My take on the abortion issue.

[Coolguy]

Originally said by Fantasea
No, that is incorrect. One percent is equivilent to the fraction 1/100. That means one abortion in every hundred is performed in the third trimester. The abortion establishment has always maintained that third trimester abortions are rare. One in every hundred is far from rare.

Wow, first I misunderstand a statement and then I make a typo. Please forgive me, I have been up for over 60 hrs. I intended to say 40+M/years.


What is incorrect about 1%? I am pretty sure I know what 1% signifies.

1% is insignificant.
15+ thousand out of 1.5+M a year. Hardly significant, especially when one compares it to total pregnancies.



Originally said by Fantasea
I've cited several dozen eminently qualified professionals who state unequivocally that human life begins at conception.

And?
They couldn't possibly be wrong could they?
Sorry, but this doesn't change a thing. Nor will it.



Originally said by Fantasea
... challenge...
Excepting abortionists, furnish as many names as you can, of professionals qualified in the fields of biology, fetology, obstetrics, genetics, or medical technology who are on record in writing that human life does not begin at conception, and provide links to those writings.

Why exclude abortionists? If you wanted to do that then you also have to exclude Pro-Life/Anti-Choice professionals from your sources.




Goodnight. :2wave:

 

[Fantasea]

Previously posted by Fantasea
No, that is incorrect. One percent is equivilent to the fraction 1/100. That means one abortion in every hundred is performed in the third trimester. The abortion establishment has always maintained that third trimester abortions are rare. One in every hundred is far from rare.

Wow, first I misunderstand a statement and then I make a typo. Please forgive me, I have been up for over 60 hrs. I intended to say 40+M/years.

Late term abortions commenced in 1973. That's thirty two years. Forty years constitutes a 25% inflation of thirty-two years.

What is incorrect about 1%? I am pretty sure I know what 1% signifies.

1% is insignificant.
15+ thousand out of 1.5+M a year. Hardly significant, especially when one compares it to total pregnancies.

Debaters understand that a percentage never has the impact of a real live number. They also know that to chop a number into small pieces reduces its apparent significance.

No matter how you slice and dice it, the count is half a million late term abortions.

Previously posted by Fantasea:
I've cited several dozen eminently qualified professionals who state unequivocally that human life begins at conception.

And?
They couldn't possibly be wrong could they?
Sorry, but this doesn't change a thing. Nor will it.

This research was not available in 1973. It's quite interesting and is worth reading all the way through. It's the kind of stuff that will make the difference.

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/cheshire_2002-11-14_print.htm

Previously posted by Fantasea
challenge...
Excepting abortionists, furnish as many names as you can, of professionals qualified in the fields of biology, fetology, obstetrics, genetics, or medical technology who are on record in writing that human life does not begin at conception, and provide links to those writings.

Why exclude abortionists? If you wanted to do that then you also have to exclude Pro-Life/Anti-Choice professionals from your sources.

Abortionists are the only players who have an economic interest at stake.

So, that makes it reasonable to exclude abortionists, doesn't it?

Biologists, fetologists, obstetricians, genetecists,and those involved in medical technology have no economic interest at stake. Surely, you would expect to find many allies and supporters among their ranks wouldn't you?

After all, these are the folks who will have to refute the evidential proof which the 'Lifers' will present to the court. You did predict earlier that their numbers, too, would resemble a parade, didn't you?

In any event, if you wish to accept the challenge, have at it. If you don't, I'll understand.

Pleasant dreams.

 

[Coolguy]

Originally said by Fantasea
They also know that to chop a number into small pieces reduces its apparent significance.

Incorrect. The numbers are reduced to show their actual significance.



Originally said by Fantasea
No matter how you slice and dice it, the count is half a million late term abortions.

And still, no matter how you slice and dice it, it isn't a significant number. Especially when compared to total pregnancies.




Originally said by Fantasea
It's quite interesting and is worth reading all the way through. It's the kind of stuff that will make the difference.

It is a biased opinion piece and doesn't change anything. Science having changed since 73 is a given, but the stages of development haven't. The understanding of the processes involved in these stages has also changed, but the stages have not. It isn't going to change whether or not abortion remains legal.



Originally said by Fantasea
Late term abortions commenced in 1973. That's thirty two years. Forty years constitutes a 25% inflation of thirty-two years.

Excuse me, but I made a correction. 40+M the soft figure on total abortions /years, what didn't you understand about that which required you to go back to 40 years and an inflation of 25%?



Originally said by Fantasea
Abortionists are the only players who have an economic interest at stake.
So, that makes it reasonable to exclude abortionists, doesn't it?

No it isn't reasonable. The Pro-Life/Anti-Choice professionals also need to be removed from your side if you wish to make such a challenge. They too have an evident bias.



Originally said by Fantasea
After all, these are the folks who will have to refute the evidential proof which the 'Lifers' will present to the court. You did predict earlier that their numbers, too, would resemble a parade, didn't you?

It is a given that when one side presents experts in a court case the other present theirs to refute. So if the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice side present a parade as "you called it", the other side will present their equivalent



Originally said by Fantasea
Pleasant dreams.

Thank you!
May your sleep be as restful and pleasant also.

 

[debate_junkie]

The only real victims here are the women who choose to have an abortion being victimized by pro-lifers. Again I wonder why no pro-lifers can answer some important questions.

Why is it any business of someone else what a person does with their bodies?
What about the inevitable backlash illegal abortions will bring? Women seeking illegal abortions and risking their health and lives.
What will happen to all these unwanted children? There are not enough people seeking adoptions to cover all the children being born if abortion were illegal.

that my dear sir is false.... there are people ALWAYS ready and waiting to adopt babies who's mother's have chosen adoption INSTEAD of abortion. It's the older children already in foster care that are waiting needlessly. But that's another issue.

I don't agree with pro-lifer's standing outside of clinics calling women murderers and whores (don't ban me... just going to my point). Just the same there are a small minute amount that do that. Should the whole pro-life movement be villified because of this select few? I think not.

Number 1... the argument for abortion to remain legal is women should have the ONLY say for what happens to their bodies.. and I agree. HOWEVER.. I also say a woman who wants the say for her body, should also use ANY and all precautions. Think about it like this... a woman, very professional, not having time for children... on the pill... meets a guy, has drinks.. blah blah blah, has sex, and ends up pregnant. Has an abortion, you'd think she'd learn from her mistake. But no... she goes out does it again, get's pregnant.. has another abortion. Now I'm all for people making mistakes, but damn, women are having 3 and 4 "mistakes" and no one in the pro choice movement is taking that to issue. Abortion for convenience is the abomination, not the procedure itself. Medically it is needed, and I will argue that until the last breath has drawn from my body. If it weren't... my best friend in the world wouldn't be here.

Women seeking illegal abortions.... that speaks to personal responsiblity.. and I'm sorry. You may say well the responsible choice is to have a safe, legal abortion. Safe, yes. A decision made between a couple and their doctor, absolutely, but because you or your partner refused to use birth control? (I'll never understand the.. I was on the pill but he refused to wear a condom. Well why did you open your legs then? The pill won't stop you from getting any diseases he could be carrying)That's just plain irresponsible in my eyes... and it goes MUCH to this entire argument. The element of each individual being responsible for his/her actions is slowly being widdled down too... You don't have to be responsible. We'll (meaning the government) take care of that for you, and THAT'S not the vision of this country I see, nor do I want to see.


Back to my very first post... there are adoptive couple's that wait sometimes 10-15 years to adopt a newborn. There are programs in place that will help women choosing adoption from the time of pregnancy to the time she delivers, and even afterwards with the closing of the adoption process. But see, here is the argument I hear.... "Oh I can't give my kid away" No, but you can kill it. My answer is what's the difference? Choosing life over an abortion doesn't SENTENCE you to having to raise it. The question is... who are we thinking about in the decision... ourselves, or the child? Having been through the adoption process I can tell you... as sick as I was during the pregnancy, as inconvenienced as I was (since I couldn't go on to college) and as angry as I was because I had to bear the full responsibility (the father just poofed into the night) I did not blame anyone but myself in the end for this "mistake" and now this "mistake" as most people say, is 15 years old, a sophmore in high school, and captain of the football AND basketball teams. Want to know how I know? Oh yeah the adoption laws make it LEGAL for birthmother's to know.

And again I will reiterate... there are couples ALWAYS willing to adopt babies, which is fine... it's the kids already HERE that are my biggest concern because there aren't MANY willing to take care of them. It's not an end all solution.. but it IS a solution. Taking responsibility is the end all here. And I can even live with one abortion. What kills me, is people aren't learning from that one abortion, and it turns into multiples because it then becomes a "quick fix" and that's what disgusts me.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally said by Fantasea
After all, these are the folks who will have to refute the evidential proof which the 'Lifers' will present to the court. You did predict earlier that their numbers, too, would resemble a parade, didn't you?

It is a given that when one side presents experts in a court case the other present theirs to refute. So if the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice side present a parade as "you called it", the other side will present their equivalent

I'm glad you made that statement. Let me explain why.

In court, on the question, the Pro-life side will present evidentiary testimony supported by documented research.

To the best of my knowledge, based upon much, much search and discussion, the Pro-Death side will be unable to present any evidentiary testimony supported by documented research. Their testimony will be limited to unsupported opinion and appeals to emotion.

If you believe there is evidence lurking somewhere that can substantiate that human life does not begin at conception or that a fetus is not a living human being, I would be indebted to you for revealing it.

 

[Alex]

No matter how you slice and dice it, the count is half a million late term abortions.This research was not available in 1973. It's quite interesting and is worth reading all the way through. It's the kind of stuff that will make the difference.

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/cheshire_2002-11-14_print.htm

This source you site is bias. It is The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. They are a Christian organization. This is part of their description:

In mid-1993, more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists gathered to assess the noticeable lack of explicit Christian engagement in the crucial bioethics arena. This group sponsored a major conference in May 1994, The Christian Stake in Bioethics, and concurrently launched The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Source:
http://www.cbhd.org/aboutcbhd

 

[Coolguy]

Originally said by Fantasea
In court, on the question, the Pro-life side will present evidentiary testimony supported by documented research.

"If" it makes it into the court and if that is an issue, but I am more than willing to say that it will not be the only issue at hand, nor will it be the deciding issue as Blackmun thought. For all we know, if the issue does make it to court, they may as well say that it is alive but not yet a human in classical terms nor is it born giving it protection under the 14th Amendment. At the most, they may go as far as giving a viable fetus that protection just because it is viable.





Originally said by Fantasea
Their testimony will be limited to unsupported opinion and appeals to emotion.

The majority of appeals to emotion are coming from the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice side. Not the the Pro-Choice side.
I also think it is naive to believe that the Pro-Choice side will be unsupported.

 

[Alex]

that my dear sir is false.... there are people ALWAYS ready and waiting to adopt babies who's mother's have chosen adoption INSTEAD of abortion. It's the older children already in foster care that are waiting needlessly. But that's another issue.

I have already addressed this issue and disproven it. See posts #5 and #24 in this thread. There are not enough people seeking adoptions to care for all the unwanted children if abortion was illegal.

I don't agree with pro-lifer's standing outside of clinics calling women murderers and whores (don't ban me... just going to my point). Just the same there are a small minute amount that do that. Should the whole pro-life movement be villified because of this select few? I think not.

Are pro-choice people picketing around pediatric clinics saying women must have abortions? No! Only pro-lifers are harrassing women choosing to have abortions. Are any pro-choice people in these threads saying women must have abortions? No! Pro-lifers are the ones who push their beliefs on others and harrass others, so women seeking abortions are the victims.

Number 1... the argument for abortion to remain legal is women should have the ONLY say for what happens to their bodies.. and I agree. HOWEVER.. I also say a woman who wants the say for her body, should also use ANY and all precautions. Think about it like this... a woman, very professional, not having time for children... on the pill... meets a guy, has drinks.. blah blah blah, has sex, and ends up pregnant. Has an abortion, you'd think she'd learn from her mistake. But no... she goes out does it again, get's pregnant.. has another abortion. Now I'm all for people making mistakes, but damn, women are having 3 and 4 "mistakes" and no one in the pro choice movement is taking that to issue. Abortion for convenience is the abomination, not the procedure itself. Medically it is needed, and I will argue that until the last breath has drawn from my body. If it weren't... my best friend in the world wouldn't be here.

To think that people will stop having sex because of past mistakes, or they will start using protection because of it, is unrealistic. Sex is a recreation and people are going to have it the way they want it. The number of abortions every year is proof of this. If a woman has sex every hour on the hour and gets pregnant everyday, that is her business. Whether she uses protection or not is not my business and not your's. The question still goes unanswered; Why is this any of your business?

Women seeking illegal abortions.... that speaks to personal responsiblity.. and I'm sorry. You may say well the responsible choice is to have a safe, legal abortion. Safe, yes. A decision made between a couple and their doctor, absolutely, but because you or your partner refused to use birth control? (I'll never understand the.. I was on the pill but he refused to wear a condom. Well why did you open your legs then? The pill won't stop you from getting any diseases he could be carrying)That's just plain irresponsible in my eyes... and it goes MUCH to this entire argument. The element of each individual being responsible for his/her actions is slowly being widdled down too... You don't have to be responsible. We'll (meaning the government) take care of that for you, and THAT'S not the vision of this country I see, nor do I want to see.

Women will still seek abortions whether they are legal or not. The difference is that illegal abortions will seriously jeopardize the health and lives of women. Are you alright with women dying because of your selfish opinions? The question goes unanswered; What about the inevitable backlash illegal abortions will bring?

Back to my very first post... there are adoptive couple's that wait sometimes 10-15 years to adopt a newborn. There are programs in place that will help women choosing adoption from the time of pregnancy to the time she delivers, and even afterwards with the closing of the adoption process. But see, here is the argument I hear.... "Oh I can't give my kid away" No, but you can kill it. My answer is what's the difference? Choosing life over an abortion doesn't SENTENCE you to having to raise it. The question is... who are we thinking about in the decision... ourselves, or the child? Having been through the adoption process I can tell you... as sick as I was during the pregnancy, as inconvenienced as I was (since I couldn't go on to college) and as angry as I was because I had to bear the full responsibility (the father just poofed into the night) I did not blame anyone but myself in the end for this "mistake" and now this "mistake" as most people say, is 15 years old, a sophmore in high school, and captain of the football AND basketball teams. Want to know how I know? Oh yeah the adoption laws make it LEGAL for birthmother's to know.

EXACTLY! You made the choice to give it up for adoption instead of abortion. Every woman has the right to that choice also. Who are you to say that she doesn't? A "kid" is not being killed, a fetus is. Big difference.

And again I will reiterate... there are couples ALWAYS willing to adopt babies, which is fine... it's the kids already HERE that are my biggest concern because there aren't MANY willing to take care of them. It's not an end all solution.. but it IS a solution. Taking responsibility is the end all here. And I can even live with one abortion. What kills me, is people aren't learning from that one abortion, and it turns into multiples because it then becomes a "quick fix" and that's what disgusts me.

Again, I have disproven this with facts. If something disgusts you, that is on you. Do not impose your will on others because of it. The question still goes unanswered; What will happen to all these unwanted children?

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

This is my take on the Abortion issue.

I'm a bit undecided on what actually needs to be done regaurding the abortion issue.

In my opinion, it is INDEED an immoral act involving the murder of a human, who is already capable of making thought. Fetus already have much activity in the brain within the first two weeks of birth.

HOWEVER, it has been shown that permitting abortions drastically improves the social environment by a significant decrease in the unempolyed and those who seek welfare. There are in existence, significant coorelations between abortions being permitted, and reduced crime in regions.

So, from my outlook, while abortion may positively effect the society, and has been proven to do so, I personally view it as wrong, and would never condone such acts. My personal opinion is that if you are pregnant, it is your own fault whether you are a teenage girl who innocently had unsafe sex, whether your condom was deffective, birth control didn't work, it'll ruin your life dreams or whatever. I view that you should have to bare the consequences, should have though about it ahead of time as it is unfair to the child who is unborn.

While we haven't the evidence needed to support that the conscious thought (which does occur) of the unborn child in the first 12 days is signifcant as a human being, in this instance, I believe we should not take guesses or leaps of faith to assume insect. In late pregnancy (when the baby is due in the next two months or even earlier) It is completely wrong, as sometimes premature babies can survive even without their mother at this stage.

Where I am undecided, is that I am unsure whether the benefits to society boasted by abortion is significant enough to balance out the immoral act of killing the unborn child. :doh If I had to make a stance, I'd stand against it despite the benefits.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally said by Fantasea
In court, on the question, the Pro-life side will present evidentiary testimony supported by documented research.

"If" it makes it into the court and if that is an issue, but I am more than willing to say that it will not be the only issue at hand, nor will it be the deciding issue as Blackmun thought. For all we know, if the issue does make it to court, they may as well say that it is alive but not yet a human in classical terms nor is it born giving it protection under the 14th Amendment. At the most, they may go as far as giving a viable fetus that protection just because it is viable.

It is quite surprising that you make such a statement. It shows that you are far from well informed on the subject about which you argue so strenuously.

Hasn't anyone told you about the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

It is most interesting and significant that the legislation passed the senate by a vote of 61-38. That tells us that some Democrats voted for it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2340&goto=newpost

There are a number of cracks in the wall, so to speak. This is one of the most damaging.

The issue will eventually come before the court. The court will have factual evidence presented that simply did not exist in 1973.

Your side will still have nothing factual to present and will rely, solely, upon emotional arguments.

Originally said by Fantasea
Their testimony will be limited to unsupported opinion and appeals to emotion.

The majority of appeals to emotion are coming from the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice side. Not the the Pro-Choice side.
I also think it is naive to believe that the Pro-Choice side will be unsupported.

OK. Why hasn't someone posted some of that Pro-Choice "factual" support?

Will you?

(Your use of a variety of fonts and colors makes it difficult and time consuming for me to quote from your posts and format my responses correctly. I most respectfully request that you compose your posts in simple, plain, monochromatic default font and reserving bolding or italics for emphasis.)​

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Actually, I'd like to add, that I make an exception in the case of a raped girl. The rapist should be held completely responsible, and either charged with murder for an aborted child (at the discretion of the raped girl) or have to take care of the child himself.

 

[LaughingManXVIII]

i find this topic quite hilarious in a way.
the answer is simple...yet made so difficult by outside interferences
abortion is a right. a person should never be limited to the right of anything that effects their own body if in doing so doesnt hurt anyone else. all your doing by banning things such as abortion is limiting women's options/natural rights. why limit someones options? does this harm you that someone has made a decision to abort their "child/fetus/etc"? does this harm the world population which is in such a need of another child to be feed and lets not forget the excuse the mother has the option of going through a 9 month pregnany only to have to give the child up if the situtation deems it, to a orphange where the child will raised on taxpayers dollars and maybe grow up to be a decent human being. if a mother goes against their designated religion than they were never a true believer of that religion anyways so what harm does it due to someone who does believe things such as aborting is evil when there not the one aborting, their not the one who has to make that decision they just have to endure from the sidelines. if they so choose.

 

[Fantasea]

i find this topic quite hilarious in a way.
the answer is simple...yet made so difficult by outside interferences
abortion is a right. a person should never be limited to the right of anything that effects their own body if in doing so doesnt hurt anyone else. all your doing by banning things such as abortion is limiting women's options/natural rights. why limit someones options? does this harm you that someone has made a decision to abort their "child/fetus/etc"? does this harm the world population which is in such a need of another child to be feed and lets not forget the excuse the mother has the option of going through a 9 month pregnany only to have to give the child up if the situtation deems it, to a orphange where the child will raised on taxpayers dollars and maybe grow up to be a decent human being. if a mother goes against their designated religion than they were never a true believer of that religion anyways so what harm does it due to someone who does believe things such as aborting is evil when there not the one aborting, their not the one who has to make that decision they just have to endure from the sidelines. if they so choose.

Typical socialist-lib-dem :bs

 

[jallman]

Typical socialist-lib-dem :bs

typical right wing arrogant dismissive :bs

 

[C.J.]

i find this topic quite hilarious in a way.
the answer is simple...yet made so difficult by outside interferences
abortion is a right. a person should never be limited to the right of anything that effects their own body if in doing so doesnt hurt anyone else.

So stopping the heartbeat and brainwaves of a living being inside a woman's body hurts no one???

I suggest it hurts us all.

My answer is simpler than yours.

 

[LaughingManXVIII]

while my comment may have come off arrogant which in all truth's your right i can't proclaim pure understanding or "having all the facts" , but your wrong when i you said im being "dismissive" i understand that someone feels some kind of responsiblity for someone's elses "child" and that they need to yell "murder" into the crowd, but the only point im trying to get across whether your for or against is that the option is left open...while my comment may seem like the typical "bs" it is my opinion to have.

 

[Fantasea]

typical right wing arrogant dismissive :bs

If you squeeze in the word "secular" we'll all be able to do the Professor Henry Higgins routine in which he sings, "She's got it; by George, I think she's got it!"

Adjusted for gender, of course. :2party:

 

[jallman]

If you squeeze in the word "secular" we'll all be able to do the Professor Henry Higgins routine in which he sings, "She's got it; by George, I think she's got it!"

Adjusted for gender, of course. :2party:

touche` :duel

did I even spell that right? I am not much for the study of anything french LOL

 

[jallman]

while my comment may have come off arrogant which in all truth's your right i can't proclaim pure understanding or "having all the facts" , but your wrong when i you said im being "dismissive" i understand that someone feels some kind of responsiblity for someone's elses "child" and that they need to yell "murder" into the crowd, but the only point im trying to get across whether your for or against is that the option is left open...while my comment may seem like the typical "bs" it is my opinion to have.

I wasnt calling you dismissive.. I was defending you. Dont alienate your allies or show such blatant liberal paranoia...I bat for both teams. That post was meant for my rising nemesis fantasea on this debate.

I am avidly pro choice.

 

[LaughingManXVIII]

lol, im sorry i wasnt aiming that comment at you but i was just quoting your wording of the comment which i interpreted wrong. like you i was defending my comment from fantasea.

 

[Fantasea]

while my comment may have come off arrogant which in all truth's your right i can't proclaim pure understanding or "having all the facts" , but your wrong when i you said im being "dismissive" i understand that someone feels some kind of responsiblity for someone's elses "child" and that they need to yell "murder" into the crowd, but the only point im trying to get across whether your for or against is that the option is left open...while my comment may seem like the typical "bs" it is my opinion to have.

Rather than having to plead ignorance, it would be for more beneficial for you to educate yourself on the subject.

Yes, it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, that's the problem with the arguments on the Pro-Death side. All they can put forth is opinion.

As yet, no one has been able to cite a competent authority who can justify, on scientific or medical grounds, the nearly fifty million abortions which have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade.

All we get are repetitious regurgitations of privacy and emotion.

 

[LaughingManXVIII]

since "some" people we needed some credible sources or maybe just for variety i thought i would quote this comment made on a christian website here's the link
http://www.mhsc.ca/index.asp?content=http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/G87.html
The majority of us believes that most abortions cannot be justified on moral grounds, although we are unwilling to say that abortion is never justified. We do not agree what circumstances justify abortion: most believe that an abortion is justified where the mother's life is at stake; many support an abortion if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or if there is a high probability of severe genetic disease; some support abortion for a variety of personal and social reasons. Some of us, however, believe that abortion is never justified.
Before Roe Vs. Wade
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html
"When abortion was illegal in the U.S., desperate women often paid high fees to obtain abortions, even from unlicensed, untrained practitioners working in frightening, non-sterile conditions. Dangerous medical complications were likely to follow these illegal abortions, resulting in lengthy hospital stays, increased financial and health costs, and a serious drain on hospital maternity resources. Complications from black market abortions were a leading cause of maternal death when abortion was legally prohibited, exacting a huge price from American families. "

 

[Fantasea]

touche` :duel

did I even spell that right? I am not much for the study of anything french LOL

Neither am I. However a lesson is in order for both of us. I found one.

The letters were correct. What is missing is the acute accent. It should be written touche'.

The acute accent (´: accent aigu) is used over é as in été to transform the normal French e sound (pronounced like the vowel sounds in the English words book or get, depending on its situation in a word) to create a lengthened sound similar to that in the English word eight.

 

[jallman]

Neither am I. However a lesson is in order for both of us. I found one.

The letters were correct. What is missing is the acute accent. It should be written touche'.

The acute accent (´: accent aigu) is used over é as in été to transform the normal French e sound (pronounced like the vowel sounds in the English words book or get, depending on its situation in a word) to create a lengthened sound similar to that in the English word eight.

ha ha, well done. well done. learn something new every day.

 

[Deegan]

Let the women decide, and let the states decide, I have no opinion other then that, how could I?