Shocking film reignites abortion debate

[Guest guest]

Sandy

There are entire cultures that disagree with your views. More than half the

U. S. population disagrees with your position. What concerns me, is that we

make a clear distinction between the born and the unborn. Is the zygote

growing in a woman's body, a human being? Once ovum and sperm have united,

you have a " potential " human. This is true at every point during

conception, until there is " birth. " I take it, that according to your view,

a zygote is no less a human than a fetus, which in turn, is no less human

than a born baby? How can it be otherwise? We become human at birth, able

to thrive outside a womb, open to the world humans inhabit, open to

experience, open to pain and pleasure, open to learning and culture, no

longer directly dependent on the mother's womb, and capable of thriving with

another and unrelated custodian.

 

These matters are enormously complex. This complexity annoys you, and you

want to replace it with clear-cut certainties. I can't think in

certainties. The world is " never " black and white to me, not because I

don't want it to be black and white, but because the evidence is, that it

never is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd, is not with their views,

but with their attitude toward people that disagree with them. Your

intolerance, your insistence that you're " absolutely " right and your

opposition is absolutely wrong, leads you to extremes of action, that are

intolerable in a democracy.

 

As for the 50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world, I applaud

your efforts to help them. But it goes without saying, and I think you'll

agree, that if something was being done for those children, they wouldn't

have starved to death, would they? We have much work to do, and much of it

will have to be with greedy governments, that have no sense of decency, or

any responsibility for the lives of their children. My view is, that as

long as there are starving children, it takes precedence over any other

human concern, including the abortion debate. As long as there are millions

of parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining gangs,

developing dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing crimes, etc., in

the big and small cities of our country, and of the world, what could

possibly be more important than attending to their needs? Under these

circumstances, it seems that we have our priorities backwards, if we spend

precious time and resources debating abortion and trying to force people not

to have it, instead of doing something about the miserable circumstances

that so many children, who already exist, face in our society.

 

JP

 

 

-

" sandyrupp2002 " <sandyrupp2002

 

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:44 AM

Re: Shocking film reignites abortion debate

 

 

So, JP, if it is not human until it is born - then what is it?

And, if born premature at let's say 26 weeks is it considered

human then? If it is aborted at 26 weeks - is it not human?

 

As for your concern - do not think for one minute that I (or my

fellow " antiabortionists " ) am not contributing to feeding, clothing

and providing for those that are in need either in my community or

in other parts of the globe. You do not know me and what I or my

family does to help others. Fact of the matter is I do not go around

advertising what I do to help others.

And what an absolutely inane statement. Your statement about

the socalled " antiabortionists " having done nothing about the fact

that 50,000 children are dying daily of starvation is an absolute

falsehood. Don't you know anyone that feeds or cares for the

hungry? I know more than I can count. But they are not out

there " campaigning " in the streets, holding placards (although at

times they might) - they are out there actually helping people.

And this group includes me and my family, friends, etc....

 

I invite the other members of this board to refute what JP has

stated by sharing your stories of individuals and organizations

that feed, clothe and otherwise provide for those that are in need -

both in their communities and around the world. If you want a list

from me - I'd be happy to take the time and post it - but I am

concerned that it might be too lengthy. Just let me know, though,

and I'd be happy to go to the trouble.

 

And, JP, since you are one of the " bickerers " - that's discussing

this issue - what have you done to stop world starvation?

 

, " John Polifronio "

<counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> A baby becomes a human, when it is born.

>

> It concerns me, that so-called anti-abortionists, have done

nothing about

> the fact, that around 50,000 children in the world, die daily of

starvation.

> If they were concerned about children, they'd stop their bickering

about

> abortion, and would take to the streets to demand that the

obscenity of

> childhood starvation throughout the world, be stopped.

>

> JP

>

> -

> " sandyrupp2002 " <sandyrupp2002>

>

> Monday, April 26, 2004 9:38 PM

> Re: Shocking film reignites abortion

debate

>

>

> First of all, geminiwalker, I believe one of the guidelines of this

> posting board is that no religion be discussed. So why are you

> attacking Christians? And what makes you think that only

Christians

> oppose abortion or the war in Iraq? Why are you so opposed to

> Christians?

>

> Secondly, by your own admission - life has value. And what Carol

> is saying is " be responsible " . What is so wrong with that? You

> didn't address what I posted - and that is that many, many, many

> women have abortions because they are too irresponsible to either

> abstain or take preventative measures to not get pregnant in the

> first place. When does the baby's life have value? The moment he

> or she is born? And is that at nine months or earlier? It never

> ceases to amaze me that people think nothing of saving a premature

> baby - premature by perhaps months. But the pro-abortionists think

> it's perfectly fine to abort a baby at the same stage of

> development and earlier, of course.

> So,please answer my question, when does a baby become human, when

> does his or her life have value? At what stage of development?

>

>

> , " geminiwalker "

> <geminiwalker> wrote:

> > On 26 Apr 2004 at 19:32, Carol Minnick wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Two entirely different subjects. Bottom line " if you donTt

want

> a

> > > baby, donTt do anything to create one.

> > >

> >

> > How " Christian " of you. What a hypocrite. Killing is killing.

> > Life is life. Bottom line.

> >

> >

> > ...geminiwalker

>

>

>

>

> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«

¤»§«¤»¥«¤

> »

>

> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §

>

> Subscribe:......... -

> To :.... -

>

> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be

news

> related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult

with a

> qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of

treatment,

> especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.

> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use

without

> profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving

> the included information for non-profit research and educational

purposes

> only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

>

>

[Guest guest]

I loathe the title of “anti-choice”

– I think a better description for our opposing views is just simply ”pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”.

I am not “anti-choice”,

I am “anti-abortion” – or “pro-life”. Anybody can make whatever choice they

want to, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Instead of calling someone “pro-abortion”

how about if we instead call them “anti-life”. That’s just about as stupid as calling us “anti-choice”.

 

JP, you say “we become human

at birth” – so what happens to the baby born way prematurely, say

at 5 months, and it lives. So it is

then human, right? But we abort a

baby at 5 months and it’s ok?? It could have lived – it could

have been a human. But we choose to

kill it instead.

 

I agree with you that we have much work to

do – to help the starving and homeless,

and I know a lot of people who are trying to do just that. But helping starving and homeless

people has nothing to do with killing babies.

 

Carol

 

 

 

 

-----Original

Message-----

John Polifronio

[counterpnt]

 

 

 

Sandy

There are

entire cultures that disagree with your views. More than half the

U. S.

population disagrees with your position. What concerns me, is that we

make a clear

distinction between the born and the unborn. Is the zygote

growing in a

woman's body, a human being? Once ovum and sperm have united,

you have a " potential "

human. This is true at every point during

conception,

until there is " birth. " I take it, that according to your view,

a zygote is

no less a human than a fetus, which in turn, is no less human

than a born

baby? How can it be otherwise? We become human at birth, able

to thrive

outside a womb, open to the world humans inhabit, open to

experience,

open to pain and pleasure, open to learning and culture, no

longer

directly dependent on the mother's womb, and capable of thriving with

another and

unrelated custodian.

 

These

matters are enormously complex. This complexity annoys you, and you

want to

replace it with clear-cut certainties. I can't think in

certainties.

The world is " never " black and white to me, not because I

don't want

it to be black and white, but because the evidence is, that it

never

is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd, is not with their views,

but with

their attitude toward people that disagree with them. Your

intolerance,

your insistence that you're " absolutely " right and your

opposition

is absolutely wrong, leads you to extremes of action, that are

intolerable

in a democracy.

 

As for the

50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world, I applaud

your efforts

to help them. But it goes without saying, and I think you'll

agree, that

if something was being done for those children, they wouldn't

have starved

to death, would they? We have much work to do, and much of it

will have to

be with greedy governments, that have no sense of decency, or

any

responsibility for the lives of their children. My view is, that as

long as

there are starving children, it takes precedence over any other

human

concern, including the abortion debate. As long as there are millions

of

parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining gangs,

developing

dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing crimes, etc., in

the big and

small cities of our country, and of the world, what could

possibly be

more important than attending to their needs? Under these

circumstances,

it seems that we have our priorities backwards, if we spend

precious

time and resources debating abortion and trying to force people not

to have it,

instead of doing something about the miserable circumstances

that so many

children, who already exist, face in our society.

 

JP

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 28 Apr 2004 at 0:39, lovezGod2 wrote:

 

>

> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be

> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is

> an issue? Janet

>

 

 

I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who are

invested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainly

easier than cleaning up their own side of the street.

 

 

....geminiwalker

[Guest guest]

>

> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be

> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is

> an issue? Janet

>

 

 

>I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who are

invested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainly

easier than cleaning up their own side of the street.

 

Amen to the above, and want to state that I'm really tired of judgements and

moralizing filling up this list... People whose minds are set are not

going to " hear " anything from the other side, for that matter, probably in

either direction. So lets just stop the flood of words that is not doing

anything other than inciting those who need to rant to rant some more. Can

we please just get back " on topic " .... Thanks,Joy

[Guest guest]

Joy, can I call you Ostrich? You obviously had your head someplace, right or else you would have read what I said.

DennisSara Mandal-Joy <sarajoy wrote:

>> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is> an issue? Janet>>I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who areinvested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainlyeasier than cleaning up their own side of the street.Amen to the above, and want to state that I'm really tired of judgements andmoralizing filling up this list... People whose minds are set are notgoing to "hear" anything from the other side, for that matter, probably ineither direction. So lets just stop the flood of words that is not doinganything other than inciting those who need to rant to rant some more. Canwe please just get back "on topic"....

Thanks,Joy«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

Exactly!

 

"I am better than you and I will impose God's will on you because I am better than you. I am so good, too bad everyone isn't just like me."

 

My Grandmother used to butt into those put downs with "God hates a hypocrit."

 

Dennis

 

geminiwalker <geminiwalker wrote:

On 28 Apr 2004 at 0:39, lovezGod2 wrote:> > its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is> an issue? Janet > I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who are invested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainly easier than cleaning up their own side of the street....geminiwalker«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :....

- Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

Exactly!

Here in America we are supposed to be the greatest country on Earth, but children can be denied basic necessitities like food and clothes. My IQ isn't high enough to understand the justification for the same people that want to starve out those children by taking away AFDC from their parents often being the same hateful souls that want laws against abortion, when passing a law is only a band- aid that won't stop abortion anyway. I understand a law was recently passed against prisoners raping one another in prison. So what are they going to do to enforce that law? Lock them up? All those short sighted ostriche do gooders that have helped to get more prisons here than anywhere in the world if you are claiming to be Christian you have missed the mark. If heaven had people like that it would be a place to avoid. The only way to stop abortion is to appeal to the mothers, and it is their choice right or wrong. It IS their choice no matter

how many laws are passed.

Dennis

 

geminiwalker <geminiwalker wrote:

On 29 Apr 2004 at 4:12, John Polifronio wrote:> As for the 50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world, I> applaud your efforts to help them. But it goes without saying, and I> think you'll agree, that if something was being done for those> children, they wouldn't have starved to death, would they? We have> much work to do, and much of it will have to be with greedy> governments, that have no sense of decency, or any responsibility for> the lives of their children. My view is, that as long as there are> starving children, it takes precedence over any other human concern,> including the abortion debate. As long as there are millions of> parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining gangs,> developing dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing

crimes,> etc., in the big and small cities of our country, and of the world,> what could possibly be more important than attending to their needs? > Under these circumstances, it seems that we have our priorities> backwards, if we spend precious time and resources debating abortion> and trying to force people not to have it, instead of doing something> about the miserable circumstances that so many children, who already> exist, face in our society.> > JP> So right, JP. And if we were actually able to be successful in changing the circumstances of so many children, it actually might make a difference in the number of abortions that would not longer seem necessary!...geminiwalker«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

JP

Some people think that the purpose of government is to punish or kill all of the bad people out there, (very expensive), we had a bill of rights ) which the patriot act 2 is purposely designed to nulify) that is supposed to guarantee us against a tirancial government. I propose government should mind its own business and thereby having more time and money to prevent abortion by helping the mother and her children.

DennisJohn Polifronio <counterpnt wrote:

SandyThere are entire cultures that disagree with your views. More than half theU. S. population disagrees with your position. What concerns me, is that wemake a clear distinction between the born and the unborn. Is the zygotegrowing in a woman's body, a human being? Once ovum and sperm have united,you have a "potential" human. This is true at every point duringconception, until there is "birth." I take it, that according to your view,a zygote is no less a human than a fetus, which in turn, is no less humanthan a born baby? How can it be otherwise? We become human at birth, ableto thrive outside a womb, open to the world humans inhabit, open toexperience, open to pain and pleasure, open to learning and culture, nolonger directly dependent on the mother's womb, and capable of thriving

withanother and unrelated custodian.These matters are enormously complex. This complexity annoys you, and youwant to replace it with clear-cut certainties. I can't think incertainties. The world is "never" black and white to me, not because Idon't want it to be black and white, but because the evidence is, that itnever is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd, is not with their views,but with their attitude toward people that disagree with them. Yourintolerance, your insistence that you're "absolutely" right and youropposition is absolutely wrong, leads you to extremes of action, that areintolerable in a democracy.As for the 50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world, I applaudyour efforts to help them. But it goes without saying, and I think you'llagree, that if something was being done for those children, they wouldn'thave starved to death, would they? We have much

work to do, and much of itwill have to be with greedy governments, that have no sense of decency, orany responsibility for the lives of their children. My view is, that aslong as there are starving children, it takes precedence over any otherhuman concern, including the abortion debate. As long as there are millionsof parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining gangs,developing dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing crimes, etc., inthe big and small cities of our country, and of the world, what couldpossibly be more important than attending to their needs? Under thesecircumstances, it seems that we have our priorities backwards, if we spendprecious time and resources debating abortion and trying to force people notto have it, instead of doing something about the miserable circumstancesthat so many children, who already exist, face in our society.JP -----

Original Message ----- "sandyrupp2002" <sandyrupp2002Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:44 AM Re: Shocking film reignites abortion debateSo, JP, if it is not human until it is born - then what is it?And, if born premature at let's say 26 weeks is it consideredhuman then? If it is aborted at 26 weeks - is it not human?As for your concern - do not think for one minute that I (or myfellow "antiabortionists") am not contributing to feeding, clothingand providing for those that are in need either in my community orin other parts of the globe. You do not know me and what I or myfamily does to help others. Fact of the matter is I do not go aroundadvertising what I do to help others. And what an absolutely inane statement. Your statement aboutthe socalled

"antiabortionists" having done nothing about the factthat 50,000 children are dying daily of starvation is an absolutefalsehood. Don't you know anyone that feeds or cares for thehungry? I know more than I can count. But they are not outthere "campaigning" in the streets, holding placards (although attimes they might) - they are out there actually helping people.And this group includes me and my family, friends, etc....I invite the other members of this board to refute what JP hasstated by sharing your stories of individuals and organizationsthat feed, clothe and otherwise provide for those that are in need -both in their communities and around the world. If you want a listfrom me - I'd be happy to take the time and post it - but I amconcerned that it might be too lengthy. Just let me know, though,and I'd be happy to go to the trouble.And, JP, since you are one

of the "bickerers" - that's discussingthis issue - what have you done to stop world starvation? , "John Polifronio"<counterpnt@e...> wrote:> A baby becomes a human, when it is born.>> It concerns me, that so-called anti-abortionists, have donenothing about> the fact, that around 50,000 children in the world, die daily ofstarvation.> If they were concerned about children, they'd stop their bickeringabout> abortion, and would take to the streets to demand that theobscenity of> childhood starvation throughout the world, be stopped.>> JP>> - > "sandyrupp2002" <sandyrupp2002>> > Monday, April 26, 2004 9:38 PM> Re: Shocking film reignites abortiondebate>>>

First of all, geminiwalker, I believe one of the guidelines of this> posting board is that no religion be discussed. So why are you> attacking Christians? And what makes you think that onlyChristians> oppose abortion or the war in Iraq? Why are you so opposed to> Christians?>> Secondly, by your own admission - life has value. And what Carol> is saying is "be responsible". What is so wrong with that? You> didn't address what I posted - and that is that many, many, many> women have abortions because they are too irresponsible to either> abstain or take preventative measures to not get pregnant in the> first place. When does the baby's life have value? The moment he> or she is born? And is that at nine months or earlier? It never> ceases to amaze me that people think nothing of saving a premature> baby - premature by

perhaps months. But the pro-abortionists think> it's perfectly fine to abort a baby at the same stage of> development and earlier, of course.> So,please answer my question, when does a baby become human, when> does his or her life have value? At what stage of development?>>> , "geminiwalker"> <geminiwalker> wrote:> > On 26 Apr 2004 at 19:32, Carol Minnick wrote:> >> > >> > > Two entirely different subjects. Bottom line " if you donTtwant> a> > > baby, donTt do anything to create one.> > >> >> > How "Christian" of you. What a hypocrite. Killing is killing.> > Life is life. Bottom line.> >> >> > ...geminiwalker>>>>>

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤> »>> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §> > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - >> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may benews> related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consultwith a> qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course oftreatment,> especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair usewithout> profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior

interest inreceiving> the included information for non-profit research and educationalpurposes> only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>>

[Guest guest]

Dennis, i don't know who you are, but I don't appreciate any kind of name-calling. If you wrote the second quote, below Janet's, then my post said I was agreeing with you. Or didn't you read what I said? After agreeing with the second quote below, I then said I simply wanted the topic to get dropped. It doesn't feel productive to continue it. Having said it again I'll take my own advice and won't reply again to this thread, even to posts directed at me. Joy

 

-

Guro Dennis Servaes

Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:28 PM

Re: Shocking film reignites abortion debate

 

 

Joy, can I call you Ostrich? You obviously had your head someplace, right or else you would have read what I said.

DennisSara Mandal-Joy <sarajoy wrote: >> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is> an issue? Janet>>I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who areinvested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainlyeasier than cleaning up their own side of the street.Amen to the above, and want to state that I'm really tired of judgements andmoralizing filling up this list... People whose minds are set are notgoing to "hear" anything from the other side, for that matter, probably ineither direction. So lets just stop the flood of words that is not doinganything other than inciting those who need to rant to rant some more. Canwe please just get back "on topic".... Thanks,Joy«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

I'll second that...Sara Mandal-Joy <sarajoy wrote:

>> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is> an issue? Janet>>I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who areinvested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainlyeasier than cleaning up their own side of the street.Amen to the above, and want to state that I'm really tired of judgements andmoralizing filling up this list... People whose minds are set are notgoing to "hear" anything from the other side, for that matter, probably ineither direction. So lets just stop the flood of words that is not doinganything other than inciting those who need to rant to rant some more. Canwe please just get back "on topic"....

Thanks,Joy«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

[Guest guest]

John - First of all - it's fine by me that entire cultures disagree

with my views. That doesn't mean that my view is wrong. There are

also cultures who eat human flesh, cultures that kill others

because they are in a different tribe, etc.... just because entire

cultures make it lawful to abort babies does not make it the right

thing to do.

 

The complexities of this issue does not annoy me - what annoys me is

people who categorize me - accuse me of all sorts of things they

have no proof of. And then, because my view is pro-life I am

judgemental? And you pro-aborts are not judgemental?

 

People want to lump all " anti-aborts " into one category and make

all kinds of claims about us as if to say we are not individuals.

All sorts of accusations are made about the pro-life " group " because

of the actions of a few misdirected individuals - (reference your

comment about " extremes of action that are intolerable in a

democracy " )

 

There are bad apples (ie, hypocritical, judgemental, violent) in ANY

group. That includes your group - whatever group you identify

yourself with. Not all Christians are judgemental, pro-war,

hypocritical, etc.. The MAJORITY of Christians I know are

compassionate, loving, helpful people who admit that they are far

from perfect. Not one of us on this earth is perfect. And,

incidentally, it is not just " Christians " who are anti- abortion.

 

You still did not answer the question I posed - you just asked more

questions. Let's just talk about one example: is the baby who is

aborted at five months of development less human or less of a baby

than the one whose parents go to extraordinary medical measures to

save? I am sincerely interested in hearing how you make the

distinction, because I did not hear you explain that in your post.

 

 

 

, " John Polifronio "

<counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> Sandy

> There are entire cultures that disagree with your views. More

than half the

> U. S. population disagrees with your position. What concerns me,

is that we

> make a clear distinction between the born and the unborn. Is the

zygote

> growing in a woman's body, a human being? Once ovum and sperm

have united,

> you have a " potential " human. This is true at every point during

> conception, until there is " birth. " I take it, that according to

your view,

> a zygote is no less a human than a fetus, which in turn, is no

less human

> than a born baby? How can it be otherwise? We become human at

birth, able

> to thrive outside a womb, open to the world humans inhabit, open to

> experience, open to pain and pleasure, open to learning and

culture, no

> longer directly dependent on the mother's womb, and capable of

thriving with

> another and unrelated custodian.

>

> These matters are enormously complex. This complexity annoys you,

and you

> want to replace it with clear-cut certainties. I can't think in

> certainties. The world is " never " black and white to me, not

because I

> don't want it to be black and white, but because the evidence is,

that it

> never is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd, is not with

their views,

> but with their attitude toward people that disagree with them.

Your

> intolerance, your insistence that you're " absolutely " right and

your

> opposition is absolutely wrong, leads you to extremes of action,

that are

> intolerable in a democracy.

>

> As for the 50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world,

I applaud

> your efforts to help them. But it goes without saying, and I think

you'll

> agree, that if something was being done for those children, they

wouldn't

> have starved to death, would they? We have much work to do, and

much of it

> will have to be with greedy governments, that have no sense of

decency, or

> any responsibility for the lives of their children. My view is,

that as

> long as there are starving children, it takes precedence over any

other

> human concern, including the abortion debate. As long as there

are millions

> of parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining

gangs,

> developing dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing crimes,

etc., in

> the big and small cities of our country, and of the world, what

could

> possibly be more important than attending to their needs? Under

these

> circumstances, it seems that we have our priorities backwards, if

we spend

> precious time and resources debating abortion and trying to force

people not

> to have it, instead of doing something about the miserable

circumstances

> that so many children, who already exist, face in our society.

>

> JP

>

>

> -

> " sandyrupp2002 " <sandyrupp2002>

>

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:44 AM

> Re: Shocking film reignites abortion

debate

>

>

> So, JP, if it is not human until it is born - then what is it?

> And, if born premature at let's say 26 weeks is it considered

> human then? If it is aborted at 26 weeks - is it not human?

>

> As for your concern - do not think for one minute that I (or my

> fellow " antiabortionists " ) am not contributing to feeding, clothing

> and providing for those that are in need either in my community or

> in other parts of the globe. You do not know me and what I or my

> family does to help others. Fact of the matter is I do not go

around

> advertising what I do to help others.

> And what an absolutely inane statement. Your statement about

> the socalled " antiabortionists " having done nothing about the fact

> that 50,000 children are dying daily of starvation is an absolute

> falsehood. Don't you know anyone that feeds or cares for the

> hungry? I know more than I can count. But they are not out

> there " campaigning " in the streets, holding placards (although at

> times they might) - they are out there actually helping people.

> And this group includes me and my family, friends, etc....

>

> I invite the other members of this board to refute what JP has

> stated by sharing your stories of individuals and organizations

> that feed, clothe and otherwise provide for those that are in

need -

> both in their communities and around the world. If you want a list

> from me - I'd be happy to take the time and post it - but I am

> concerned that it might be too lengthy. Just let me know, though,

> and I'd be happy to go to the trouble.

>

> And, JP, since you are one of the " bickerers " - that's discussing

> this issue - what have you done to stop world starvation?

>

> , " John Polifronio "

> <counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> > A baby becomes a human, when it is born.

> >

> > It concerns me, that so-called anti-abortionists, have done

> nothing about

> > the fact, that around 50,000 children in the world, die daily of

> starvation.

> > If they were concerned about children, they'd stop their

bickering

> about

> > abortion, and would take to the streets to demand that the

> obscenity of

> > childhood starvation throughout the world, be stopped.

> >

> > JP

> >

> > -

> > " sandyrupp2002 " <sandyrupp2002>

> >

> > Monday, April 26, 2004 9:38 PM

> > Re: Shocking film reignites

abortion

> debate

> >

> >

> > First of all, geminiwalker, I believe one of the guidelines of

this

> > posting board is that no religion be discussed. So why are you

> > attacking Christians? And what makes you think that only

> Christians

> > oppose abortion or the war in Iraq? Why are you so opposed to

> > Christians?

> >

> > Secondly, by your own admission - life has value. And what

Carol

> > is saying is " be responsible " . What is so wrong with that? You

> > didn't address what I posted - and that is that many, many, many

> > women have abortions because they are too irresponsible to either

> > abstain or take preventative measures to not get pregnant in the

> > first place. When does the baby's life have value? The moment

he

> > or she is born? And is that at nine months or earlier? It never

> > ceases to amaze me that people think nothing of saving a

premature

> > baby - premature by perhaps months. But the pro-abortionists

think

> > it's perfectly fine to abort a baby at the same stage of

> > development and earlier, of course.

> > So,please answer my question, when does a baby become human,

when

> > does his or her life have value? At what stage of development?

> >

> >

> > , " geminiwalker "

> > <geminiwalker> wrote:

> > > On 26 Apr 2004 at 19:32, Carol Minnick wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Two entirely different subjects. Bottom line " if you donTt

> want

> > a

> > > > baby, donTt do anything to create one.

> > > >

> > >

> > > How " Christian " of you. What a hypocrite. Killing is killing.

> > > Life is life. Bottom line.

> > >

> > >

> > > ...geminiwalker

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«

> ¤»§«¤»¥«¤

> > »

> >

> > § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §

> >

> > Subscribe:......... -

> > To :.... -

 

> >

> > Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may

be

> news

> > related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult

> with a

> > qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of

> treatment,

> > especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.

> > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

> > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair

use

> without

> > profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving

> > the included information for non-profit research and educational

> purposes

> > only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Okay fine..I sorry.........Sara Mandal-Joy <sarajoy wrote:

 

Dennis, i don't know who you are, but I don't appreciate any kind of name-calling. If you wrote the second quote, below Janet's, then my post said I was agreeing with you. Or didn't you read what I said? After agreeing with the second quote below, I then said I simply wanted the topic to get dropped. It doesn't feel productive to continue it. Having said it again I'll take my own advice and won't reply again to this thread, even to posts directed at me. Joy

 

-

Guro Dennis Servaes

Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:28 PM

Re: Shocking film reignites abortion debate

 

 

Joy, can I call you Ostrich? You obviously had your head someplace, right or else you would have read what I said.

DennisSara Mandal-Joy <sarajoy wrote: >> its wrong no matter how you try to justify it. sex is supposed to be> for married people. morals are shot to hell and you wonder why this is> an issue? Janet>>I don't wonder why this is an issue at all. People who areinvested in judging others make it an issue. It's certainlyeasier than cleaning up their own side of the street.Amen to the above, and want to state that I'm really tired of judgements andmoralizing filling up this list... People whose minds are set are notgoing to "hear" anything from the other side, for that matter, probably ineither direction. So lets just stop the flood of words that is not doinganything other than inciting those who need to rant to rant some more. Canwe please just get back "on topic"....

Thanks,Joy«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section

107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner

before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

If a baby is brought to term in 5 months, and brought into the world, it is "born," and therefore human.

 

You take a private and difficult choice, that millions of women make, throughout the world, every day, and turn it into a morbid and hideous act of criminality. I don't know how to talk to someone with your ideas. You're determined to see ugliness and depravity everywhere around you. You don't seem to understand, that vast numbers of people don't see things the way you do. They don't see "murder," where you see it. I only hope you have the wisdom to keep your thinking to yourself, and allow others to understand the world very differently than you do, in peace.

 

JP

 

-

Carol Minnick

Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:56 AM

RE: Re: Shocking film reignites abortion debate

 

 

I loathe the title of “anti-choice” – I think a better description for our opposing views is just simply ”pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”. I am not “anti-choice”, I am “anti-abortion” – or “pro-life”. Anybody can make whatever choice they want to, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Instead of calling someone “pro-abortion” how about if we instead call them “anti-life”. That’s just about as stupid as calling us “anti-choice”.

 

JP, you say “we become human at birth” – so what happens to the baby born way prematurely, say at 5 months, and it lives. So it is then human, right? But we abort a baby at 5 months and it’s ok?? It could have lived – it could have been a human. But we choose to kill it instead.

 

I agree with you that we have much work to do – to help the starving and homeless, and I know a lot of people who are trying to do just that. But helping starving and homeless people has nothing to do with killing babies.

 

Carol

 

 

 

John Polifronio [counterpnt]

 

SandyThere are entire cultures that disagree with your views. More than half theU. S. population disagrees with your position. What concerns me, is that wemake a clear distinction between the born and the unborn. Is the zygotegrowing in a woman's body, a human being? Once ovum and sperm have united,you have a "potential" human. This is true at every point duringconception, until there is "birth." I take it, that according to your view,a zygote is no less a human than a fetus, which in turn, is no less humanthan a born baby? How can it be otherwise? We become human at birth, ableto thrive outside a womb, open to the world humans inhabit, open toexperience, open to pain and pleasure, open to learning and culture, nolonger directly dependent on the mother's womb, and capable of thriving withanother and unrelated custodian.These matters are enormously complex. This complexity annoys you, and youwant to replace it with clear-cut certainties. I can't think incertainties. The world is "never" black and white to me, not because Idon't want it to be black and white, but because the evidence is, that itnever is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd, is not with their views,but with their attitude toward people that disagree with them. Yourintolerance, your insistence that you're "absolutely" right and youropposition is absolutely wrong, leads you to extremes of action, that areintolerable in a democracy.As for the 50,000 children dying daily of starvation in the world, I applaudyour efforts to help them. But it goes without saying, and I think you'llagree, that if something was being done for those children, they wouldn'thave starved to death, would they? We have much work to do, and much of itwill have to be with greedy governments, that have no sense of decency, orany responsibility for the lives of their children. My view is, that aslong as there are starving children, it takes precedence over any otherhuman concern, including the abortion debate. As long as there are millionsof parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the streets, joining gangs,developing dangerous drinking and drug habits, committing crimes, etc., inthe big and small cities of our country, and of the world, what couldpossibly be more important than attending to their needs? Under thesecircumstances, it seems that we have our priorities backwards, if we spendprecious time and resources debating abortion and trying to force people notto have it, instead of doing something about the miserable circumstancesthat so many children, who already exist, face in our society.JP «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Guest guest]

Did not someone create an artifical womb within which

they have yet to grow and then birth a baby?

 

Hmmm if so the the idea of it comming out of the womb

as the defining momment of the beginning of life will

change to something else.

 

 

--- John Polifronio <counterpnt wrote:

> If a baby is brought to term in 5 months, and

> brought into the world, it is " born, " and therefore

> human.

>

> You take a private and difficult choice, that

> millions of women make, throughout the world, every

> day, and turn it into a morbid and hideous act of

> criminality. I don't know how to talk to someone

> with your ideas. You're determined to see ugliness

> and depravity everywhere around you. You don't seem

> to understand, that vast numbers of people don't see

> things the way you do. They don't see " murder, "

> where you see it. I only hope you have the wisdom

> to keep your thinking to yourself, and allow others

> to understand the world very differently than you

> do, in peace.

>

> JP

> -

> Carol Minnick

>

> Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:56 AM

> RE: Re: Shocking

> film reignites abortion debate

>

>

> I loathe the title of " anti-choice " - I think a

> better description for our opposing views is just

> simply " pro-abortion " and " anti-abortion " . I am not

> " anti-choice " , I am " anti-abortion " - or " pro-life " .

> Anybody can make whatever choice they want to, as

> long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Instead of

> calling someone " pro-abortion " how about if we

> instead call them " anti-life " . That's just about as

> stupid as calling us " anti-choice " .

>

>

>

> JP, you say " we become human at birth " - so what

> happens to the baby born way prematurely, say at 5

> months, and it lives. So it is then human, right?

> But we abort a baby at 5 months and it's ok?? It

> could have lived - it could have been a human. But

> we choose to kill it instead.

>

>

>

> I agree with you that we have much work to do - to

> help the starving and homeless, and I know a lot of

> people who are trying to do just that. But helping

> starving and homeless people has nothing to do with

> killing babies.

>

>

>

> Carol

>

>

>

>

>

>

> John Polifronio

> [counterpnt]

>

>

>

>

>

> Sandy

> There are entire cultures that disagree with your

> views. More than half the

> U. S. population disagrees with your position.

> What concerns me, is that we

> make a clear distinction between the born and the

> unborn. Is the zygote

> growing in a woman's body, a human being? Once

> ovum and sperm have united,

> you have a " potential " human. This is true at

> every point during

> conception, until there is " birth. " I take it,

> that according to your view,

> a zygote is no less a human than a fetus, which in

> turn, is no less human

> than a born baby? How can it be otherwise? We

> become human at birth, able

> to thrive outside a womb, open to the world humans

> inhabit, open to

> experience, open to pain and pleasure, open to

> learning and culture, no

> longer directly dependent on the mother's womb,

> and capable of thriving with

> another and unrelated custodian.

>

> These matters are enormously complex. This

> complexity annoys you, and you

> want to replace it with clear-cut certainties. I

> can't think in

> certainties. The world is " never " black and white

> to me, not because I

> don't want it to be black and white, but because

> the evidence is, that it

> never is. The problem with the anti-choice crowd,

> is not with their views,

> but with their attitude toward people that

> disagree with them. Your

> intolerance, your insistence that you're

> " absolutely " right and your

> opposition is absolutely wrong, leads you to

> extremes of action, that are

> intolerable in a democracy.

>

> As for the 50,000 children dying daily of

> starvation in the world, I applaud

> your efforts to help them. But it goes without

> saying, and I think you'll

> agree, that if something was being done for those

> children, they wouldn't

> have starved to death, would they? We have much

> work to do, and much of it

> will have to be with greedy governments, that have

> no sense of decency, or

> any responsibility for the lives of their

> children. My view is, that as

> long as there are starving children, it takes

> precedence over any other

> human concern, including the abortion debate. As

> long as there are millions

> of parentless, abandoned, children rotting in the

> streets, joining gangs,

> developing dangerous drinking and drug habits,

> committing crimes, etc., in

> the big and small cities of our country, and of

> the world, what could

> possibly be more important than attending to their

> needs? Under these

> circumstances, it seems that we have our

> priorities backwards, if we spend

> precious time and resources debating abortion and

> trying to force people not

> to have it, instead of doing something about the

> miserable circumstances

> that so many children, who already exist, face in

> our society.

>

> JP

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

>

> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH

> CONSPIRACIES! §

>

> Subscribe:.........

> -

> To :....

> -

>

> Any information here in is for educational purpose

> only, it may be news related, purely speculation or

> someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified

> health practitioner before deciding on any course of

> treatment, especially for serious or

> life-threatening illnesses.

> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

> any copyrighted work in this message is

> distributed under fair use without profit or payment

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for non-profit

> research and educational purposes only.

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

>

>

>

>

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

On 30 Apr 2004 at 4:00, sandyrupp2002 wrote:

 

 

> You still did not answer the question I posed - you just asked more

> questions. Let's just talk about one example: is the baby who is

> aborted at five months of development less human or less of a baby

> than the one whose parents go to extraordinary medical measures to

> save? I am sincerely interested in hearing how you make the

> distinction, because I did not hear you explain that in your post.

>

 

Wow, if people could just learn to trim their posts! No

wonder some people are trying to silence this discussion!

 

However, since you are not one of them, and since I have

something to say, I think I shall.

 

The difference is choice, in many instances, and in many

instances, because of anti-choice people, parents have lost

the choice as to which or how many heroic measures they

want to take, no matter how complex, no matter how

expensive, no matter how much suffering their baby will

endure, when one is born premature.

 

In my view, the choice belongs to the parents, for it is they,

ultimately, who will have to live with that choice and who

are accountable to their families and their God for that

choice.

 

Not to you, not to me, and certainly not to the government.

 

 

....geminiwalker