14 year old rape victim from Warsaw denied abortion!

gumishu

I thought the discovery of the re-generating power of stem-cells was a pretty breakthrough yes. But what does the lack of further scientific breakthroughs has to do with the may or may not presence of a god?

Funny how certain theories always need to be "proven" while on the other hand, religion doesn't feel the need to prove itself. "That's something you just know" is what you often hear. Well I "just know" there is a way to cure the cold. Only I haven't seen it yet. I just know there is...From a scientist you don't accept that, why from a religious person?

Give me proof beyond any, and I mean ANY doubt that there is a god and prove this by concrete facts, and I will believe there is a god. But I'm afraid no-one can give me this proof.

Another thing: Christians believe that the human race is 25.000 years old, max. How do you explain that human skeleton that's 3 million years old?

>^..^<

M-G (tired)

That is how I tend to think at the moment.

I read this article a few days ago and it gave me cause to pause.
guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/michael-green-new-lucasian-professor

Michael Green (an Atheist)

1) DNA guides from conception, ok. But guides to what and from what? (from personhood to personhood? LOL) I think there needs to be a compromise here, right now. I unequivocally state that there is a guiding process to ultimate formation and delivery but the very fact that we name four different stages shows that there are meaningful phases changes. Like it or not, GS, definitions come into play and can catch us out. Murder as malice aforethought :) Zygote-Embryo-Foetus-Birth. Why don't we just scrap the terminology and say that, at every stage, it's an unborn child striving towards birth and its first breath? It would get round the whole 'it's just a bunch of blob and cells' point. When you say it's an unborn child, people will react differently. As an anti-abortionist, I'd like that. However, the fact remains that, to many courts of law (law being social consensus here), that an unborn child in its earliest stages of development (from fertilisation to zygote) doesn't qualify for personhood. Viability and sentience enter the equation in a big way and this is FACT, like it or not.

2) That is a hard question for sure, GS. We must, on such occasions, stick with facts as best we can. It all goes back to personhood.

3) Not true at all. You ignored the physical element where the woman had to carry an unborn child of rape, you ignored the various costs of raising the kid (what if she was from a lower-class background?) and you also ignored the pain of childbirth which they may not want to go through when the baby is not from their hubby's sperm. I know what science says and I agree that the DNA is there at conception. Reason, well, I use more of it than you do. I seem to recall that you dubbed all other factors other than science as "immaterial". Many women, famous or otherwise, are pro-abortion and for you to say that I am blatantly lying is absurd. I outlined practical, social, physiological, psychological and physical reasons against bearing a child of rape. What other factors do you want me to raise? Oh, you are going back on your ultra, pro-life impulse? Prove God exists! You are resting your case on his existence so prove he exists. I'll prove laws exist on demand :)

4) Let's wheel out figures then. Many contend that more people sought abortions when it was illegal. Before we get into that, you ducked the ONE question I wanted you to answer. If abortion is indeed murder, then why aren't you for the administering of the standard punishment for murder? What penalty would you give to doctors who carry out abortions if you were a lawmaker? What about the woman?

5) GS, it's a general consensus that sentience begins at 23 weeks. Go and check it up. Here, 'Eventually, two pro-life scientists, K.J. Anand and P.R. Hickey, undertook extensive research to prove once and for all that aborted fetuses feel pain. But their results pointed to the opposite conclusion: that it was unlikely that fetuses could feel pain until the beginning of the 7th month, when the lobes of their growing brains had drawn together and established synaptic contact. (1) From all the scientific evidence gathered so far, the pro-life effort to turn the 8-week old fetus into a functional person is a failure', from huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

'Pro-life advocates accept this argument more than they realize. This can be seen in their response to a rare but sometimes seen pro-choice argument. This argument claims that because a man's ejaculate contains nearly 300 million sperm, natural abortion must occur, because all but one of them will die upon failing to fertilize the egg. Pro-life advocates correctly point out that the sperm is not a person, so no harm is done. Killing the potential of that sperm to become a 30-year old adult with a full-fledged life is not a tragedy, because that potential was never actualized; you can't harm a potential person. The same logic drives the pro-choice argument about the fetus and abortion. If the fetus is not yet a person, abortion cannot harm the future person it will never become. The fact that the fetus has the natural inevitability of becoming a person, whereas a sperm does not, is a separate issue that we shall explore in a moment. But the basic point remains: potentiality is not personhood'.

The above will give you food for thought.

6) I tell you what, I'm fed up with you ignoring the links I post. I found at least 5 websites to support my contention that many illegal abortions took place every year in America. I will post them after some time but I want YOU to try and see my side, as an anti-abortionist after all (with exceptions). If you can see where I am coming from, I will take this further. If not, it's futile!

7) Why would the kid be ridiculed if everyone knew and told, GS? It's a life under God, isn't it? I'm not questioning their right as kids to be defended, GS. They should be. However, it doesn't change the humiliation they may well face. Again, it's back to quality of life. There are plenty of forums discussing such things, GS, but you don't care. They are homo sapiens when a fertilised egg but can they SHOW their humanity? People show humanity through good deeds, right? You are stumbling, GS. Humanity or humanness? They demonstrate their humanity through a knowledge of morality, generosity and compassion amongst other things. Am I wrong? Good Christian values!! Good human values!! What does your zygote spawned of rape value? What will they value when not part of a natural family? Humanity should be shown through moral precepts, modesty of the soul and leading by example through the lessons of Jesus, right?

Humanity strikes me as a concept of spirituality and philosophy. Does spirituality require allegiance to any religion or does it just require a firm and sound grounding in right and wrong and guidance from certain forces and identification with fellow humans? (take Buddhism as spirituality and not a religion as it has no dogma. Confucianism is a complex case but it has ostensible dogma though not enough for it to be a religion in the minds of many) Empathy through shared experiences. What has your embryo experienced?

I could pound you with much tougher points, GS, but I'll let you out of jail by saying that we need to give most unborns the chance to find their own manifest path. I don't want to strike any discordant chords and second guess how the child will be. However, whether you like it or not, you (like me) are neither a legislator nor a woman. The Church of England sees all your science and your moral standpoint but still see fit to treat rape as a special case. Why? They have NO interest in promoting 'murder' when they expressly spell it out that they are fervently against it. To my knowledge, they accept no backhanders.

Ah, let me shoot you down before you get ahead of yourself. She chose to be raped, yes or no? If you say yes then it's not a rape. It's forced penile penetration without her express and willing consent (Stallard defines it differently but ho hum). If you say no then let's move forward. She had no choice in the rape but she has a choice with regards to abortion. She can talk it through with medical professionals and decide if the harm to herself and her child is worth it. I'm very much of the belief that if she is from a lower-class background with a husband who wants a child by her in the future, that she will not go through with bearing the child. It stands to reason. I follow the verstehen approach and put myself in the position of supportive father (easy for me). When she bears that child of rape, responsibilities start. It is, biologically, her kid and she will want to distance herself from her rapist non-husband as much as possible. Agreed? Let me guess, you think she enjoyed the sex so much that she will want to do it again? No, didn't think so!!!!! Ok, that solves the problem neatly, she will want nothing to do with him. He will scarper but that begs the question of aliment. He will be in prison for rape and, thus, won't be earning for a very long time. Who will pay the alimony? Where will the paternal influence be? Let's imagine she wants to keep the kid as I said above that the maternal instinct is a biological function of a mother. That's her right as a mother if she bore the kid and the father wants nothing to do with it. I noted with intrigue in the other thread that you denounced homosexuality. Could it be that you are of the opinion that 2 parents (man and woman) are better than one when raising a kid? Am I right? What if the woman subsequently meets her husband and has a kid with him but has this other reminder?

I'll let others judge on how I've done in responding to you. I won't proclaim to have cut you down or call you jello or detract from the sanctity of life as an anti-abortionist. I'll just say that women, as ACTUAL tangible humans capable of making choices (can your embryo do this?) should be heard as those vested with rights. I care not for the dilution of rights!

However, as a man who doesn't go out to win arguments, I will say once again that we need to, um, in the words of Ezekiel 25:17 (Pulp Fiction), 'shepherd the weak through the valley of darkness'. When the child emerges into the light, I will rejoice like any other. Give the woman her choice, GS, and your research may not be as valid as you had hoped!!

ok, posted. check profile. I've actually heard that angel speak too, one time when the car got stuck in a muddy ditch, he told me where to find a guy with a truck to pull me out.. i went there.. and sure enough the guy had a truck and offered to pull my car out of the mud.. the angel voice was real deep and like I said, he even sounded like a 16 foot tall guy.. that was several years before I took this picture though.


no, if it's a human enemy they usually they die a slow death of cancer, giving them time to repent.. but sometimes they just drop dead.

I could pray for you if you'd like.

// the day will come when you are on your deathbed.. assuming the lights don't go instantly due to other reasons.. and you be crying for him..

but by the time he is done repeating to you all of the things you have said about him..

it'll be too late.

good luck dear mare. the hounds of hell await your soul.

Oh spare me the "I'm stupid" act! Guides the NEWLY CREATED PERSON into a FULLY GROWN PERSON! Are you THIS dull, truly? The fact you would even ASK something like this either means you are making me have to repeat the basest of biology lessons to you for sport, or that you are so stupid you actually never understood them to begin with!


It is scientific fact that it IS a unique and GROWING HUMAN BEING INDIVIDUAL PERSON, FROM THE POINT OF CONEPTION! Viability and sentience are about as pertinent to this argument as the ability to survive on one's own, and consciousness are to a person OUTSIDE the womb! In other words, THEY'RE NOT! Now, I say it yet again, A NEW HUMAN PERSON IS CONCEIVED AT CONCEPTION!!! That is a fact. No one can dispute it.


Not at all a hard question. The person to believe, in matters of right and wrong, is the person with nothing to gain, and demonstrable loss. It proves sincerity. Someone profiting from something, has demonstrable ulterior motives, and is suspect. Wow. I cannot believe that I just had to explain this to you.

Yes, it does all go back to the facts, and you continue to ignore them.


I "ignored" nothing, you liar. I fully acknowledge the pain, suffering of the women involved, and I feel for them,...as much as I can without actually BEING them. The fact is a NEW HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. You continue to call upon human suffering, circumstances, celebrity opinion, or whatever the hell else, I will continue to strike it down as immaterial to this debate. One could make any number of such cases against children living OUTside the womb.

However, none of this AT ALL changes the humanity and personhood of the child inside her. And that is the main issue. So keep on track, little soldier.


Yes lets wheel out figures. I presented mine. Where the f*ck are yours?

The reason I am NOT for the standard punishments for murder is because of the lies and deceptions, the ignorance surrounding the whole issue. I said this before, but you were not listening.


Bullsh*t. abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_l ove_them_both_14.asp

"We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way." "


I have bolded the flawed portion. From the point of conception, it IS a person, boy or girl, IT IS A PERSON, BLUE EYES OR GREEN EYES, IT IS A PERSON, BLONDE OR BRUNETTE, IT IS A PERSON, BLACK, WHITE, BROWN OR MULATTO! Science fully upholds this as empirical fact. NOT "POTENTIAL" FACT! Address this please.


Yes, I'm sure many illegal abortions DID occur before 1973. But you lament the "thousands who died and were disfigured" without citing a single source. Yes, I see where you are coming from, and I'M telling YOU, that it is a FALSE POSITION!


Because kids can be cruel, I'm sure you know this.

NO, it is NOT back to "quality of life" it NEVER WAS about "quality of life"! It always WAS and always WILL BE about when NEW HUMAN LIFE BEGINS! The fact that many people grow up to be and do evil things, or to experience profound emotional and physical pain GIVES NO ONE THE RIGHT TO SAY THEY ARE FORFEIT OF THE RIGHT TO LIVE, AT ANY POINT!


What has a newborn experienced? How do you know it remembers anything? It only cries, eats, sleeps, and craps its shorts. Why not kill a newborn?


Bullsh*t. You have nothing.


Yes, and we do this by LETTING THE CHILD LIVE!


Blah blah blah. Yet again Seanus, you think you will sway me away from the core issue, the child's humanity. It is a human being, regardless of ANY hardship imposed on him/her, or any of him/her surrounding people. Hardships in life may come. Always. None of them excuse wrong actions on our part.


I said your arguments are worthless, I cut THEM down with the sword. You claim to be "anti abortion" and "Christian" yet you continue in all arguments, as neither, and in your words you condone the behavior of the abortion industry.

One human's rights END where another another human's rights begin! That would be at conception, for those SCIENTIFICALLY and BIBLICALLY MINDED! Those who reject Science and God, their opinions are baseless, worthless.


Ah, but "give the woman her choice" in this case means "let a child be killed by a sharp instrument, or by chemical attack". This I cannot countenance. And neither should you.

[quote=Gunslinger44]Ah, but "give the woman her choice" in this case means "let a child be killed by a sharp instrument, or by chemical attack". This I cannot countenance. And neither should you.

so you have a 14 year old daughter, she is beaten and raped by a lets say
45 year old junkie ( needle junkie) who has Hiv, hepatitis B, and genetically
speaking, the child will be born with some type of neurological disorder where
he will need 24 hour care and machines to help keep him alive.

meantime, your 14 year old is suffering from multiple diseases, <~treatable in
early stages prior to having this child.

you wouldnt have mixed feelings about this?

I understand what your saying, that, this child , no matter how its concieved is
still a living being, but, we also have to realize the devastation caused on certain
intervention like the 14 year old who was attacked in this thread.

those rape cases, most of the women might turn out to be abusive to the child
from the scars of their ordeal.... I doubt this is taken into consideration.
not saying thats the case for all though.

I do think that medical intervention/not political intervention should be used more
in such cases, and that spiritual intervention should be there to support those who
do have faith and want forgiveness when our lives are interuppted with such horrible
circumstances. and to not condem those who need them most.

I wonder how Gunslinger will react when the unborn he loves so dearly now turns out to be gay when it grows up...(with all his "will burn in hell" blahblah)!

Patrycja19

seriously, if that were the case, an abortion would ensure that she got really sick quickly, by creating an open bleeding wound for entry of more disease.

Aside from ethical issues, the girl in the real life model is probably actually safest, both physically and emotionally, by carrying the child to term, and giving it up for adoption..

not an oft mentioned fact but women can get quite sick and even die from legal abortions.. infection, hemorraging.. the statistics for women dying from illegal abortion are pumped way up by the abortion industry.

maybe instead of talking about abortion the discussion should shift to raising better man children with good manners.

You are ducking again, Gunslinger. I asked you about the different stages characterising different growth phases. Why the need for those different labels when you could just say unborn child and then, after it emerges, is born? There are state changes and very material ones included within.

Wow, blanket statements here. It is homo sapiens but a chimpanzee is almost homo sapiens too. It is of human genetic composition but not yet a human person in the fullest sense of that word. Is conceived at conception, LOL. No sh*t Sherlock ;) ;) Give me the most accepted definition of person you can find, GS. I gave you a couple and the zygote didn't meet the requirements.

Profitting doesn't form a large part of my thinking on the matter. Yes, there are ulterior motives just like on 9/11 but prove them.

You called my arguments silly and foolish so I question just how much you take them seriously. You claim to understand their pain but can't follow through when under profound distress through rape.

Can't we call a spade a spade and murder, murder? Ignorance, no, you haven't answered this at all. I looked above and saw nothing. Please elaborate. You label it sth but won't punish it or qualify it. Pff...

That book was way back in 1945 when abortion was illegal and times have moved on since then. The forward movement led to subsequent research by pro-LIFERS. There isn't a consensus anymore of 10 weeks but 23 weeks. I keep telling you this.

SO it has human characteristics but you are completely ignoring the totality of the person concept. You narrow it down to your own perception which doesn't fully embrace other material factors. Address this please.

I have to teach now but, if sb else posts, I will be able to reply to the other points.

Stop ducking the meaty issues by blanket assertions. Your scientific focus is limited.

I'm scared to post my opinion on this issue because, well, wiem I'm gonna get a lot of flak...

....so please don't hate me for this....

though my personal input is this: Why should one replace one violent act (rape) with another violent act (killing of an unborn child- abortion)

Why kill somebody who hadn't chose to come into this world regardless instead of just giving the child up for adoption?

Again, this is just what I think... I won't say anything more on the matter... I don't mean in any way, shape, or form to offend anybody here, but I'm very stingy on the sanctity of human life

...one of the reasons I admire Poland

Dont worry.

Its a big area and all I will say is that I would rather live in a country that allows abortion than one that doesn't.

Succinctly put Hobbes. The highest order of good is to save a life. Somewhere down the list is destroying it.

Geez, Hobbes, if you had read above then you'd know.

'Ah, let me shoot you down before you get ahead of yourself. She chose to be raped, yes or no? If you say yes then it's not a rape. It's forced penile penetration without her express and willing consent (Stallard defines it differently but ho hum). If you say no then let's move forward. She had no choice in the rape but she has a choice with regards to abortion. She can talk it through with medical professionals and decide if the harm to herself and her child is worth it. I'm very much of the belief that if she is from a lower-class background with a husband who wants a child by her in the future, that she will not go through with bearing the child. It stands to reason. I follow the verstehen approach and put myself in the position of supportive father (easy for me). When she bears that child of rape, responsibilities start. It is, biologically, her kid and she will want to distance herself from her rapist non-husband as much as possible. Agreed? Let me guess, you think she enjoyed the sex so much that she will want to do it again? No, didn't think so!!!!! Ok, that solves the problem neatly, she will want nothing to do with him. He will scarper but that begs the question of aliment. He will be in prison for rape and, thus, won't be earning for a very long time. Who will pay the alimony? Where will the paternal influence be? Let's imagine she wants to keep the kid as I said above that the maternal instinct is a biological function of a mother. That's her right as a mother if she bore the kid and the father wants nothing to do with it. I noted with intrigue in the other thread that you denounced homosexuality. Could it be that you are of the opinion that 2 parents (man and woman) are better than one when raising a kid? Am I right? What if the woman subsequently meets her husband and has a kid with him but has this other reminder?'.

Gunslinger, I want you to address the scenario that she accepts to bear and raise the kid through the doctor telling her to do so. To what extent is a kid being raised by a single parent desirable?

OK, if the punishment is not for murder, what is it? Why treat it as less than murder if you describe it as murder? Let's be crystal clear on this. You didn't even refer me to a post or cite anything.

there are religious beliefs that I follow but I broadly support the humanistic position for the simple reason that it reflects social realities better. That link will give you what I believe too, GS.

The Church of England is anti-abortion and Christian too but still they see rape as different, why? Come on, that's not an irreconciliable position.

Humanity or humanness? They demonstrate their humanity through a knowledge of morality, generosity and compassion amongst other things. Am I wrong? Good Christian values!! Good human values!! What does your zygote spawned of rape value? What will they value when not part of a natural family? Humanity should be shown through moral precepts, modesty of the soul and leading by example through the lessons of Jesus, right?

I'm gonna post old excerpts til you answer them. What's the difference between humanists and humanity, GS?

How many times do I have to tell you? Rape is different and I'm generally against abortion, get it?

One's rights end where another's begin? What BS! Ever heard of conflicting rights? It's quite common. The woman has rights too as a person who can make informed consent. The unborn child should be afforded the maximum protection but, in cases of rape, the woman must be heard. There was no carelessness on her part like there sometimes is in standard abortions. Why should she be burdened?

Why not kill a newborn? Because it is sentient and has drawn its first breath.

Btw, what are you doing to stop the various wars around the world? Are you doing a Dexter to stop murderers? What law reform efforts are underway on your part? Have you ever adopted a kid born of rape?

Procreation is a choice between man and woman. In the great majority of cases, they are trying for a baby as a couple. Casual sex can lead to mistakes. This is a contract and agreement between them to have a kid. However, where is the contract in rape? Maybe all wan*ers should be done for wasting sperm? After all, they are just wasting a potentially life-giving substance, are they not?

'abortion is an issue that you cant just make black and white

when i was 13 i was raped by a boy at my school and if i had became pregnant i would have aborted it.

im 17 now and the rape itself still haunts me till today,

if i had become pregnant and had to deal with the pain and embarrasment of being pregnant by a boy who raped me and have to go in public with a huge belly and people think i was a ****** lover teenage ***** i would have never recovered. i was called a ***** for that happening, imagine if i had to carry his child for 9 months and everytime i look at my stomache it would be a reminder of the terrible event that happened.'

'The brain develops as a distinct part of the foetus between 9 and 16 weeks of gestation'. What is a person without a functioning brain, GS? You didn't even attempt an answer to my PVS poser. Persistent Vegetative State allows euthanasia to occur.

'Zygotic: At this stage, the foetus is little more than a collection of cells and can still split into twins. It therefore seems that we cannot describe it as having any sort of personhood.' This is from the same article which is broadly pro-life.

No personhood at conception then. That must be a body blow to you. 8 weeks of embryonic development and still not into weeks 9-16 of brain development as a separate part of the foetus. Not to mention more advanced neocortical development later.

That's about enough for now. You have slid into repeating the same old mantras but I hold some bombs in waiting for you, just in case you start to see some smarter arguments.

I don't know if you are aware, but the abortion issue is little bit bigger than it appears at first glance.

Read this page for instance.. tells about wiccans working in abortion clinics for some apparently rather odd reasons.

forerunner.com/champion/X0040_Massacre_of_Innocenc.html - The Occult Roots of Abortion

By Eric Holmberg and Jay Rogers

INTRODUCTION

"You practice your religion and let me practice mine."

"My religion is a holy ritual child sacrifice."

- Patricia Baird-Windle,
Founder and owner of Aware Woman Center for Choice

Well - all I can add to this conversation is that we have an example of a child being born out of sexual assault in my family.

By the time my young cousin found out she was pregnant (six months) it was too late to abort the child.

Out of an act of violence we have a beautiful new member of our family. She is now 15 years old and of mixed race. This lovely young woman has changed our family for the better. No one tells racists jokes about African Canadians anymore.

What would our lives be like without this lively, happy and intelligent young woman? We would be missing a jewel in our family.

So, all I can say is - out of tragedy comes something beautiful...a new life.

Her mother - with therapy and support, is a healthy individual who does not look at her daughter as a memory of rape - but as a gift.

I cannot say this "happy ending" would or will happen to anyone else - but I can only hope that this fourteen year old girl can move forward. If she gives the child up for adoption I hope it has a long and wonderful live. If she keeps the child, I pray that she never looks at her child with flashbacks of how her existence began.

I must add, that we are a mixed family of Catholics and Protestants - co-existing, close and strong. The cousin who had the child out of sexual assault came from the Protestant side, so religion had nothing to do with the decision not to abort the child.

Marie

As long as its illegal or women are denied it, it is a big issue. This does cost lives.


They are not high. Most abortions are actually not surgical these day, due to technology (home pregnancy kits) women can tell a day after missing their period, thus enabling them to act fast - this means they can use tablets, still an abortion nonetheless, but its not a surgical termination and there's less risk of infection or other complications due anesthetic.

Id love to know where you get your stats from.

By the way, why are we still going on about this, the girl wasnt raped, she just wanted an abortion and used this lie in order to "try" and get one.

SEE THAT.

LOOK AT THAT PRO ABORTION PEOPLE...LOOK AT THAT.

Well, I suppose that's just one of the many reasons some women file false rape charges.

Yes she was raped. Stop trying to force your beliefs onto other people.

Not in England, I have no idea why they do it here, it really is beyond me how that kind of persons mind works, if indeed they are claiming to be raped when they did in fact consent when they were fully able to, i.e. not drunk off their face or high on drugs.


I didnt say I was pro anything, but I believe women should if they so chose to, they should be able to have an abortion in a safe environment, if a woman is desparate enough she will take what ever measures to abort, I would prefer a woman to do this in a safe environment and not at some back street illegal abortionist! I am in no way for women using abortion as a form of contraception, we have plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy these days, if you cant be good be careful!

Hopefully this kid is getting on with her life now, shame on those who have harrassed her and made her life hell.


Excuse me! I was under the impression that she was not raped but had consensual sex with a boy and then tried to say it was rape in order to get an abortion...Or are you telling me you know what exactly happened?

I am ducking nothing. Of course there are many stages of growth human persons go through. Not sure what you even mean by any of this.


Now see, what you just did there is compare a monkey with a human being. You are discredited from any further discussion. You are an idiot.


Prove them?

"In April, the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? 289,650 abortions in 2006."

Planned Parenthood is America's largest abortion provider, and is a "non-profit" organization.

Even the most simple concepts you cannot understand. You have either an underdeveloped brain, learned stupidity, or feigned stupidity. In any case, this is my last response to anything of yours, I cannot waste time debating with imbeciles.


Because they ARE. Understanding reasons why someone might be inclined toward wrong actions, does not make them free to commit wrong actions.


It's the killing of a human child inside its mother. The mothers are told its "just a blob". Using common sense, this tells me that the mothers, by and large (and from much verbal contact with such) are unaware they are killing a human child.

Anyone with a brain can understand that this complicates things heavily as to the culpability of the mothers. No surprise that you cannot.


I told you, HEARTBEAT AT 3 WEEKS, REGULAR BRAINWAVES AT 6-8 WEEKS! And you cannot PROVE lack of sentience. What we CAN prove is that a baby, FROM conception, is LIVING, GROWING, HOMO SAPIENS! A HUMAN BEING!


"Human characteristics"!? "Human CHARACTERISTICS!"!??? No, SCIENTIFICALLY, FACTUALLY, IT IS A NEW HUMAN BEING BABY INSIDE THE MOTHER, FROM THE POINT OF CONCEPTION! With a determined SEX, a determined HAIR COLOR, EYE COLOR, etc!

You continue to IGNORE Scientific fact concerning when human life begins. As stated because of your multiple refusals to acknowldge such, and your continuous illogical and even downright retarded behaviors,....I cannot and will not waste further time discussing this issue with you.


Wrong. My Scientific focus is right on point: The humanity of the child. Is the "being" in question of the order "Homo Sapiens"? YES! Is the "being" in question currently living? YES!

Smack-down. Now you get to shut the f*ck up.

1) Why do we differentiate between earliest conception, zygote, embryo and foetus? I would say that significant changes occur between those periods, things which determine personhood.

2) The common chimpanzee and Bonobo are distantly related, 'This review begins by setting out the context and the scope of human evolution. Several classes of evidence, morphological, molecular, and genetic, support a particularly close relationship between modern humans and the species within the genus Pan, the chimpanzee', ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1468107/?tool=pmcentrez

3) So they have an agenda. Raise it with them

4) They are material factors, all of them. The resident women here like Shelley will clobber you for dismissing the whole gamut of factors which are relevant to them. You even said you understand them, having previously called them foolish so what's it to be?

5) Yet again, no suggestion of an appropriate punishment. This tells me you are guarding sth. Is it murder or isn't it? How can we let the mother off with this in your opinion? If it's not murder, what is it? You keep calling it murder and now you are backpedalling. Please clarify the position.

6) It doesn't match many of the definitions of personhood and that is the test to be met for murder.

7) Humanity is not shown. Humanity is compassion, generosity and empathy and you have ducked that.

Anyway, the Hippocratic Oath forbids abortive surgery. Care to discuss that? It's a fresh new angle.

catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/2006/Feb/hippocratic_oath_ii.htm, let me shoot you down before you get started. The Geneva Declaration changed it from the 1984 position of 'from the time of its conception' to just erasing it. Many other standards have emerged which signify developments from the Hippocrates Oath. Seeing as you are not coming back, I count this as a moral victory ;) ;) ;) Just kidding!

Why not trying thinking logically instead of just parotting out what you heard?

If you still can not get it, just look at the first three words of the title of this thread.


One of the characteristics of humans is that they are capable of life without sucking the blood of other humans. Foetuses can't do that.

By the way inside you are two perfectly good kidneys, two perfectly good lungs and two perfectly good corneas, all of which can be transplanted into people who have none. Once you have used your body to give life to people who need it, then you can criticise people who refuse to do the same.

Seeing as you responded to the question "You do give blood as often as you medically can, don't you?" with "selfish piece of monkey-sh*t" and "some sanctimonious bullsh*t" we can all assume that you never give blood. So in other words you are quite willing to risk somebody else's life to satisfy your principles but you won't go through any discomfort yourself to satisfy your principles. Just like every other man who opposes abortion. And one last thing, I do not "condone abortion": I think it is none of my business.

Gunslinger, there is a maxim called ignorantia iura neminem excusat, ignorance of the law excuses no-one. Would you apply God's Law in this bracket or do you apply God's Law only to practising Christians? Many people are taught that revenge is sweet and should be exacted. Do 2 wrongs make a right?

You keep saying it's homo sapiens which is right. However, I don't see the reference to it as a person as we have already seen that, not only is it not a person at conception, but it isn't in the zygotic stage either. In the anatomical sense, it starts the first significant steps.

I bet the Geneva Declaration sticks in your craw.

Heartbeat at 3 weeks. What about persons who have passed out as a result of an accident? Do they cease to be a person before they are resuscitated? Regular brainwaves? Are you paying attention at all, 9 weeks lad, 9 weeks.

OK, personhood begins at conception, does it? Well, pull a 2-week old 'child/person' out of the vagina and what kind of 'person' do you have? Does it have instinct, thinking, feelings+emotions (tears etc, fear and recognition of mother), lungs, liver, REM, dreams, learning, communication and a noticeably developing brain? A newborn has these features.

You are not in tow with modern revisionist approaches, Gunslinger.

Determined sex? How about hermaphrodites?

Wrong actions? Wrong according to the law?

Are you saying that most mothers don't understand high school Biology, GS? They do and are more aware of abortion issues than you think.

Your arguments for personhood are lame, GS.

GS, would you pull a foetus out of a dog and give it to your nephew/niece as a puppy? Leads/leashes are for puppies and not foetuses. Have you bought any prams/strollers for your embryo 'person?'.

If an embryo is a person, would a spermcell also be a person? If that's the case, then I'm afraid I'm a mass-murderer!

:O

Of course :) An eggcell is a person, heck a one-molecular cell is a person. What am I saying: an atom, a neutron is a person! All blessed by the holy spirit of god almighty in the gloria of halleluyah! Let's embrace all sperm cells and all eggcells and all atoms and neutrons and let them join in our neverending celebration of the god almighty! Halleluyah, kumbayah and all the rest! Amen!

Ps: and while we're not looking, the priest touches the 8 year old choirboys!

>^..^<

M-G (sermon spermon)

youtube.com/watch?v=Snu7Z93UDDI, a nice little account from this Irishman. Personhood is again far from clear for the reasons he states.

youtube.com/watch?v=RLTTdjz8ft0, this sums it up that you come up short, GS. A beautiful synopsis of the salient points and really pounds you into the ground at 3.10 onwards.

Happy Conception Day, chump ;) ;)

youtube.com/watch?v=GXSx9iFKHrc&feature=related, I've found you at last, GS. Is it really you? Nothing but slanderous and no attempt at debunking/a refutation. A layman fool.

ariarmstrong.com/2009/07/personhood-returns-for-2010.html, herein lies the crux of the matter. It kills the arguments of pro-lifers.

GS, a potential person is not a person so murder doesn't come into play. I agree fully that we should guide the zygote through to natural birth but you don't meet the definition of person, sorry.

You are stamping your feet but what you really need to do is to get the law changed so that potential persons are covered. Otherwise, abortion will continue unabated. This is the biological process, through different phases to birth and we need to facilitate this as best we can. Our biggest problem is with definitions. Abortion is not murder but it is unwarranted killing in many cases. We must protect against this so that many potential babies aren't lost.

However, rape was never meant to be. Please point me to ANY source which says that woman should be raped. Maybe radical Islam but I'm not sure.

youtube.com/watch?v=TkjqvIzTbCQ, here's evidence of loose definitional use designed to sensationalise as you are doing, GS. Meat is murder.

The Smiths were an immense group but animals are not people and thus cannot be murdered. However, many still need protection in my eyes. I am for animal rights but we need to make sure that we meet the definitions.

ectopic pregnancy is life threatening, should the 14 year old girl go thru with abortion
or should she accept and listen to princple?

Im not disagreeing with you that abortion is definately risky, but as shelley pointed out
alot safer now then it was back 50-60 years ago when women went into a trailor in
the back of someones house in the country with no clean/steralized equipment ..

the only difference from then to today, now pregnancy is accepted, but your still
shunned by the church for having a child out of wedlock..
I think if they are going to be so political about it, at least make changes in the church
that work with mothers who are single, give them a choice, their voices are heard against
abortion, but where is the help for those single mothers who decided to keep their children?

I would love to see how this child is treated by her neighbors and local parish.
especially being strictly catholic
Again, like I said, I believe the spiritual intervention should be there for the support
needed to help whether they made a choice to adopt or keep or abort.

and I am not saying I am against the church in any way shape or form
thats not whats implied, only that this issue does have pros and cons and
sometimes either isnt the answer. least not for everyone.

personal experience for starters.. from another lifetime, long ago and far away. a windswept youth I am probably quite lucky to have survived.


Ectopic pregnancy does not result in a child, hello.

She should listen to her heart.

The doctor is duty bound to hold the 'utmost respect for human life'. It appears self evident that abortion isn't that as human DNA is human life, although it hasn't blossomed into a person from the blueprint just yet. No lawyer could really say that he has met that standard.

The only possible reason for many doctors not having had their licences revoked (according to taking the Hippocratic Oath) is that they have given due consideration to the rights of the mother. Sorry, GS, what you wrote on this point was utter chauvinistic garbage. How do her rights "end" when the zygote's begins? Please explain as this is an irrational and downright insulting position to take against a rape victim.

GS, let me tell you sth. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (UNCRC) expressly states 'any human being under the age of 18' as a child. Grinning from ear to ear yet? Get this, you decided to stay with the pirates and terrorists by not ratifying it, LOL. Hahahahaha (I meant Somalia, gotta love those Mogadishans). Even Saudi Arabia, those Wahhabists, have signed it along with 192 other nations :) Stop spewing your verbal diarrhoea about rights when you won't even ratify an international treaty out of the interests of comity. America is the most advanced I heard, LOL. You are a joke, fella!

Would you accept that DNA isn't the complete blueprint, GS? Look at fingerprints, they are not determined according to DNA at conception. You just hand pick the physical traits which suit your agenda. What about twins, one person or two? You keep avoiding neocortical development as being at 25 weeks. It's a fact.

The crux of the matter is that of definitions. There needs to be sth inserted into the law to connect abortion with murder. '1.The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice'. This is the US position. Human, that's a start for you. Abortion is lawful in the States. Some work to do there, buddy :) A critical examination needs to be made of all material factors but the preference, in standard abortion cases, should be that the unborn child should be allowed to come to fruition and also the encouraging of a responsible approach on the part of women to get a pregnancy check if they are in any doubt. The man should pay for this if they had unprotected sex ;) ;) ;) ;)

Rape is a different ballgame entirely.

OH, religioustolerance.org/transsexu3.htm, this is relevant to this thread and the one on homosexuality.

'Commenting on the lives of transsexuals, Prof. Harley said:

"It's a very tough condition. These people are often on the margins of society, are ostracised, poor, unemployed. It's not something you would want to choose yet still some people think it's a choice when it's more likely transsexuals are born like that." 6'

Gays don't want to choose to be that way. My friend was from a conservative background and it took him YEARS to tell his parents. They never twigged. He had no gay influences around him and wasn't exposed to any of the behavioural aspects that many gays are.

Anyway, your DNA at conception seems to fall a little short. Most people would automactically assume that fingerprints would be part of that DNA. Just look at forensics, there is an inextricable correlation. Why, then, is it not there at conception?