the 'adequate' way is to show thirteen year olds the preferred sexual positions, hand out the condoms, and then dismiss the class so that they can pair off to do their homework.

Fantasea, you really need to grow up and start thinking for yourself instead of spewing out the same tired old arguments which, despite your frequent protests to the contrary, appear to be entirely based on your religious beliefs.

I challenge you to produce a single statement of mine that argues the question on religious grounds. It makes no sense to discuss a secular matter on religious grounds.

I further challenge you to cite medical, obstetric, or scientific fact which justifies the nearly fifty million US abortions that have been performed since Roe v. Wade.

Can you do it? Or, am I going to be treated to more appeals to emotion and mockery?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Today, medical, obstetric, and scientific advances have provided the answer to the question. Even an untrained relative or friend, viewing real time ultrasound full-motion images of a weeks old child inside a womb understands the consequences of abortion.

FACT CHECK - Ultrasounds are not performed before 13-14 weeks. At one week it's not even close to being fetus, no less a child.

A woman has a right to decide what goes on inside her own body. If a woman has a legal abortion it is not murder, a crime, unethical or wrong.

What is wrong is someone who tries to prevent a woman from exercising her own free will.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Irresponsible persons who do not exercise reasonable self-control never cease to cause themselves all sorts of trouble.I notice that you include the qualifier, 'adequate'. No doubt the teaching of personal responsibility and self-control is not considered to be adequate. As I observed in an earlier post, the 'adequate' way is to show thirteen year olds the preferred sexual positions, hand out the condoms, and then dismiss the class so that they can pair off to do their homework.

To suggest that you can teach everyone self control so that they do not have sex is a fantasy. You suggest that teaching teens about adult sex in an adult way will make them 'pair off.' I disagree!

I say that making sex a 'forbidden fruit' makes teens have sex much more than the teen who has been treated like an adult and thus can make an educated decision.

Another fact? When I was 15, besides sports my extra curricular time was spent hanging out with girls and hoping to have sex with them. My hormones were popping. When I did have sex, it was safe sex because the high school I went to did hand out condoms and even diaphragms. Not one woman in my school became pregnant in the 4 years I was in high school. Was there a lot of sex going on in 1974 in 12th grade? You bet there was. Is there a lot of sex going on in 2005? You bet there is!

How come states like Texas that teach abstinence but not birth control have teen pregnancy rates twice as high as places that teach birth control?

Instead of preaching abstinence I think it's time to stop the BS and start treating sex as if it's going to happen no matter what, and do our damnedest to make sure they're using birth control as much as possible.

 

[anomaly]

Hopefully one day Fant will realize that there is no 'factual' evidence on either side of this debate. It is a question of morals and beliefs. Either you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. I happen to be pro-choice, does this make me a killer? A supporter of infanticide, perhaps? Absolutely not. I am opposed to abortion, but more strongly opposed to controlling other people into following your particular beliefs. As many have pointed out, you on the right only wish to impose your will upon another human being. It should be pointed out that we on the left wish to have no law, and we do not oppose you pro-lifers at all. You pro-lifers, however, want to take something which has been legal for 32 years and simply reverse the decision...you wish to control every woman in the United States. And then you bring in your morals. You know, we on the left have morals too, and I for one believe it is wrong to tell 140 million people what they can or can't do with their own body! Most importantly, however, is that this is not a debateable topic. You're either pro-choice or pro-life, no evidence is needed for ither position. But I will say this: Anyone who votes for a candidate based on their stand on abortion or gay marriage is wasting a vote. Vote for something that is actually important (like the economy) !

 

[Grandmadale]

Hey how can you say what is unethical. I know my ethics are not the same as alot of people so just cause abortion is ok by your standards that doesnt mean that its alright by everyone else.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea

Today, medical, obstetric, and scientific advances have provided the answer to the question. Even an untrained relative or friend, viewing real time ultrasound full-motion images of a weeks old child inside a womb understands the consequences of abortion.

FACT CHECK - Ultrasounds are not performed before 13-14 weeks. At one week it's not even close to being fetus, no less a child.

A woman has a right to decide what goes on inside her own body. If a woman has a legal abortion it is not murder, a crime, unethical or wrong.

What is wrong is someone who tries to prevent a woman from exercising her own free will.

Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. I used the plural word 'weeks' to differentiate it from the word 'months'. However, If we take your 13-14 weeks time frame, tell me, what is it that the observers of an ultra-sound 'movie show' are looking at?

Other things that were once legal in the US have been reversed on the basis of new discoveries, facts not previously known, or simply the realization that it was intrinsically wrong. I believe that the days of legalized abortion are numbered.

Will you accept my challenge to cite medical, obstetric, or scientific fact which justifies the nearly fifty million US abortions that have been performed since Roe v. Wade?

 

[shuamort]

Fantasea, quick (and personal) question for you. How do you feel about the morning after pill, RU-486?

 

[Fantasea]

Hopefully one day Fant will realize that there is no 'factual' evidence on either side of this debate.

You know that I have cited renowned members of the medical community, doctors, scientists, geneticists, whose research has determined that human life begins at conception. I have challenged all comers to cite competent authorities who disagree. So far, no one has accepted my challenge.

It is a question of morals and beliefs. Either you are pro-life or you are pro-choice.

I do not agree. It is a question of genetic fact. Intelligent persons, once informed, have the choice of accepting or denying the truth. Those who, in good faith, are doubtful, have the responsibility of removing any doubt through independent research. Ignoring the question when so much information is readily available is irresponsible.

I happen to be pro-choice, does this make me a killer? A supporter of infanticide, perhaps? Absolutely not.

I don't point fingers and I don't accuse. I simply attempt to inform.

I am opposed to abortion,

Why?

but more strongly opposed to controlling other people into following your particular beliefs.

You mentioned infanticide. Up to what age do you believe that a mother should have the right to end the life of a child? Why?

As many have pointed out, you on the right only wish to impose your will upon another human being.

I disagree. My sole concern is preventing the arbitrary and capricious imposition of capital punishment upon infants whose only offense is showing up at an inopportune time.

It should be pointed out that we on the left wish to have no law, and we do not oppose you pro-lifers at all. You pro-lifers, however, want to take something which has been legal for 32 years and simply reverse the decision...

If you read the Roe v. Wade decision, specifically Section IX B, paragraph 2, you would realize that the decision contains the seeds of it's own destruction.

Theyou wish to control every woman in the United States. And then you bring in your morals. You know, we on the left have morals too, and I for one believe it is wrong to tell 140 million people what they can or can't do with their own body!

I object to the killing of unborn children the same as I object to a mugger killing his victim. In either case, the result is the same; a human dies.

Most importantly, however, is that this is not a debateable topic. You're either pro-choice or pro-life, no evidence is needed for ither position.

My argument is always based upon fact. Your argument is based solely on emotion. If this is not so, then respond to my challenge and produce a competent medical authority to back up your position.

But I will say this: Anyone who votes for a candidate based on their stand on abortion or gay marriage is wasting a vote. Vote for something that is actually important (like the economy) !

Say what you wish.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea, quick (and personal) question for you. How do you feel about the morning after pill, RU-486?

On an individual basis, intercourse, for myriad reasons usually does not result in pregnancy. At the time a woman ingests a RU-486, she cannot possibly know whether a pregnancy has commenced or whether she is just wasting her money. However, she is playing it safe. Down the road, we shall learn whether there are undesirable side effects as there were with thalidomide, the 'pill', breast implants, and the abortion procedure.

Somehow, there always seems to be the unintended consequence of a price to pay.

 

[alienken]

Your entire argument is emotional. You have not presented a single medical or scientific fact that justifies the killing of a child in the womb.

If you could furnish a fact or two, perhaps you might sway me a bit.

Those who argue against abortion on religious grounds err. No one can win an argument on any subject on religious grounds with an opponent who is not of the identical belief. An argument about abortion, if on religious grounds, quickly shifts from an argument on abortion to an argument on religion.

However, it’s not at all necessary to discuss abortion on religious grounds. There is sufficient factual evidence to establish that abortion kills a living human being. The question really becomes whether it is legitimate for any human can have the power of life or death over another human.

The argument that an unborn cannot survive outside womb begs the question. After all, that same child, outside the womb cannot survive either, unless it receives the same nourishment, shelter, and protection that it received while still in the womb. If the child can be aborted anytime up to nine months after conception, why not at twelve months, eighteen months, twenty-four months?

At the time Roe v. Wade was being debated, persons of good faith could honestly say, paraphrasing Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, we just don’t know when human life begins so we’ll leave the question to a court in the future when the question can be answered.

These same persons were advocating legalized abortion as an alternative to what they referred to as ‘back alley butchers’. In their wildest dreams, who could have predicted that just thirty-two years later, the death toll of aborted children would be approaching fifty million?

Today, medical, obstetric, and scientific advances have provided the answer to the question. Even an untrained relative or friend, viewing real time ultrasound full-motion images of a weeks old child inside a womb understands the consequences of abortion.

At this point, the problem is twofold. First, it is a matter of political economics. The abortion industry is immense and the amount of money it generates guarantees a steady and substantial flow of campaign contributions.

Second, it is an emotional phenomenon that politicians are unable to gauge. The noise generated by liberal groups, whose decibel volume belies their numbers strikes fear in the hearts of political incumbents who depend on the liberal vote.

Fantasea really summed up the whole argument quite well. It does keep going back to religion because of the morality of the issue and the anti-Christian trend is out there. It is a question of when life begins and it is reasonable to see the pictures in any grade school biology book that all of the parts that would define the fetus as a living human form very early and that IS a fact.The next question - do you think it is wrong to kill an innocent human because the inconvenience of the birth?

 

[shuamort]

It does keep going back to religion because of the morality of the issue and the anti-Christian trend is out there.

What anti-Christian trend? You have facts to support that there is a trend and that the activities are more prevalent than in the past?

 

[alienken]

What anti-Christian trend? You have facts to support that there is a trend and that the activities are more prevalent than in the past?

The trend is out there everywhere.You have seen the news stories about prayer and God out of school.Ten Commandments away from the courts.I hear all the time people claiming to be offended by any Christian symbol.Last Christmas more people trying to make "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.Cases in California about the cross in a seal of a city even though it was more historical than religious.PRES. Bush being constantly criticized for being a Christian. The least of which me. Every time I engage in one of these debate forums, as soon as admit that I am a Christian the names start flowing.racist,homophobe,bigot,sexist,hypocrite and recently here fascist.Which is no problem I will gladly suffer(if you can call it suffering more like almost irritated) for God and his word.

 

[Contrarian]

Fant, the amazing thing about your comments is that you accuse others of being "emotional" about the issue when it is YOU who seem to have an emotional fixation on this issue in particular. You accuse people of slanting their "facts" to fit their agenda, when it is YOU who have no real "FACTS" only OPINIONS or THEORIES that you have annointed through your belief system as "FACT".

You stated that:"You know that I have cited renowned members of the medical community, doctors, scientists, geneticists, whose research has determined that human life begins at conception. I have challenged all comers to cite competent authorities who disagree. So far, no one has accepted my challenge."

If you knew anything about scientific method, you would know that the information you cited was OPINION or THEORY. Because one of your supposedly "renowned", respected, authorities stated that "life begins at conception" is absolute scientific bolderdash! Water boils at 212 degrees F is a FACT; AIDS comes from the HIV virus ...FACT. The earth revolves around the Sun...FACT> Because they can be proven by scientific method. The theorum you present as FACT is merely the OPINION of a single scientist conducting a "study" with a specific agenda. To be a FACT the experiment must be conducted in an OBJECTIVE scientific environment and must be reproducable. The simple fact that a cell or bundle of cells contains a full compliment of genes, does not qualify as the definition of LIFE. The scientific community (through text or standards) DOES NOT state that a human being begins at conception... and you might ask how I would know about scientific method? In addition to being a capitalistic pig, I am a trained biochemist who has published numerous articles in professional journals in the areas of reproductive physiology, steroid biochemistry, oncology and enzyme kinetics. So please stop blowing nonsense up the skirts of everyone on this forum. You try to make your case on pseudo-science performed by religious ideologs who are pushing a personal agenda. It's like asking a Paul Wolfowitz if the Iraq war was justified! It is completely bogus science because it lacks OBJECTIVITY.

On top of it, you continue your PhD thesis in hypocracy when you stated: "On an individual basis, intercourse, for myriad reasons usually does not result in pregnancy. At the time a woman ingests a RU-486, she cannot possibly know whether a pregnancy has commenced or whether she is just wasting her money. However, she is playing it safe."

You absolute hypocrit! So it's OK to take RU-486 if she "doesn't know" if she is pregnant? What happened to your "FACT" that life begins at conception? That one cell that results from the union of sperm and ovum. Does this definition of being a viable human include pre- implantation into the uterus? The full compliment of genes are in place, so preventing implantation, by taking RU-486 is no different than abortion... is it not?

What next? Are you going to have your gang trying to make chastity belts fashionable again? If ignorance is bliss, you have to be one of the happiest guys on the planet.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Other things that were once legal in the US have been reversed on the basis of new discoveries, facts not previously known, or simply the realization that it was intrinsically wrong. I believe that the days of legalized abortion are numbered.

You mean like Prohibition? Oh yeah, that was reversed too? How do you feel about cigarettes? 450,000+ people in the USA die every year due to cigarettes. I consider that a crime. Why? Nicotine is about as addictive a drug as there is, and the tobacco companies are legally allowed to be drug pushers. They lure people of all ages and sexes into their 'dens' and eventually kill them. The medical cost to this country is $89 billion a year. I wish the anti-abortion people would take up this cause, because unlike abortion, ALL Americans are severely effected by tobacco smoke, we're all exposed, we're all at risk.

Women do not get pregnant and have an abortion because corporate America and our government use addictive materials. Women are not drugged into having an abortion. Women aren't having an abortion because someone sitting across the room is exhaling poison into the air.

I think smoking is immoral, unethical, disgusting, and should be banned. Do I think it will ever happen? NO, I do not.

Question? Which is worse? Cigarettes or a woman choosing to not have a child? Someone who smokes can directly effect the health of everyone around her, they can be a 'Typhoid Mary.'

You want murderers? Go visit Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds! Stopping smoking saves us all.....

 

[26 X World Champs]

The trend is out there everywhere.You have seen the news stories about prayer and God out of school.Ten Commandments away from the courts.I hear all the time people claiming to be offended by any Christian symbol.Last Christmas more people trying to make "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.Cases in California about the cross in a seal of a city even though it was more historical than religious.PRES. Bush being constantly criticized for being a Christian. The least of which me. Every time I engage in one of these debate forums, as soon as admit that I am a Christian the names start flowing.racist,homophobe,bigot,sexist,hypocrite and recently here fascist.Which is no problem I will gladly suffer(if you can call it suffering more like almost irritated) for God and his word.

Woe is me! Alas, the sky is falling! Heathens are everywhere! The news about prayer and God out of school? What news is that? When was God IN school? I graduated high school in 1974 and God wasn't in my school. Was she in yours?

Ten Commandments? Are those only Christian? Do you think people who aren't Christian are against the Ten Commandments? Bush is constantly criticized for trying to impose Christianity on the entire country, not for being Christian. BIG difference. How come other religions don't try to CONVERT everyone else to their religion? Why do Christians want the entire world to be Christian? Would that be better?

Who care about Merry Xmas? Does anyone really think that matters? Is that a vital issue in America?

I must admit that it seems incomprehensible to me that Christians feel attacked in America! :rofl

How about moving a group of Muslims into your Texas community? Will they be allowed to display their religious icons next to yours? Is that OK? How would a small community of Jews be welcomed in Christian communities around the US? How do you feel about making Yom Kippur a national holiday? It is the most religious day of the year for Jews? If Xmas is a holiday, shouldn't Yom Kippur be one too? How come it isn't?

The Woe Is Me whine is so out of line and so self-centered. Want to know why people disparage Christians sometimes? Read your post and you'll find the answer right there..... :?:

 

[alienken]

Woe is me! Alas, the sky is falling! Heathens are everywhere! The news about prayer and God out of school? What news is that? When was God IN school? I graduated high school in 1974 and God wasn't in my school. Was she in yours?

Ten Commandments? Are those only Christian? Do you think people who aren't Christian are against the Ten Commandments? Bush is constantly criticized for trying to impose Christianity on the entire country, not for being Christian. BIG difference. How come other religions don't try to CONVERT everyone else to their religion? Why do Christians want the entire world to be Christian? Would that be better?

Who care about Merry Xmas? Does anyone really think that matters? Is that a vital issue in America?

I must admit that it seems incomprehensible to me that Christians feel attacked in America! :rofl

How about moving a group of Muslims into your Texas community? Will they be allowed to display their religious icons next to yours? Is that OK? How would a small community of Jews be welcomed in Christian communities around the US? How do you feel about making Yom Kippur a national holiday? It is the most religious day of the year for Jews? If Xmas is a holiday, shouldn't Yom Kippur be one too? How come it isn't?

The Woe Is Me whine is so out of line and so self-centered. Want to know why people disparage Christians sometimes? Read your post and you'll find the answer right there..... :?:

1).Hey, I'm not whining about anything.Someone wants to know about the anti-Christian trend and I pointed out examples.2).I never said that the Ten Commandments was only Christian. It represents many religions.3).We HAVE Muslims in our Texas community-so what! They display what they want- fine.4).No problem with the Jewish people at all. I support Israel completely.Christians and Jews get along just fine. Jesus is Jewish. 5).Yom Kippur should not be an official national holiday.The majority here are Christian that's why we have Christmas instead but people can celebrate the holiday season anyway they want I don't want to force anyone to be a Christian and neither does PRES Bush.

 

[26 X World Champs]

1).Hey, I'm not whining about anything.Someone wants to know about the anti-Christian trend and I pointed out examples.2).I never said that the Ten Commandments was only Christian. It represents many religions.

What did you point out? Nothing you wrote suggests any trend of any sort. You did whine about how Christians are being violated, their ideals stepped on, their rights trampled, as if it were a fact. I am suggesting the opposite, that Christians get treated differently than all others in the US, that they have all the advantages, they have the leg up. Anti-Christian? PLEASE!

3).We HAVE Muslims in our Texas community-so what! They display what they want- fine.

I know, some of my best friends are...

4).No problem with the Jewish people at all. I support Israel completely.Christians and Jews get along just fine. Jesus is Jewish. 5).Yom Kippur should not be an official national holiday.The majority here are Christian that's why we have Christmas instead but people can celebrate the holiday season anyway they want I don't want to force anyone to be a Christian and neither does PRES Bush.

What does majority have to do with religion? So if the USA has a majority of Jews by the 22nd century then Xmas is out and Yom Kippur is in? Did it ever occur to you that people who aren't Christian might be offended by having Christianity everywhere?

What do you think a Jewish or Muslim American feels when Bush talks about Jesus as God? Christians can be offended by an accidental exposure of a breast, claiming to be offended and that their children were corrupted. How about Jewish kids? How do they feel when Bush and many Republicans keep referring to Jesus as God? Do you think a breast being exposed is bad but disparaging Jews is OK?

Is it that you're so isolated from reality that you can't grasp how talking about Jesus offends millions of people? Then some people complain how LIBERALS don't want public displays of Christianity, yet how many times everyday do our lawmakers invoke Jesus and Christianity into their public, government sponsored speeches on government property? That's not enough, nope, these people also need iconic displays to be happy and they need to force feed their religion to children in public schools even if it offends them!

:violin

 

[Fantasea]

You mean like Prohibition? Oh yeah, that was reversed too? How do you feel about cigarettes? 450,000+ people in the USA die every year due to cigarettes. I consider that a crime. Why? Nicotine is about as addictive a drug as there is, and the tobacco companies are legally allowed to be drug pushers. They lure people of all ages and sexes into their 'dens' and eventually kill them. The medical cost to this country is $89 billion a year. I wish the anti-abortion people would take up this cause, because unlike abortion, ALL Americans are severely effected by tobacco smoke, we're all exposed, we're all at risk.

Women do not get pregnant and have an abortion because corporate America and our government use addictive materials. Women are not drugged into having an abortion. Women aren't having an abortion because someone sitting across the room is exhaling poison into the air.

I think smoking is immoral, unethical, disgusting, and should be banned. Do I think it will ever happen? NO, I do not.

Question? Which is worse? Cigarettes or a woman choosing to not have a child? Someone who smokes can directly effect the health of everyone around her, they can be a 'Typhoid Mary.'

You want murderers? Go visit Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds! Stopping smoking saves us all.....

I don't disagree with what you write. However, I don't see the connection with a discussion on the merit of terminating a human life for the sake of convenience.

 

[shuamort]

On an individual basis, intercourse, for myriad reasons usually does not result in pregnancy. At the time a woman ingests a RU-486, she cannot possibly know whether a pregnancy has commenced or whether she is just wasting her money. However, she is playing it safe. Down the road, we shall learn whether there are undesirable side effects as there were with thalidomide, the 'pill', breast implants, and the abortion procedure.

Somehow, there always seems to be the unintended consequence of a price to pay.

Thanks for the reply, so are you OK with a woman taking the RU-486? I didn't glean your opinion from the post (except that it might cause undesired side-effects)

 

[shuamort]

The trend is out there everywhere.You have seen the news stories about prayer and God out of school.Ten Commandments away from the courts.I hear all the time people claiming to be offended by any Christian symbol.Last Christmas more people trying to make "Merry Christmas" politically incorrect.Cases in California about the cross in a seal of a city even though it was more historical than religious.PRES. Bush being constantly criticized for being a Christian. The least of which me. Every time I engage in one of these debate forums, as soon as admit that I am a Christian the names start flowing.racist,homophobe,bigot,sexist,hypocrite and recently here fascist.Which is no problem I will gladly suffer(if you can call it suffering more like almost irritated) for God and his word.

I see religion being attempted to be removed and injected in the public sphere. For every example I'm seeing, I'm also thinking of others that promote it (Faith based initiatives for one). I'm not seeing a trend however that's any more demonstrative in the last 25 years that wasn't there in the previous 25.

 

[Fantasea]

Fant, the amazing thing about your comments is that you accuse others of being "emotional" about the issue when it is YOU who seem to have an emotional fixation on this issue in particular.

Your comment is incorrect. I accuse no one of being emotional. I simply say that those who support legalized abortion make their argument on the basis of appeals to emotion, rather than on the basis of fact. If this is not so, then list a few authorities who are able to justify on medical, obstetric, or scientific bases, the aborting of nearly fifty million children in the US since Roe v. Wade.

You accuse people of slanting their "facts" to fit their agenda,

I don’t recall having done so. Perhaps you can cite a few instances.

when it is YOU who have no real "FACTS" only OPINIONS or THEORIES that you have annointed through your belief system as "FACT".

Your judgment is incorrect.

You stated that:"You know that I have cited renowned members of the medical community, doctors, scientists, geneticists, whose research has determined that human life begins at conception. I have challenged all comers to cite competent authorities who disagree. So far, no one has accepted my challenge."

That is correct. No one has met the challenge.

If you knew anything about scientific method, you would know that the information you cited was OPINION or THEORY.

Theory? Somewhat like the “theory of evolution”?

Because one of your supposedly "renowned", respected, authorities stated that "life begins at conception" is absolute scientific bolderdash! Water boils at 212 degrees F is a FACT; AIDS comes from the HIV virus ...FACT. The earth revolves around the Sun...FACT> Because they can be proven by scientific method. The theorum you present as FACT is merely the OPINION of a single scientist conducting a "study" with a specific agenda. To be a FACT the experiment must be conducted in an OBJECTIVE scientific environment and must be reproducable. The simple fact that a cell or bundle of cells contains a full compliment of genes, does not qualify as the definition of LIFE. The scientific community (through text or standards) DOES NOT state that a human being begins at conception...

Really?

and you might ask how I would know about scientific method? In addition to being a capitalistic pig, I am a trained biochemist who has published numerous articles in professional journals in the areas of reproductive physiology, steroid biochemistry, oncology and enzyme kinetics. So please stop blowing nonsense up the skirts of everyone on this forum. You try to make your case on pseudo-science performed by religious ideologs who are pushing a personal agenda. It's like asking a Paul Wolfowitz if the Iraq war was justified! It is completely bogus science because it lacks OBJECTIVITY.

Perhaps you might wish to correspond with some colleagues in the following group of distinguished individuals to exchange views.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling 'Roe v. Wade', "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

On top of it, you continue your PhD thesis in hypocracy when you stated: "On an individual basis, intercourse, for myriad reasons usually does not result in pregnancy. At the time a woman ingests a RU-486, she cannot possibly know whether a pregnancy has commenced or whether she is just wasting her money. However, she is playing it safe."

You absolute hypocrit! So it's OK to take RU-486 if she "doesn't know" if she is pregnant? What happened to your "FACT" that life begins at conception? That one cell that results from the union of sperm and ovum. Does this definition of being a viable human include pre- implantation into the uterus? The full compliment of genes are in place, so preventing implantation, by taking RU-486 is no different than abortion... is it not?

It’s a shot in the dark, isn’t it? There may be intent, however, on an individual basis; no woman can ever know whether she hit the target. You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority will have wasted their money.

What next? Are you going to have your gang trying to make chastity belts fashionable again? If ignorance is bliss, you have to be one of the happiest guys on the planet.

Your impressive credentials notwithstanding, your argument has, nevertheless, diminished in substance to the point where its mainstay appears to be reliance on name calling and insult.