14 year old rape victim from Warsaw denied abortion!

The ones that I find the scariest are the extreme pro-lifers who kill doctors.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

They try to justifies murder by saying that they are saving all these unborn children.
They are sick people and really do need psychiatric help.
I am not saying that anyone writting here would go to these extremes but unfortunately it does happen.

Personally, I think we are far too judgmental on these issues. I don't believe I have the right to tell a 14 year old rape victim what she can or cannot do. I would make a recommendation that she goes for therapy and that her, along with her adult family, make the choice that is best for her.

We need to extend the Private International Family Law notion of 'the welfare of the child is paramount' to this case. The critical question is, 'who makes the ultimate decision?'. I remember studying the caselaw about a decade ago. It very much encompasses religion as a material concern. The courts are duty bound to take it into account to whatever extent they deem necessary.

However, from a working knowledge of the said caselaw, I can safely say that it isn't the overriding factor in the great majority of cases. Of course, they don't want to tread on any toes.

Trauma is hugely relevant as sledz made clear. SeanBM and sledz are also right to mention that you cannot accost people. Believe me, there was a phenomenon where Polish women went, I think to Belgium, to get an abortion. It is legal there but, upon their return to Poland, they were pelted with all sorts as the mohair berets were tipped off.

Gunslinger, maybe you should actualise my proposed invention of 'the condom fitting room'. You know, you try on clothes, why not try on condoms to see if they fit? ;) ;) ;) ;)

Not really. Considering that it is a living human child, and worthy of protection regardless of what Satanic "laws" are passed in whatever country.


A baby has normal brain waves between 6 and 8 weeks from conception. How do YOU know it wasn't thinking anything? All a baby in the womb knows is that it is warm and safe. A newborn baby is certainly not capable of intelligible communication, so are you going to tell me that infanticide of a post-natal baby is OK because it cannot talk or show signs of intelligence beyond that of an animal?

Come to think of it, I have no discernable memories further back than age 5,...I guess someone could have taken a giant metal instrument,...cut me to pieces with it,...and sucked me out of my bed with a vacuum cleaner,...and no moral transgress would have taken place.

Or should we use the "viability" argument? A child cannot survive without help from parents until probably 7 years old (guessing here, it would differ depending on the child) so I guess anyone who is proven to not be able to survive without outside help, is ripe for killing. Which would include you.


Do I need to have been a Jew, or hosted Jews in my house, to say it is wrong to murder a Jew? The simple fact you condone abortion tells me exactly what kind of selfish piece of monkey-sh*t that you are, so I don't want to hear some sanctimonious bullsh*t from you about "your" requirements for someone to have a right to speak the truth. You sure do have a mighty high horse for someone who advocates the killing of children inside their mothers. You DO nothing, you stand for nothing, you ARE nothing. I lump people like you in the "Sh*t" bin, along with all the other pedophiles, rapists, and murderers. Your opinion is sh*t to me. Like if a child-molester came up to me and started telling me I shouldn't say pedophiles should be killed, I not only would not give a sh*t what he had to say,...but all my energies would be preoccupied in NOT beating him to death where he stood.

Gunslinger, chimpanzee's are highly intelligent animals and also have an acute sense of danger yet we can't murder them. They feel and are one of God's creatures. How can we murder a baby when the woman invariably doesn't have malice aforethought? The foetus doesn't have a sense of danger as it is in the mother's womb and can't see any danger.

As a Christian, you should value God's creatures, true?

Seanus, honestly man, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say?

It is precisely BECAUSE I value God's creatures,...and very especially humans, whom He made in His image, that I am here "debating" with a bunch of selfish goons from hell, on an internet forum no less.

Did you know, Seanus, that Hitler himself stated that one of the main reasons for gassing the Jews, was that there was less suffering involved than via other means? He just wanted "rid of a problem", he believed they were not human. Surely there is much darkness surrounding the whole abortion debate, but the facts are there for those who care to read up on it. Many women don't even know they were killing their own child, and after many years of emotional torture, come to terms with that fact. There are far too many variables to lay generalizations about on women who have abortions (a lot of it has to do with irresponsible and cowardly "fathers") but people in general who speak in favor of abortion, are selfish cowardly abominable pieces of sh*t, and as stated, their worthless opinions go in the sh*t-dumpster, where they belong. Over 50 million of America's children cut apart and thrown away like trash,...and watch how many of these selfish vermin swarm onto a single rape case to tout abortion as the savior of the afflicted. Spare me.

In the eyes of God, killing an innocent human being (and who is more innocent than a baby?) is murder, regardless of whether the emotion of "hate" is present. I am not at all interested in Scots Law, or any other law, only God's Law. Seanus I hold nothing against you, but don't expect me to change my views when I know the real truth. I cannot.

you have already made your mind up about other people and their opinions. expressing yourself the way you do about other people's thoughts and opinions is not debate.

you are not "debating with a bunch of selfish goons from hell", but with a random cross-section of Internet users, who may or may not share a general opinion.

it is always wise to at least consider the thoughts of others.

The real truth is that many legislators from around the world have ruled it to be legal and we should try and at least hear them out to see where they are coming from. I reiterate, I am far from being a staunch advocate of abortion and, in fact, condemn slackness which causes the whole dilemma of 'to abort or not to abort' to be brought about.

My wife, God Bless her, put me to the test yesterday. She asked me to imagine I was a pro-lifer and that she'd introduce twists and turns so that I'd have to react accordingly. It took the form of a doctor's consultation. Wow, she threw in some real tricky posers which would have stumped most doctors. She played the part well, tempering emotional 'maternal' concerns with rational practicality and 'state of knowledge' issues. You need to be aware of how divisive the issue is. Medical opinion is very split on key aspects of it.

I'm a humanitarian guy who protests stances against the Palestinians and any other oppressed peoples. I would also like to see conceived babies emerge as well-nourished, healthy ones. However, we musn't let that blight our judgements.

Gunslinger, I want you to address these issues:

1) Do you really think that most women have malice aforethought when making the decision to abort?

2) Is it fair and natural to the kid to allow the situation to arise where they must ask their adopted parents who their real parents are? Is it fair to keep that as a secret from them? How would you like to hear that you were a bast*rd child not born out of wedlock and love (as God would have it) but out of a heinous crime such as rape? Depending on the sensitivity of the child, that could lead to infinite torment and a collapse of their identity. After all, the purpose of life is a life of purpose. I don't know about you but part of that purpose involves a rich family life with parents who wanted me and still want me. Their love and support is invaluable and priceless to me. What sentimental feelings has that child born of rape? Does quality of life have no meaning to you?

3) Also, check out suicide.org/rape-victims-prone-to-suicide.html. It says that 33% of rape victims are prone to suicide so that's a further danger in and of itself. Wouldn't you want to drop the burden by aborting? The kid will always serve as a harsh reminder by being carried around in her belly.

Let me address your point as to the kid being innocent. By all accounts, it is. Nobody could deny that. However, what legal status does that kid have? Another issue, foetal sentience. What awareness does it have of termination?

'Ann Furedi, director of the Birth Control Trust, is more concerned about the psychological impact that this kind of speculation could have on women: 89 per cent of aborted foetuses are less than 12 weeks old, only 1.2 per cent of abortions are carried out when the mother is above 20 weeks pregnant, usually because of foetal abnormality', taken from a brilliant article, timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=102525&sectioncode=26

With reference to the paragraph above, 89% is a high number indeed. I surmise that the number of aborted foetuses for raped women would be even higher, between 95-100%. Consider that many women aren't aware that a stray sperm slipped out and don't take action immediately, instead preferring to leave it for over 3 months. We can accept 12 weeks as the critical juncture, right? Raped women with a feeling that the rapist may have ejaculated inside her would want restitution as soon as possible, wouldn't you say? There is an available option to remove the sperm but the woman has, I think, 72 hours in which to get it. On this point, I'm not sure on the timing but logic would tell her to seek it out ASAP. This is not like an AIDS test where you should wait around half a year to go and get tested.

By the way, what credentials do you have in medical circles? Me? None. I studied medical ethics with legal repercussions as part of my undergrad which raised my awareness but I'd be blown away by specialists. Isn't it odd that, in reference to the link 2 paras above, NOT ONE of the pro-life lobby had any meaningful medical expertise?? Doesn't inspire much confidence!

independent.co.uk/news/foetuses-can-feel-pain-at-six-weeks-1359581.html

Gunslinger, I prefer to get to the heart of the matter. Sth like a French judge in the inquisitorial procedure. I have no interest in 'being right' but to reach some consensus. I like The Independent as a paper but almost all press is guilty of overassertion. Just look at the heading. Attenion grabbing? Yes. Accurate? No. Some official sources say 13 weeks, others say into the 10th week. The compromise, da da, 12 weeks. NOT 6 weeks.

In conclusion (wreszcie), I have outlined just a few more ramifications and implications. I hope that you address them as, unlike you stated, I can entertain your opinions and contentions. Bear in mind that medical science does err and is spurred on by agenda serving and ethical concerns of sensitive disclosure.

We both have truths, are mine the same as yours? ;) ;) ;)

Legislators are known scumbags almost universally. If you know the facts about abortion, just how very human the child is, how hellish and abominable the act of abortion is (I dare you, go see some videos of an abortion,...I won't even watch those), and the fact that "rape and incest" cases constitute less than 1% of the 4000-a-day (which I also oppose obviously) abortions done in America alone,...then no,...I do not care to hear what some fat, overpaid, pompous piece of rat filth legislator has to say in favor of it.


Well good then. I also oppose the oppression of Palestinians. I also oppose the Palestinian view that they "own" the land (I mean as a whole, not those who are deed holders), and its undeniable that Palestinians want all of Israel to be theirs. The whole Israel and Philistia (Palestine) thing has been going on for millenia, Israel, oppressive as it is, is I think far less oppressive and murderous than would be the Palestinians if they had the upper hand. Not so much because of ethnic reasons,...but because Palestine is muslim. Islam is the bastard religion of a pedophile murder, and it shows in the conduct of its people all across the world. But I digress... :)


Absolutely not. I would say virtually none of them have malice aforethought. I know this from experiences in anti-abortion field.


Haha! Seanus, I love you man. Because I can tell you have actually put some thought into this, ie you actually do care. And I love that you think that I have not thought about such things before.

Surely the thought of a child growing up knowing he or she was the product of rape is a terrible thing, to say the least. My words could not do justice the all the pain involved in such a situation. But I know of so many people, who God bless them they would adopt a child with any disabilities, and with any background, and have, and continue to. Why? Because they are Christian, and they understand that real and deep love comes from God, and is in spite of all the dirt, filth, and pain that surrounds us as fallen people,...and especially in cases such as this. Real Christian people know and understand God, the fact the God the Father sent His only Son Jesus to die for our filthy disgusting sins, and to cleanse us thereof,...shows truly, that God loves, even who we think is most un-loveable.

"Sing to God, sing praise to his name,
extol him who rides on the clouds -
his name is the LORD-
and rejoice before him.

A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
is God in his holy dwelling.

God sets the lonely in families,
he leads forth the prisoners with singing;
but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land." Psalm 68:4-6


Yes, rape victims are more prone to suicide. That is a separate issue entirely from abortion.

Here are statistics compiled. Of approximately 150,000 completed rapes per year (obviously something like this fluctuates, but not so extremely) a very very liberal estimate of 500 of them will result in pregnancy. This means that a woman who is raped (regardless of whether this be statutory, assault, or other) has a 0.33% chance of becoming pregnant. And of that extremely liberal estimation, 75-85% of the mothers choose to have the child. Hmmm,...do you think that MAYBE the abortion Industry is USING poor rape victims to spread their murderous social plague?

physiciansforlife.org/content/view/492/26/

Look into it. Your speculation on the issue is meaningless and emotion driven.


In the event of a nuclear attack, victims in the hypocenter of the warhead strike zones feel nothing. They are merely vaporized. Awareness at time of death is not a constituent of what makes murder wrong. In the future, please do not use such bogus premises.


Abortion has severe psychological impact on the would-be mother, regardless of whether she was the victim of rape/incest (extremely rare) or otherwise.

What Ann Furedi is "concerned" about, is this sort of real information going mainstream,...putting her out of a job,...and inciting the wrath of the people against her for the murder she profits from. What a filthy, pestilential, swine of a woman. And my my, she is married to the leader of the Communist Party in Britain. Frank Furedi is a Hungarian Jew. Nothing against Jews as a race, and I know plenty good ones,...but damn if they aren't ALWAYS at the forefront of everything communistic and murderous. I see this not only in positions of abortion "leadership" CONTINUOUSLY,...but also universally among smaller activist groups.


Wrong. Here is an article that goes into that, and much deeper. It lets the mothers speak also. MOST women who are the victims of rape, choose to have their child. Remember, that child is part of them, probably looks a lot like them etc.

afterabortion.org/rape.html


I would call you a dirty rotten liar, but I know you just were ignorant.

aaplog.org
physiciansforlife.org/content/view/61/30/

And did you ever hear of Ron Paul?

This is just off the top of my head. The pro-life "lobby" is CHOCK-FULL of experts in the medical field, most specifically those involved in Ob/Gyn areas.


I am not of the persuasion that truth is relative. If that were true then there would BE no truth. No. Truth is absolute, rock-solid, cannot be moved, harder than diamond, far surpassing all physical and spiritual barriers and attacks. The winds of Time cannot change it, nor can the schemes of false and designing men alter it. It stands.

I've been asked to intervene here :) So here I am... Just let me ask you: should the "product" (let's just call it that way) of a sexual assault not be aborted and grow out to be a full-fledged child and be adopted, what would those adoptive parent say to the kid when it reaches the age in which it starts asking questions like: "I don't look like you, guys. Are you my parents?" For sure these questions will arise. What should those parents say? If they don't tell the truth, they would lie and that wouldn't be very Christian now, would it? Will they say: "no, we adopted you from some bimbo that got raped"? Or even if they don't mention the rape-thing, what will they do if it wants to look for it's natural parents - mother AND father, even though the father is a rapist? Inevitably the kid will start to doubt itself, after all, it's the product of a rape; you can't prevent that, no matter with how much love you surround a child, and I am sure foster-parents will do that. Yeah, God loves ya, but in times of deep personaly turnmoil, that doesn't really help - or maybe it does, it depends a bit on the person. But I just think you can't punish a woman for nine more months after she's been raped.

I'm sorry, but I still think it's the woman's responsibility as after all, it's her body and she will have the last word on this. I have to admit though that I don't condone an abortion when it goes like: "oh gee, I'm pregnant, well, I can't use that now because I'm going on vacation in 3 months". But even though, this line of thinking is disposable, it's still her own decision and I think everybody should respect the decision. We may think of it what we want, but what we think basically is irrelevant.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens ça va dispute c'est futile)

Doctors?? The mission of a doctor is to save human life. Those are human beasts. I could ignore opinion of average person from the street duo to their ignorance of the subject. But such people are well educated and they murder with premeditation. All this abortion lobby is totally money orientated. All their non-scientific lousy philosophy is used just to justify this dirty business. They are no different than National Socialist who made soaps out of human skin.

I don't advocate killing them because in wider perspective this is bad political tactic, fruitless. However this is good if they are afraid of deserved punishment. Old Polish saying state "Nosił wilk razy kilka, ponieśli i wilka". This is easy to kill and it works in both directions.

Pro-abortion lobby could be considered more honest if they would not make such big cash out of this horrific proceeder.

Super Express reports that 14-year-old Agnieszka Porawska has given birth to a baby conceived by a rapist but loves the child dearly and plans to raise it herself.

se.pl/archiwum/?q=Urodzi%C5%82%C4%85m+dziecko+gwa%C5%82ciciela&x=12&y=13

Gunslinger, let's continue this on a point-by-point basis.

1) I agree with you that legislators can be clueless and insensitive but that's a matter for society to regulate and all of us have to accept that sb has to represent us and make laws. That doesn't change the fact that they declared it to be legal. This is for society to change through the relevant democratic channels and discussion through the appropriate forums (fora). "How very human the child is"??? Define very human please (it has the human genome of course). You are wrong, it is how very human the unborn child (foetus) not even will be but may be (miscarriages, sorry, it was you who introduced stats against your own case). Let's say 'will likely be'. In the earliest formative stages, zygote-embryo, you are wrong. However, I also accept that it MUST undergo this formative stage to become as we are so that's where I compromise. The problem for anti-abortionists is in seeing that. I know that if sb killed my bro's young baby or my wife's bro's young baby in front of my eyes (because they are tangible and have taken their first breath is the argument of many), I'd see that as infanticide and would be furious. As long as anti-abortionists can see what I'm saying here, I'll be happy. Still, Gunslinger, please don't make inferential leaps and be careful of your definitions/terminology. Things like this hinge on words.

2) You are confusing the militant wing of Hamas with normal, everyday Palestinians who are not aggressive by nature. Anyway, kids should be well-nourished beings.

3) They don't have malice aforethought, right. Therefore, it doesn't fit the definition of murder as you have claimed that abortion is. Wanna try and meet the definition of infanticide then? This is definitional stuff and concerns the nature of crimes. I'll give you the legal definitions as this is my specialism from uni.

4) First off, I don't assume either way if you have considered that point or not. I don't 'think' that at all as I don't know you. You are just a forum user like I at this time. Gunslinger, please don't turn it on its head. I am well aware of the love and support that many adoptive parents provide. That's in no way in question. However, there is no substitute for real parents, right? You didn't address my questions directly at all. Wow, you could be a legislator ;) ;) ;) God gives us all love, yes!

5) Ridiculous, Gunslinger! Suicidal thoughts are the corollary of being raped for many. Rape is the proximate cause and abortion is then restitution. What is a "completed rape"? Stallard VS HMA (unknown citation, sorry) is the seminal case regulating rape in Scotland. It is the forcible penile penetration of the woman's vagina without her consent, loosely but effectively. Rape is rape, what is an uncompleted rape? You mean that the man ejaculated, right? I'm assuming so, so let me address your point. If that was the choice made, then fine. The fact that it was made by the mother, even better!!! "Murderous social plague"? You have just admitted above that it isn't murder, albeit tacitly. Why on earth are you discussing numbers when I am discussing principle? Also, you are just proving that it isn't a major issue anyway in incidence terms. I don't want to second guess what the industry thinks. Emotion driven as opposed to robot driven? I'm a human, are you? Are the two, reason and emotion, mutually incompatible? According to you, I don't even feel for the woman anyway but am somehow selfish in addressing practicalities.

6) A guy who is about to be murdered KNOWS he is going to be so, feels fear and has a very acute perception of his existence at that moment. Your ignorance led you, in one dismissive stroke, to wipe out the importance of foetal sentience. Sentience is a core issue and there is a fantastic Star Trek episode where Picard defends Data against the deconstruction wishes of Bruce Maddox, a scientist who wishes to examine him for being only a machine. Data can speak and has broad awareness of implications. Does a foetus? Can a foetus talk? I know that it probably will but it still doesn't have sentient status like a zygote and embryo.

7) Easy answer for me. I don't give a toss what she is concerned about, her stats matter. 89% abort within 12 weeks according to those stats. The remaining ones, well, abortion is not black&white so, without further knowledge of the specifics of those cases, I care not to pass judgement.

8) OK, I'm prepared to admit that my stats were way too high (I only surmised after all) but, based on one source, I am not going to believe that yours are any better. How do I know that those views weren't extracted to serve an agenda? Where is my guarantee? It stands to reason that many women would get an abortion after rape if they are self respecting individuals.

9) I think you were ignorant as I was referring to that link which you likely didn't even read. Hmm, "in reference to the link 2 paras above" is not clear enough for you??? I wasn't talking about the pro-life lobby as a whole.

10) I thought, firstly, that you'd recognise what wink marks meant. Secondly, that it was taken from a play you no doubt know, Jesus Christ Superstar, in the 39 lashes scene.

So, what is "the real truth"?

M-G, let me answer your question. The pro-life lobby have neatly circumvented that problem. They have introduced laws which expressly forbid the adoptive parents from revealing the identity of the kid's real parents within a given time frame. They want to normalise the relationship with the kid at the expense of, da da, the truth. Is that the "real truth", Gunslinger? LOL Seek and you shall find ;0 ;)

Like I said, I could not care less what some useless, self-serving swine with a robe has to say about it. At the point of conception, it is a new person in growing stages. Most women do not even know they are pregnant until 8 weeks after conception, at which point the baby is about 2 inches long, fully recognizable as human. The heartbeat starts at 3 weeks.

You are being dishonest in calling the baby a "will likely be". Wrong. It is an IS. The possibility of miscarriage is completely irrelevent here. Same as would be the case with a post-natal human child, the possibility of SIDS or any other killing agent does not affect the humanity of the child.

The fact you would attempt to use such dishonesty makes me question your intentions. Most women do not know they are pregnant until about 8 weeks. 88% of abortions are committed between 6-12 weeks of pregnancy, with virtually NONE at less than 5 weeks. And like I said,...the heart-beat starts at 3 weeks, regular brain waves at 6-8 weeks. Let's put it this way,...no one has an abortion unless they know there is a person growng inside them. If it's "only a blob of tissue" then why is it called "pregnancy" and not "cancer". So please, in the future, spare me this "what baby?" bullsh*t, OK?


Most of them will not express their true feelings concerning this, but Islam is well-known as a murderous religious entity, the founder of the religion was an outright murderer and pedophile. Palestinians are ok people in general, but like I said, if the situation were reversed,...were it not for the fear of retribution from the rest of the world,...I think the Palestinians would exterminate the Jews systematically just as Hitler did, but perhaps with less "mercy". Judaism espouses the same type of "anyone else is fit for killing" ideals (read the Talmud), but is much more tactful about it, Islam is more honest as to their true nature. Who would I feel more "safe" among, religious Judaics or religious Muslims? The Judaics. They might hate me in their hearts,...but they are far less likely to act on it.


How is it not clear to you yet that I don't care about how the "law" defines murder? Murder is the wrongful intentional killing of a human being. Not malice, anger, hate, or any other emotion need be present. The most proficient killers in history are those who express no emotion in doing so. The whole problem is that it is "legal"! Where the "law" fails to protect innocent little ones, I am forever a sworn enemy of that "law".

Infanticide is murder of an infant. To me that is a small child, whether post- or pre-natal. Science tells me a new human being starts growing AT CONCEPTION.


Please tell me what questions I did not directly address? I tend to go for the intended meaning, rather than to waste time with endless word-ology, which is a waste of both our time.


A completed rape is vaginal penetration. Simple. I thought you would understand that. I never admitted that abortion is not murder,...as a matter of fact, I stated that abortion IS murder, several times, quite clearly, and without stuttering, I also implied it heavily throughout this discourse. And I will do so again: Abortion is MURDER!

I am bringing up numbers that prove that you were WRONG about YOUR numbers. This always has and always will be about principle for me. But don't ever think that I won't bring up statistics to back up what I say, when you continue to speak FOR the women in question, assuming their emotions FOR them! Abortion is NOT restitution! Look into studies done on this subject (do a search, I'm not going to be your homework-monkey here) concerning women's feelings on this subject. The baby is human and worthy of protection regardless of the mother's feelings, same as any other post-natal child, but the fact is that MOST RAPE VICTIMS WHO BECOME PREGNANT BY THE RAPE, CHOOSE TO LET THEIR CHILD LIVE! 75-85% OF THEM!

I have emotions, I am human. But human emotion does not constitute morality. Abortion cheerleaders will constantly harp upon the emotions of the easily-swayed idiotic masses about the "rape and incest" victims, who represent less than 1% of abortions. They do not tell you about the depression, guilt, of abortion,...how the women suffer silently for years and years with it,...not feeling able to tell anyone or talk to anyone. The abortion Industry MAKES BIG CASH OFF OF THIS! They aren't here to "help". If you have ever had any discussion with women who have come to terms with the guilt of abortion,...the pain inside them is profound and certainly very real. But please, you know all about their feelings, so continue to harp on it.

Sentiency is meaningless as it concerns a growing person (not to mention the fact it RAPIDLY loses ground AT LEAST at the point of brain waves, 6-8 weeks). Personhood begins at conception. Who you ARE (at the very LEAST biologically speaking) is determined at conception. Why not make "intelligibility" a constituent of personhood, or how about the ability to survive with NO help outside of themselves,....the ability to keep a steady job,...how big your car is,...your race,...? The thing these all have in common with "sentience" is that NOT ONE OF THEM MEAN SH*T as it concerns what a human person is! I not only wiped out sentience with one dismissive stroke,...but I stamped it into the ground with my boot and **** all over it.


And I already stated, Science AND GOD (fancy that) say that personhood begins AT CONCEPTION. So 89% of abortions are committed between 6-12 weeks. So what? Like if someone told me "Well, did you know that MOST infanticides occur before the child is even 2 weeks old?" WHO CARES!


No. Your stats were not "too high", they were non-existant. Mine are real and based in fact, and I presented them.

Yes, surely we pro-lifers are a self-serving lot. We uphold children, financially, emotionally, and in all other ways,...while the "choicers" either abort for convenience or money, and abortion industry gets rich off of their murders. Your "arguments" are irrational and foolish.


Nice. Here you show your true colors. This was and always WILL BE about YOUR FEELINGS concerning this subject! And it was so very touching, heart-warming even, that YOU HAVE CALLED EVERY VICTIM OF RAPE WHO CHOSE LIFE, LESS OF A WOMAN FOR IT!

You aren't and never WILL BE the victim of rape or pregnancy, yet you place your own putrid "feelings" in place of THEIRS? How dare you!


I know and consort with other anti-abortion people regularly, to say that a large portion of them are medical personnel (either nurses, or doctors) would be an understatement. Oh, you weren't talking about "the pro-life lobby as a whole"? Oh sorry mate my bad, I guess you were only talking about the part of them that is NOT medically accredited. How transparent and self-serving of you. And no I didn't read your link, abortionists are murderers and liars. They have and continue to lie about anything, so long as what they actually DO remains largely unknown to the public. And you have proven in this thread that YOU are willing to use dishonesty to "present" your case also.


No, I didn't recognize it. I have no need of trivialized and irreverent representations of Jesus Christ.


Nice one. You favor cutting the child to pieces with a sharp instrument, and then sucking the pieces out with a vacuum,...yet the "pro-life" lobby attempts to introduce laws (that are not lies or deceptions) which protect the childs mental well-being, and you look upon that scornfully? All this time you have been parading as though you were in favor of the child's feelings? Smiling and holding flowers out, with a bloody knife behind your back. Do me a favor; don't keep ****ing down my back and tell me it's raining.

I'm done with you. You have proven to be exactly the selfish sort of vermin that is prevalent among the Free World's "menfolk".

1) Yes but I am talking about rape victims here, not standard abortions and that's where you are going wrong. More to the point, the girl is 14 and the consensus is that a girl has to be 16 or older to give informed consent to medical procedures. In some states like Illinois (ask the member, sledz), it's 18. I have already said above that it is going through the necessary stages towards becoming a tangible person like you or I so you are arguing with a ghost on that one.

2) There are other threads for discussing this conflict

3) So you are reduced to describing abortion as wrong and not murder. Tell me, if you are so convinced that those who conduct abortions should face the coals of hell and severe punishment, what is your answer to the fact that almost every legislator regards murder as one of the most heinous crimes (genocide is worse) known to man but that many countries have legalised abortion? How can that be?

4) "I don't know about you but part of that purpose involves a rich family life with parents who wanted me and still want me. Their love and support is invaluable and priceless to me. What sentimental feelings has that child born of rape? Does quality of life have no meaning to you?". This is what I asked you to comment on. A natural family life without the scourge of being a child spawned of rape hanging over you like a dark clowd.

5) Abortion is murder? Well, prima facie, and according to the definition you pick, it could be. That's why there is a need for consistency. As I said before, malice aforethought is not in the mind of the woman in most cases and you admitted that. Also, there is sufficient flexibility to say that, if the child is likely to have subsequent mental health problems, then that may be enough to get an abortion. Again, back to quality of life but I see your point that we can't pick and choose. We have retarded children and they have as much right to live as others. What would you say if sb went mad and went on a wild campaign to create millions of test tube babies? Would you accept the growth in population?

6) You are repeating yourself. You clearly didn't read my answer where I said that women making that choice is absolutely fine. If they can live with the various consequences then that's their call. Abortion IS restitution as you return it to the position that existed before the rape occurred, i.e the position that should be. A woman devoid of that painful memory. Forgive me if I use my sound logic to conjecture stats as opposed to yours made up by people serving agendas and who knows how such views were obtained, if at all.

7) Again, you just need the humane mind to tell you how trauma works. Nobody should profit from this and I'm not impressed with either your deflection in this way or your reference to 'harping on'. We are dealing with a 14-year old girl and she needs a curator bonis and other professional help. We can't understate that.

8) Sentience is very relevant here and you know it. You are gonna enter the nature Vs nurture debate by saying that who you are is determined at conception? Talk about taking a definitive position by only stating half of the argument. A classic pro-lifer, pent up and ready to ram their nonsense down the throats of others at the expense of rational debate. From the tabula rasa, social factors can play a major part, depending on where you were born and were subsequently raised. Let me shoot you down properly by actually exposing the weakness of your blanket statement (rather than assuming victory based on platitudes). I'll raise it as my next point.

9) You say that who we are is determined at conception, right? Our whole self isn't and that's what makes the collective 'us', the ego and the id etc etc. Without plunging into the abyss that is Nature Vs Nurture, I have 2 words for you, MIDLIFE CRISIS. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlife_crisis, some reading for you as you seem to need it. Who we ARE is determined by factors around us and wikipedia covers the main ones. Also, what about those that become schizophrenic through LSD use or other causes? Those that were normal before I mean. Was that written in the genes too or did set&setting decide it? The environment is key here, not genetics (although I agree that drugs merely trigger the onset of schizophrenia in some). See the complications? I'm prepared to delve into them rather than taking black+white positions. I suggest you start doing the same.

10) I told you that 12 weeks was the critical period and I'm not gonna go round in circles with you on it. At conception, LOL. Where is its birth certificate? Oh, that's a legal measure, sorry. OK, you are guilty of speciesism. A zygote cannot do many things that people can and thus is not personhood. We grow and evolve, it's a matter of degree and not some form of robotic coding. You are thinking of pre-personhood and not personhood.

11) You are putting words in my mouth so I suggest you put a sock in yours. For the last time, I am NOT saying that she is less of a woman for it you howling Harry hoof. I said above that her choice is what matters and is of the utmost importance. In PIFL, the welfare of the child is paramount. How can you make that assessment when the child hasn't even been born yet? That's why it falls back to the woman to decide as an unborn child cannot express a view either way. What "putrid" feelings I ask you? I see the trauma, I see her right to choose, what feelings are you referring to? You clearly don't believe in cleansing and restitution. You are the insincere one for imposing an absolute position which gives rape victims no choice. You are a hypocrite and have just proved it. Do you give the woman a choice or not? I want this answer. If you say yes, that means that you are laying bare the possibility that she will abort and you'll brand her a murderer. If not, then you are denying them a cure for their trauma. You allow them the choice to give birth but not to abort. Wow, that's not a choice from where I'm sitting.

12) Your last para is loose and bears no relation to what I wrote. Just a rant really.

Let me summarise my position, Gunslinger. I am basically anti-abortion (if I were asked to take a side) and don't approve of it because I believe, as a Christian, that life must be allowed to come to fruition. Just as we protect our own in war or against genocide of 'our kind', we must protect that which will be our kind (if all goes well). Therefore, the smooth transition from zygote to embryo to foetus is in our interests so that it becomes a loved child under God. Sometimes, along that road, we encounter death. Just look at the Balkans, the Holocaust or in Rwanda, for example. They nobly fought to preserve their kind but God's Will couldn't preserve life.

Now the clincher. Rape is a special case and you can't deny that. Just look at all the reasons I have given above and consider that she is only 14. Now I ask the most important question which you skipped before. What if your wife or partner told you, upon consummation of marriage, that her main purpose is to have a baby by you. You honour your vows and all goes swimmingly well until, boom, she is raped brutally and this shakes her up very badly. She desperately wants an abortion and prays that she can have a baby by you in the future. Her dream is still alive. What would you do? Spout your spiel or keep her hope alive by honouring her wishes and guiding her through it as an empathetic husband?

Abortion is the killing of a growing child in its mother, so the "how" the baby got there is immaterial as to the moral ramifications of abortion.


Yes, and I do not care to.

Its sure easy to have someone killed who you never have to even look at, isn't it now? Politicians and lawmakers are in general very biased and bent on steering society to their own Godless, empty version of a morality-free existence. Of course they agree that to murder a person we all can see is "wrong",...if they didn't they would be publicly ostracised. What say you to the fact that before 1973, abortion was illegal in the US?

Those emotional waves you are riding so high on, pertain (perhaps in lesser degree) to any illegitimate child. Maybe we should just go about killing all the unhappy children in the world. That will make the world a happy place, and you won't have to ever "worry" about anyone else's feelings ever again. Won't that be wonderful, you dear bleeding heart?

Personal unhappiness does not constitute the right to kill someone. This would go in the filing cabinet under D for "Duh".


We now have evil "doctors" who will "inform" women as to POSSIBLE complications and or/abnormalities in their growing child,...and advise abortion. Downs Syndrone is one example. I know of several cases personally of such "doctors" advising such, the mother rejected it, and the baby is born healthy. Man wants to play God, and that never ends well. If it hadn't been for Courtney Love's violent protection of her baby from such doctors; Frances Bean Cobain would have been butchered alive inside her mother, under the premise that she would be abnormal due to Courtney's on/off drug addictions.

Millions of test-tube babies? What would you say if there was a giant tarantula that was 15 stories high and had laser-beam eyes, destroying the city of Los Angeles! Let's be more ridiculous, please? But to answer your retarded question, I would say not to kill a single one of the test-tube babies, but to stop the mad biologist.

No, it is NOT restitution. A woman who is raped without a child then is "devoid of that painful memory"? Wow. Shows just how ZERO you know about the psychological effects of abortion OR rape.

And you still provided no "stats" because like I said they don't exist and you are full of sh*t. My stats are not made up. Please explain how you have arrived at this brilliant conclusion, Holmes?


Oh please tell me more, Mr. Humanitarian of the Year aka "self-respecting women of rape get abortions". You don't know sh*t, and to top it off, you judge women who choose to let their baby live to be lesser women for it.

We are dealing with a 14 year old. And also a "Few Week old". Both are victims of trauma and need love, care, and protection. Got it?

You call this rational debate? You continue to ignore the FACTS, while espousing your own baseless sh*t opinions and claim to be speaking for pregnant rape victims!

No, sentience is NOT relevant here. As far as genetic make-up, yes, who you are is determined at the point of conception. Science upholds this as absolute truth. People can change, for the better or for the worse, based on many different factors, throughout their entire lives. But as a PERSON, they STARTED at conception.


Again you bring up something completely irrelevent to this discussion. I'll say it again, with Science having my back (facts, like I said) genetic make-up, to include ALL the code of the NEW HUMAN PERSON is DETERMINED AT CONCEPTION! The philosophical side of "who we are" has NO BEARING ON THIS WHATSOEVER! But nice diversion, it may have even worked on someone more dull.

And why is 12 weeks the "critical period"? What EXACTLY about "12 weeks" makes a person a person instead of a "zygote"? I can't wait to hear this answer,...that is IF you dare to even answer it.

Where is a child birth certificate 1 week before birth? What about children born in places or under circumstances where they never GOT a birth certificate? Are you really so fresh out of ideas, and have become so desperate? A cripple, a small child, or a mentally handicapped person cannot do many things that "people" can do. Once again you come around to defining whether someone is human or not by what actions or thoughts they are capable of. I know a fine chap named "Hitler" who thought in much the same way. Hmm.

So to kill the child is "cleansing"? Thank God that 75-85% of rape victims don't think the way you do (and the other 15-25% feel more dirty because of it), but you are their spokesperson, so I guess it doesn't matter what they think after all.

Are you still so dull? Abortion of a living human PERSON is MURDER REGARDLESS OF THE MEANS BY WHICH THAT PERSON WAS CREATED! The woman needs healing for her trauma, ABORTION IS ONLY MORE TRAUMA FOR HER! Abortion = deeply hurtful, possibly deadly for mommy, and almost always deadly for baby.


Well I am glad to hear you are a Christian, and that you are "mostly" pro-life. But I draw the battle lines with no quarter given at abortion, as I'm sure you can see. Just because we "encounter death" does not mean we should create death, and certainly not against a completely innocent one.

With all I have I would try to convince her to let the child live,...possibly even raise it as our own (this would take much consideration) but upon receiving all the facts of life,...if she still chose to abort the child, I could not continue with her. If later she regretted and repented, I would receive her back,...but not before. What you have essentially asked me is "Will you abandon your principles handed to you by God, for the affections or good graces of a woman" and the answer to that question will always and invariably, God help me, be a resounding "No". But thankfully the chances of this (God forbid it) happening are not only virtually non-existant, but the chances of her wanting death for the child are even less than that.

1) I disagree. It got there through a heinous crime and we can't accept that. Tell me, are you a Catholic Christian? If so, in a standard abortion case, can you forgive the woman for having an abortion and then confessing her logic to a priest? What function does penance/repentance serve in your eyes?

Here, I've just unearthed this, "It is legitimate for the church to have its dogmas, but these dogmas must not be imposed on society as a whole," he added. From edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/, a very interesting read.

The church is but one player, Gunslinger. I could wrangle with my conscience over the issue but I'm glad that he thinks likewise as a devoted Christian. There are many vested interests in abortion and we need to take a rounded and balanced position.

2) It is easier for most to kill without seeing the victim, I agree with you on that. That doesn't make it right but I'm not talking about standard abortion now but abortion for a 14-year old rape victim. A kid if you will. 1973? I'd say that there was a thorough review of the issue and that conventional wisdom changed. Hardly rocket science! You'd open Pandora's Box if you gave all states the power to regulate fully. Californian legislators must have had problems. They disagreed with abortion but agree with it at the same time. Crazy!!

3) Can't you get it through your head the importance of the nuclear family and for a wanted child to be conceived through wedlock? That's normal. Are you against gay marriages btw? That's perceived as a sin, as is sodomy. She didn't plan that child so why should she be forced to bear and raise it? Why should she suffer from being invaded? Iraq has and multiple deaths have resulted from the stirring of the hornet's nest. Proud of that are you? Clown! Again, no malice aforethought and the courts apply legal rules and not God's Law. Let the church condemn and punish as they see fit in accordance with their vision but let the law serves its function/purpose.

4) I can't control what those doctors do so it all boils down to trust that they follow the Hippocrates Oath and Helsinki Principles on ethical conduct. We need trust as humans, wouldn't you agree? Let those doctors be punished accordingly by whatever appropriate standards. Doctors are only human, they can be wrong. My mother often knew what was wrong with her better than her male doctor did. Still, we have entrusted them with responsibilities, one of which is to make the call on abortion. Deal with it!!

5) I threw a hypothetical at you. If we can mass kill through AIDS (Detrick's own baby) then we can mass create through available science. You answered exactly as I thought. You'd allow all manner of social ills and horrible problems to result from the mass swelling of the population rather than avert the problem when you could. It says a lot about you.

6) My wife pointed out my inaccuracy too. I meant to say physical restitution, sorry. Of course she bears the scars emotionally and I'm fed up with you trying to trip me up on this and say otherwise. From here on in, I say unequivocally that we must always have this in mind. Her welfare is paramount. Physically removed like it never happened, no reference to the emotional aspect which we agree on.

7) As I said in the last round of posts, I DO NOT treat her as a lesser woman. You are just an ignorant buffoon who is reading invisible words as I clearly said that I respect her choice. She is not a lesser woman for choosing life. She evaluates the situation and makes a choice thereof. Oh, I'm not going to tell you again. Stop declaring my position as you see it, read what I write in future. Got it? A few weeks old child experiences trauma? What, read their testimony did you? How did you get the pen and paper in there, Sherlock?

8) A person starts at birth in the eyes of many. That's why we have the development of zygote-embryo-foetus building up to that. Define personhood. What are its essential features? If it not sentient, is it a real human? By the accounts of Glannon, sentience begins at 23-24 weeks.

Let's say that he is wrong and that sentience begins at 12 weeks, 89% of foetuses are aborted by then. By 23-24 weeks, virtually all in all likelihood. You cannot underestimate sentience. If an unborn child doesn't have the sensory awareness necessary to be dubbed sentient, then they are not yet a person.

9) Genetic make-up is one half of the debate and you didn't even address nurture there so what's the sense in debating with you?

10) Philosophical, social, environmental and embracing cultural concerns too. What do you mean "is determined" at conception? Nice little language but what are the practical implications of this? That our life is pre-ordained? That we are all in the hands of destiny or fate? That our views will never change because we are programmed through genetic coding? That our intelligence will never develop through travelling and academic endeavour? How about language acquisition, is this another genetic miracle where we automatically speak the language of our parents? The midlife crisis is relevant here. There is "dramatic self doubt". Explain to me how this can be when, according to your developmental curve, we are making constant progress through physiological growth and character formation? When do we fully realise who we are, at conception? LOL That's absurd! Why, when we have known who we are for many years and test ourselves out in many situations, do we suddenly run into self esteem and ego difficulties come 45 or 50?

11) Because many medical practitioners acknowledge 12 weeks as being the crossover to foetus status. There is less scope for saying that it isn't a human at this stage, as opposed to a zygote. As we have seen, though, it isn't classed as sentient. Should we compromise on 18 weeks? This is the time between foetus status and sentience. Again, what is personhood, Gunslinger?

12) Cleansing is important in cases such as dealing with a 14-year old rape victim. try and see the woman's position in all of this. Women will choose as women will choose.

13) Why would it take "much consideration?" Consideration of what? Regretted and repented? Aha, so if I commit murder but, as a good actor, say 'Oh, I'm very sorry' and I just pop off to the church and say a few choice words, that makes it all ok, does it?

My wife has just called you an insensitive pig and that you should crawl back under your stone. You would do that to your own wife, after being RAPED? Wow, you have just demonstrated that it is YOU with the problem.

You are nothing more than a strict liability advocate who doesn't have the computational and analytical ability to see the bigger picture. The whole family dimension just doesn't count in your eyes, the whole Christian institution of marriage and the sanctity of choice either.

You are offensive to moderate Christians. Tell me, on what date did God 'hand' you those principles? Does repenting clear the murderer of murder? Does regret mean that you can forgive them for their aborting action? If so, why can't you forgive all women who show remorse/regret for their abortive deed? Aren't you bordering on selectivism here? What if all those Catholic Poles who got abortions in the UK asked for penance, what then? They can 'murder', then escape, no?

Affections or good graces, love too? Isn't Love divine? Didn't God give us his grace, which is unconditional anyway? We can see much evidence of this in the Bible.

You have abandoned your principles anyway by taking a 'criminal' back, right?

Gunslinger: you sound like a religious wacko from the southern usa. am i right?

Nope. Protestant. Repentance is confessing and fully regretting a sin, a change of heart.


I should care about this why?


No. We need to take the RIGHT position. That being that the baby is a human being and worthy of all the protections afforded a human being. Have you listened to a word I have said? Please don't waste my time like this...I truly have better things to do than waste words on fools.


The fact she was 14 or raped is immaterial to the fact the child is a living human being inside her. And I'm so glad to hear that "wisdom" for you is something that can flit about and change colors depending who makes the "laws". It's so nice to know that Hitler didn't really commit any moral trangress by killing the Jews en masse after all. "Conventional wisdom" had changed.


Of course the family is important. It is the very foundation of functional society.

Yes, I am against "gay marriages". God's Word says homosexuality is an abomination.

She should be forced to bear the child, as it is a human child with rights afforded by God, if not man. But raise it, no. Oh so now it's only "unplanned" children who are ripe for killing then?

I am against the US invasion of Iraq or any other country. The US had been bombing Iraq for years prior to the 2002 invasion, resulting in over 500,000 civilian deaths. Rough estimate.


Only fools trust a doctor who tell them to have an abortion. I could do nothing but persuade them otherwise.


You truly are a snake. "mass kill through AIDS" reference please, what the hell are you talking about? And to create masses of test tube babies you would need masses of women willing to partake of such an abomination. Like I said, love the children born, stop the mad scientist. It's simple really. Again you resort to ridiculous and unrealistic scenarios to try to snake around the real issue, THE PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN BABY!

And "all manner of social ills" what about the fact that there are 50 MILLION children murdered in America alone since 1973!


Of course she will bear scars, for the rest of her life she will. But it has been proven that the abortion due to the rape ADDS ANOTHER AND DEEPER SCAR!!! Oh but don't read anything about the actual STUDY DONE on this very specific subject, because that's not pertinent, is it!

Don't give me this "who, me?" sh*t, you piece of Jell-o. The OBVIOUS AND UNMISTAKEABLE implication is that a woman who DOESN'T get an abortion after a rape, doesn't respect herself. That was your intent and meaning, because this was always about YOUR feelings on the issue. And seeing as the facts are that 75-85% of these victims DO NOT get an abortion,...its nice to know how you look down upon them, after pretending this whole time it was about THEIR feelings.


Listen to me very carefully,...personhood is a human being. A human being's life begins at the point of conception, when HE OR SHE IS CREATED by a sperm and egg joining. It is how human life begins and I suggest that you go back to High School and learn about it again.

Are you honestly retarded? I said that SENTIENCY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERSONHOOD! Look at the DNA if nothing else, and look at the obvious fact it is a growing BABY! "What are its essential features?" Please spare me the dumb act, you're good enough at actually BEING dumb that you don't need to ad lib.


I already threw away sentiency long ago. I know the grief process it complicated,...but you need to at some point recognize that sentiency does not constitute personhood. Hey, there are drugs that put people into comas, maybe we can just go about doing that to people, and then they will no longer be a person and we can do what we will to them!


"Debating" would have to mean that you actually aknowledge themes and questions I have repeated to you over and over and over again. The person's genetic make-up (what makes them a BIOLOGICAL PERSON, and I say spiritual as well) is ALL PRESENT and GROWING at the point of conception. All other things which impact how a person TURNS OUT TO BE, can occur all throught their life, and have no bearing on their personhood at conception.

A new person is like a clean slate (and no, I don't mean a person is a piece of rock) they can input things into their own mind, or other people can, they can acquire emotional and physical scars, self-inflicted or otherwise. All those means nothing as to WHEN THAT PERSON STARTED TO BE A HUMAN, and THAT, Science tells us, begins AT CONCEPTION! And your "midlife crisis" thing only PROVES that our realization of who we are is irrelevent to the fact we are still a person. Otherwise the second someone "doubts" their identity, they are ripe for killing. Why would you bring up something that shoots the legs off your own argument?

I defined personhood several times already. Are you truly this dull, or are you simply making me repeat myself for sport?


Women feel even MORE "dirty" AFTER HAVING AN ABORTION! It dramatically increases their physical and emotional trauma! Read the study done on the subject, which you continue to blatantly disregard, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST PERTINENT PIECE OF RESEARCH REGARDING THIS ISSUE!!! So to hell with your "cleansing".

Surely there are hard issues out there. But do not expect me to wring my limp-wristed hands together and pity a pile of swinish monsters marching for the "right" to continue to murder their own offspring. Where are the tears for all the children who were never born, but cut apart and thrown away like trash? I assure you, the would-be mothers weep for them, and the ones who don't have pent it up so much that they cannot, but please tell me more about their "feelings" oh wise one!

Consideration of whether or not she and I would be ready to take on raising a child in such cisrcumstances. There are plenty of people willing to adopt a baby. Oh wait,...I see,...we should choose to KILL the child, but cannot choose to let someone else adopt it? Please don't go there.

If I felt that she was truly sorry I would welcome her back with open arms,...as God does for all repentant sinners. But it is God she needs forgiveness from, not me. Even after the fact, prior to her (possible) repentance,...I would be reaching out to her in any way I could. Just like God does.

So,...you are a Christian,....and you DON'T understand what forgiveness is? I thought I am supposed to be the insensitive dog here?


Wow. Have you told your wife about your "A self respecting woman would have an abortion" thing? Go tell some women who have given birth to their child conceived by rape, and love the child, see what they think. Mr. Sensitive.

Tell your wife I'm glad that she enjoys reading my material.


Yes, as I stated, without marriage you have a failed and rapidly crumbling society, so in fact I highly esteem marriage. But "Sanctity of choice"? Here's your "sanctity of choice, you swine!

impiousdigest.com/completebody10.jpg

I don't give a rat crap who I am "offensive" to,...if someone finds it offensive that I will not move one inch where it concerns sanctity of LIFE, then that person is someone whose opinion gets lumped in with pedophiles, rapists, and murderers, and if all of them hate me,...then praise God that I am an enemy of His enemies, and forever shall be.

It is God's word, read Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:13-16

Yes, it does. Jesus died to cleanse us of ALL sin, to include murder. Its not up to me to "forgive them", but God, and He says He will, and He does. And umm,...yes that goes for ALL WOMEN who ever repent of abortion. In what way exactly is this unclear to you? I know many women who have repented of abortion,...and I dearly love them. Women in general are unaware that they have actually killed their own child in abortion, but they have extreme guilt,...and it can take decades to come to terms with it, even more so the older generation when the facts of humanity in the unborn child were more cleverly concealed by the abortion lobby.

Do you think God is stupid, and He cannot know the difference between true repentance and false? Even a discerning human person can see through such evil ruses.


Yes, we certainly can see it, it is the main theme and purpose of the Bible.


How exactly did I "abandon" my principles by accepting my woman back after she had repented? Aren't I supposed to be the insensitive one here? I should show Her less love than God Himself?

1) And what does that repentance involve as Protestants don't go to a priest for confession? To what extent is repentance a mitigating factor? It cannot assoilzie/exonerate the 'criminal' of wrongdoing largely as that would lay a dangerous precedent. Everyone would be enlisting on acting courses ;0 ;) Don't get me wrong, forgiveness is divine and everyone (sincere) can be afforded a change of heart but you are treading on eggshells if you are not clear on how to treat the issue. The way I see it is that, as a collective society, we are bound by the laws of the day. You can invoke God's Law but, to my knowledge, there are not Christian courts as there are land courts, district courts and sheriff courts etc etc so forum non conveniens. Like Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and Montesque discussed the Social Contract, we can talk of our Private Contract with God. Call it a bond if you will. This is where we can explain our choice and repent for perceived criminality. Keep it out of the courtroom, though. It's a spiritual matter.

2) Thank you, you have just spoken volumes about yourself. Law is for EVERYONE with few exceptions (the Queen, diplomatic immunity). A British MP from yesteryear (Kenneth Baker I think) found out the hard way that he wasn't above the law. You should care about the views of atheists and agnostics in shaping the law. Are they any less of a human being than you or I? Is their input to the democratic process any less valid? If anything, they are less 'charged' on the issue and that could produce a greater degree of fairness rather than serving agendas as those in the abortion business do. Agreed? My core point is that society is diverse, encompassing a broad sweep of divergent interests. The church is but one factor, albeit a more important one in certain cultures (in welfare concerns etc etc). What you have, Gunslinger, is faith and I can applaud you for that. However, it is only faith and not documented proof beyond any question. The very proof for that contention is religion itself and not only different religions but subsets of the same one, Christianity in our case. Fractious splits! There are laws ensconced in legislation beyond any question and it is these that we have recourse to. Fine, invoke civil disobedience concerns. If they reverse injustice then I am all for it. However, you are more likely to be arrested.

3) I have clearly said, time and again, that I support the natural development of the baby from zygote-embryo-foetus-birth and beyond. I even took the decency to summarise my position and mention "a smooth transition". As a general position, I also said that I am anti-abortion but I'm neither a woman nor a legislator. You remind me of some in the election process, e.g och, Ahmedinejad won so let's have another vote or Brussels telling the Irish that they could vote so long as they said yes. Is that choice? They didn't accept the no vote which was a democratically obtained demonstration of the will of the people. Somebody has to make a decision on abortion and you have struck off legislators and doctors, people regarded as intelligent and competent for the most part, so who should make the choice? The woman so that they have the choice to say only no to abortion? Elaborate please. Your right position is not others right position. There are many vested interests involved, admit it!

4) Hitler got other people to do his bidding. When you hire a contract killer/assassin, who gets hit harder in terms of penalty, the killer or the hirer? The hirer was art and part (Scots Law term), maybe you guys say aided and abetted. He was in on it, so to speak. However, the killer is the one with mens rea and carries out the actus reus. Hitler, of course, committed a crime but I've just put it into perspective. Read the Eichmann case for more on the concomitant principles. Are you gonna further punish the woman by not even offering a choice? Who should be punished and to what degree according to your Moral law of God?

"the baby is a human being" you said. Ok, I've read many definitions and one says person, man, woman or child. Let's look at that. Personhood hasn't been proven yet. Man, no. Woman, no. Child? Well, if it is indeed a child, can it reflect on childhood? Can it trace its earliest memory? Mirriam-Webster takes a different position, citing upright stance, a large brain and spoken language, none of which are possessed by your 'child'. I can cite many more refuting your case but I won't overload you. I have more strings in the bow.

5) Ok, God's Word says sodomy is an abomination, a sin. What's your word? Have you no independent thought? Do you tell everyone around you to hold on and let you check God's Word every time they have a puzzler or ethical dilemma? Didn't God impute righteousness into Man in your opinion? (are you a Lutheran, a Calvinist or what?) You said above that you would admit your wife back in after repentance. Do you then agree or disagree with the Catholic (RCC) notion of synterisis (a spark of goodness)? Cutting to the chase, Catholics value good works. Isn't confession, in and of itself, a good work in your eyes? If so, why are you a Protestant? I guess you support Total Depravity. What is your take on infused grace?

Unplanned children to be, born of rape, are often put into an invidious predicament. Mendacious is a good word where the identity of their true parents is kept from them. There are just too many counter arguments against your pro-life position.

6) The doctor doesn't compel them most of the time, he talks to them and runs them through the potential repercussions. At the end of the day, he is just a part of the process. It is the woman who seeks the abortion for whatever reason.

7) Self-respecting in the sense of freeing herself of something that she never asked for and exercising her right to do so. This is not about careless women who sleep around and don't take precautions, Gunslinger. I'll leave that defence to other people. I just have this vision of most normal people, seeing their wife, sister, daughter, whatever the relationship is, sitting in a hospital beside her and the poor husband, having respected her wishes as a new-age, feeling man, being torn inside as this is not what he wanted either. He entered into the contract of marriage so that they could have a kid with his sperm. She was highly pressurised by the doctor into bearing the child but she trusted his medical judgement. Oh, that's right, we shouldn't trust doctors in your opinion. She went against her better judgement as she was told that bearing rather than aborting would increase her chances of a baby with the man whom she wanted to have one with. Are you then going to clear up the mess and adopt this unwanted child? Maybe you should rally round your buddies and prepare for this.

8) "Stop the mad scientist?" I thought you were all for science. It is the basis of your whole case. Oh, you are the guy that hand picks scientific appointments, not based on their ability but on how much they support your line of thought. Gotcha!! It's all clear now!

9) I've given a part above about personhood and all the definitions are against you. MORAL philosophers disagree with you. Sentience is directly related to personhood and personhood tests have many prongs. Are you aware of any of them?

Here, 'If we want to go from this to saying that the fetus is also a person, this requires us to show why it it should be regarded as a person (which, as we have seen, is no easy task).' From an excellent source, thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Abort ion/concept_of_personhood_4.php,

10) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820013, early embryos do not qualify for personhood. I suggest you get a hold of this paper. It shows the connection between sentience and personhood. We can have an individual debate on sentience if you wish.

11) 'Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts. People have different beliefs' often they regard their own belief as absolutely true and obvious. Even if there were, there is no agreement on the conditions under which an abortion of that new person should be allowed.' religioustolerance.org/abo_when2.htm

It's describing you, LOL

12) thecitizen.com/node/4488, this sums my opinion up nicely. Give the benefit of the doubt to the foetus in standard abortion cases but know that personhood hasn't been defined to reach broad consensus.

13) If they have no bearing on personhood, what is the use of living? How does a status label preclude all experience which LIFE presents us with externally? Personhood is a human being? Well, I am a human being and I am living and learning different things in life. Did my code dictate that or did my choices dictate that? I was exposed to external stimuli. There are many ifs in life, not strict ways, and if I hadn't met my friend at uni, I wouldn't have gone to Japan etc etc. This was by chance, randomised and not precoded as you would have me believe.

14) Reading into what you are saying, you would never have us move off of the starting blocks. Conception is the golden moment and we should freeze in this moment and not go out into the world and develop ourselves. That's what you are saying. Of course we will always be human, that is axiomatic. Ripe for killing? What, because they doubt? Pff... Who we are can change through time.

15) Covered above

16) I understand forgiveness, alright. You take such a firm stance against those 'murderers' and yet you accept a 'murderer' back into your house. If I murdered your wife and blew up your house but then sincerely repented, would you truly forgive me? How many heinous deeds could I get away with? Does repentance have limits? Is it only perceived sincerity and then off the hook? Is it principle or number?

17) You revere marriage yet you'd throw it all away? She's bound to say she's sorry if she wants to salvage the marriage. This is what married partners should try to avoid, 'irretrievable breakdown'. There is a 'crime' left unpunished in your eyes. A heinous one at that. What if all women did the same? In your eyes, unpunished murder across the board.

18) In your beloved Total Depravity Protestant notion, there is the belief that sin is innate to man, that he will sin again and again. You have given women an opt-out clause. A confession can wash away murder, right? Let's be clear, that's what you are saying, right? If so, that's dangerous in that you could have a murderer do his thing and then just confess it all away sincerely. Murderers are of many types, just look at Dexter. Being serious, there are humane murderers according to you. Can you deny this as you regard women who abort as being humane and with no malice aforethought, you've said as much. Still murder in your eyes.

Over to you, Mr Hypocrite :) I'll settle for hippocrate in my case.

You need to know the exact story. Sometimes a minor is said to have been raped just because she had sex with someone who should've been more responsible. In this case, if this minor agreed to have sex with him (ofcourse, irresponsible), then perhaps she need to face the consequences.

On another note, if it was violent and forced... then the criminal must be produced to the court of law.... and she should be granted an abortion.

£odz, a minor cannot legally give consent until she is 15 or, I think now, 16 in Poland. Now, I've raised this with students. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 8 but don't laugh, it's 7 in quite a few countries, notably India and Singapore. Foreseeably, it could be as low as 6 in the US (North Carolina and some others).

So, if you understand the whole rationale for why there is a wide discrepancy here, from 6-18, then you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the case. Poland says 17 btw, behind Belgium and Brazil etc at 18. Interestingly, jako ciekawostek, the International Criminal Court sets it at 18.

I thought we were all ONE in the eyes of God, £odz. So are we ONE or just one less? (after abortion) ;) ;)

My point is that there is flexibility and scope for wider debate. Yes, she should have known what she was doing at 14 (many would say yes, many no) but there are many classifications of 'ages of consent' and the relevant one here says she had no authority on which to make a decision thus it rests on the man to put his hands up and accept what is coming to him.

Looking forward to Dickslinger comin back. Ma waf, she do, did, done gettin that abOARtion. I be raisin hell a tell ya, LOL. Don't go stamping your feet through those floorboards now, ye hear? ;) ;)

It involves you LISTENING!!! when I said it is confessed and forgiven by God alone. Prayer.

As to "keep it out of the courtroom",...well you must have about no knowledge whatsoever concerning the judicial system and how we have the good Laws we have,....and oopsie THE FACT THAT THEY MAKE YOU SWEAR UPON THE BIBLE IN THE COURTROOM "SO HELP ME GOD"!!!

Now, what have you to say to that, Mr. Brilliant?


No, I don't care to hear the opinions of Atheists and Agnostics in shaping the Law. Someone who has no fear of God and no moral law to direct them cannot be trusted to have anything to do with shaping laws of nations. So yes, their input is invalid dreck if it differs from God's Law, which is my whole problem with abortion, which was introduced by Godless, wicked, foul murdering beasts.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao,....just to name a few examples of what happens when Godless men take over the Government. Human life is no longer protected. God's Holy Law protects even that child of rape.

You claim to be a Christian? Then read 1 Kings chapter 3,...and you tell me from whom men get Wisdom by which to govern peoples. And the Godless should then rule us? We can learn from history what happens when THAT happens...

Likely to be arrested for what, exactly?


I already did elaborate. The CHILD inside her is a SEPARATE and INNOCENT party, worthy of all protections afforded a human person under the law.


So? And?

The protection of the baby inside her is not intended to punish the woman, this is an emotional tactic on your part to make it seem as though I am an insensitive dog. This is protection of the new life, as stated several hundred times as yet, by yours truly.

And who should be punished and for what?


And I have ICBMs waiting in the silos, so sling that "bow" up and rattle your spears, because you are about to be obliterated.

By Merriam-Websters definition, a crippled child, a newborn child, or a mute child, or a mentally handicapped child,...none of them would be truly a child, and none would be protected under the law. Why do you continue to bring up "points" that shoot the arms and legs off of your already crippled, feeble "argument"? It's embarassing really,...in fact I am embarassed FOR you.


I say it is demonstrable beyond doubt that homosexuality is both physically and mentally destructive and retarding to those who participate. That is why, until our most recent plunge into the abyss as a nation, Homosexuality was considered by the American Psychaitric Association to be a mental disorder? They changed it in the 70's,....just like abortion...

And blah blah blah. Look I just read God's word and apply it to life,...like it was meant to be. I'm not in the least interested in your diversion here. If her repentance is real, my forgiveness is real.


So you are going to tell me that, based on FUTURE POSSIBLE AGONIES of the child, we should kill the NON-child to prevent that? And would you not be preventing them from all the POSSIBLE JOYS IN LIFE AS WELL? You are such a hypocrite.


No. Doctors compel. They are known for this type of thing nowadays. That and asking if the woman wants her "tubes tied" IMMEDIATELY after giving birth. How nice and not at all self-serving of them.


You said what you said. You revealed your true thoughts on this subject. Now lets move on.

Yes, I will "rally round" and prepare for this event that will SURELY HAPPEN, even though the chances of it are one in 150,000. Listen you creep,...IF this ever happened, I would have to deal with it then, and I would either raise the child myself, or if I felt someone else could give the child a better home, there would be plenty of people willing to adopt him or her.


Science is only the study of things God created. "Science" itself, the deeper they look points to a CREATOR. Science is my friend.

Ever heard of METALLURGY? I like Metallurgy,...cars,...trains,...airplanes,...even weapons for protection,...now imagine someone was using a METAL KNIFE TO KILL PEOPLE! Is my opposition to THAT indicative that I hate Metallurgy? No. You are an idiot, please stop coming up with idiotic arguments, it wastes both our time.


I define personhood at the start of a new person; which is conception. Look, I already destroyed "immediate sentiency" as defining a person,...someone who is sleeping, or someone in a coma, or a child who will be sentient within a few WEEKS,...none are NOT A PERSON simply because they are not AT PRESENT fully sentient. Please don't bring this up again, I destroyed it too many times, I feel like I'm in a zombie movie.


Because it is someONE WHO will be "sentient" in a matter of weeks. Anyone can see that. If it is cancer, call it cancer,....if it is PREGNANCY call it a BABY!


No, I don't wish. I have a hard enough time getting you to realize that it is immaterial to the debate. But I understand it IS all you have....


Look, I'm not interested in a bunch of fairies who aren't willing to take a stand against murder,...its better off that such cowards label themselves so I know not to waste time on them.


And why not "the benefit of the doubt" to the baby of a rape victim? Did something about the rape alter its DNA or make it someone NOT human?


Listen you tool, I conceded fully and heartily that who we BECOME has a number of different factors,...but as a NEW HUMAN PERSON, everything is CREATED IN OUR DNA AT CONCEPTION! OUR OWN UNIQUE DNA, WITH ALL THAT ENTAILS! Is there a simpler way to put this, so even YOU can understand? Obviously you are not in the least scientifically competent.


Explain how you have arrived at your brain-sludge conclusions please, you raving lunatic. We shouldn't go out and develop ourselves? Eh? Where did I say or imply ANY SUCH THING? I assure you, I did not. You are insane and I am quickly starting to realize just how much of a waste of time you are....though I am doing this more to let others know the real truth,...rather than because I think there is hope for you.


Someone who views Christian forgiveness as their playground to do whatever evil they wish, do not understand repentance or forgiveness.

Yes, I would truly forgive you. Though as punishable under the law, to the law you would be given, and you would accept this as a Christian. Jesus asked the Father to forgive the Roman soldiers who crucified Him,...while they were nailing his hands to the cross...

For someone who CLAIMS to be a "Christian" you surely do attempt to make a mockery out of its most profound and meaningful principles.


Marriage is not above doing what is right. And I could not countenance an unrepentant murderess in my house. As of now, there is no law to punish women who get abortions, not to mention the fact it is so easy to lie to them and tell them it is NOT really a child. Knowing and talking to so many women who have repented of abortion,...as I said, they were unaware. Again, I am speaking from experience, and you are speaking from your *ss. Please stop doing that. The crime, on her repentance, would have been punished, taken by Jesus, just as every other sin.


This could apply to any person for any sin ever committed. So pardom me for not participating in your diversion/mockery.
Not all women who abort do it without malice. Some people are different than others. Murderers come in all flavors. What is your point? I guess you did not have one, else we would have arrived at it long ago.


Mr. Hypocrite? You're going to have to explain how I am a hypocrite. Do this now.

1) Gunslinger, I have a postgraduate law degree (LLM) and we have the same statement in court. It is a logistic formality and the judiciary knows that not everyone knows the Bible. You swear to tell the truth and the truth is that they took an option permitted by law. There! Satisfied?

2) Hitler was a Catholic, you moron! There are atheists like SeanBM on this forum whom I would place trust in. He is fair and you can see how balanced he is across the forum. He listens and is a moral man, though not a man of God. Just like my father. One of the most moral men I have had the privelege of meeting. He is a nurse teacher (my Dad).

3) A separate party connected by an umbilical cord? LOL Wow, how independent. You have just made an utter fool of yourself and you know that, right? Harry even dubbed it as a leech/parasite but I cannot countenance that position at all.

4) Tactics, wow. Getting a taste of your own medicine then, sonny? At least I didn't put words in your mouth. How foul that was!

5) No, those points were all valid. Most children can reflect on childhood, funny that yours can't. Let's ask a foetus, are you enjoying your childhood? LOL What do you get up to in there? When people reflect back on their childhood, they remember actions. Who remembers being in the stomach? Come on lad, give it up! Oh, and I have 4 words for you, 'I do not remember'. If we ARE us at conception then we'd remember who and what we ARE through memory. You sounded like you were only saying that we are human and that's obvious.

6) Physically and mentally destructive to who? To gay people as private and consenting adults? It is how they ARE. Do you think most people choose to be gay? My friend fought with it for years, going with girls who he couldn't really feel for. He is not damaged as he accepted what he IS. If you ARE, at conception, born with the gay gene then shouldn't you be afforded protection as you are a child of God? Being rather selective, are we? What did Jesus do with Maria Magdalena, a prozzy? He didn't turn her away, did he? Go on, tell me. What did John Paul the 2nd do to that guy who shot at him? He went to him and went right close to him. The American Association changed it for a reason.

7) Not knowing the joys of life is an acceptable result of abortion for all the reasons I have outlined. Simply put, that entity was not meant to be (child to be to please you).

8) Go and take it up with the doctors then. I merely said that we have to trust people but that we have to educate ourselves to the hilt like my Mum does before any visit.

9) What if she doesn't want to be put through the agony of childbirth? There's a psychological reason for you. What if she is so busy at work through the rat race that she cannot take maternal leave? Social reason. What if she doesn't want the burden of lumping a foetus around with her for months on end? Practical reason. You just love putting women through extra hassle to serve your holier-than-thou agenda!!

10) And the scientific community is very divided. That shoots you down in flames in a oner. Heard of medical science? There is a procedure there called abortion that has been developed ;) ;)

11) That's temporary non-sentience, mudslinger. They still revert to becoming a fully functional member of society thereafter. We still possess sentience, it is just 'switched off' at that moment as we biologically need to sleep. The zygote and embryo don't have this sentience. It comes further into the foetal stage.

Here, 'Truth is, it's all about WHEN the baby becomes a sentient human being. That is, in my view, the ONLY discussion on the abortion issue that has any merit. If the baby is truly not alive until the baby is born, then "Pro Choice" groups are correct. If the baby is alive before birth, then the "Pro Life" groups are correct.' from forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1294521

I agree, it's centrally relevant you moron! Sentience is at 23 weeks generally. Without sentience, what is an entity? It's a developing child but isn't yet a human being without sentience, sorry.

12) Aha, "will be sentient" but isn't yet? That's all I needed to know, thanks. It hasn't reached sentience so, IMHO, as an embryo born of rape, it can be aborted as it hasn't reached personhood. No sentience, no personhood. Generally, though, I think that it shouldn't be aborted as it needs to be allowed to reach sentience. God made it that way that it had to move through phases to get there but rape is a special case and I stand by that. I am generally anti-abortion as I have said before. It is a window through which action, though regrettable, can be taken.

13) Sentience is not all I have. I have outlined all manner of other material factors above and you know it. It's all there should you care to look (though you won't).

14) People do take a stand against murder and that's why murderers go to prison for 25 years. Duh! Not very perceptive today, GS.

15) I keep telling you. Because it was not meant to be. Not by conscious design. Not through God's loving contract of marriage.

'Brandy,
Please do not tell your son. I was a child concieved by rape. I was a closed adoption but with help of search angel was reunited. I found bmom and was told at that time that she was brutally raped. I did not deal well with this bit of information at all. This is becasue the entire time growing up my aparents told me her age and his age and told me that they were probably in love and they made a mistake. Boy were they ever wrong. I have big issues knowing that I was concieved by rape. even worse I look exactly like him. Bmom everytime she sees me sees him. She has a hard time with it as well. If you so decide to tell your son please so not make it any time soon. Let him have his child hood. it is VERY difficult once the truth is made known.'

There are countless numbers of other tales like these. Harsh reminders of your torment. Stop passing it off. Would you be prepared to meet all those born of rape who have lived lives of torment and not having biological parents? Those basta*d children would be ridiculed and you allow that in rape cases simply because you can't accept a SCIENTIFIC window through non-sentience to abort. You slimy toad!

16) DNA patterns, I get it. AND? Don't you think that hasn't been thought about, you bellend? Go and announce your revelation to a kid, fool.

17) Our nature through genetics is not our nurture. Simple enough for you? Sorry, I had to keep it at grassroots level as you would struggle otherwise. We ARE more than just the sum of our parts. Can't you get that?

18) I was addressing its practical application. Blanket forgiveness isn't the reaction of most people. Then again, you aren't most people, hickboy. Punishable under the law, now your neuron has fired. It took you a while. Let the law serve its purpose.

19) Again, how many times should repentance be allowed? We shouldn't treat them as murderers is my point and that is abundantly clear. The law in on my side here, as in most countries.

20) Hypocrite, how? Look above to your posts :) :) :)

Ehm, just to make sure about pro-life activists: they are basically a group of ppl who want to tell women what to do and what not to do. Are they in any form or way so superior that they think they have the right to decide what is good for women? It's a choice a woman has to make herself and religious nutters (yes, I repeat it again) have no business in intervening in this decision-making process.

See, and this is the crucial difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers: the latter respects the decision of a woman, be this abortion or no abortion, while pro-lifers don't respect the choice a grown-up woman makes to have an abortion and instead start to try and indoctrinate the woman with their views. I've never seen demonstrations where pro-choicers try to force their opinion upon anybody else and try to force every pregnant woman to have an abortion. Pro-lifers on the other hand try to force their views upon you every chance they get. Grow up, go to your church and pray for all those "lost souls", maybe it will help, or maybe not; I'd say it won't help much as far as divine intervention goes :)

In short: let the decision be the woman's, not some religious freak that keeps drabbling on about Jesus and some vengeful God - we don't need to live our life based on an illusion.

>^..^<

M-G (and time and time again they will come back and back and whenever you think the issue is concluded, they will be back again and on and on and on...Makes me so tired)

I sent Gunslinger an article from the Guardian about the dangers of an absolute ban on abortion. It was a Nicaraguan case study and caught the attention of Amnesty International.

I wonder if that will enter his ruminations or will be conveniently ignored. The incidence of rape is high there and so is suicide.

Of course not. He is so convinced of his righteousness, there is no room for other opinions. Actually there is no point in discussion - he will never be convinced that his way of thinking is wrong. However, it doesn't hurt to keep trying though :)

>^..^<

M-G (simple question: what's it to him if a woman decides to abort?)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Actually if a woman had sex with a man its not rape, if she didnt want to have sex she could have run faster.

Well then why not swear upon the Talmud? The Koran? For someone knowledgeable about the legal system,...you surely are clueless as to its origins.


Hitler WAS a Catholic. He was a social Darwinist with no official religion,...although many aspects of Hitler's 3rd Reich point to a Germanic pagan religion. A moral man, good. But "moral" by whose standards? Where do we get "morality" from? Hitler thought it was right and "moral" to murder Jews. Hmmm.

The reason your father is a MORAL man is because he has come from a CHRISTIAN NATION, where CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES are impressed upon the children from youth. At least that is the way it used to be,...but don't worry,...the atheists are quickly changing that,...and we see what direction the Free World is headed.


Bullsh*t. The umbilical cord is a channel by which the baby is nourished inside mommy. And you know that, right? And how does baby get fed afterwards? BREASTS! then, a SPOON! "Wow. How independent."! Please address this, you blubbering toolbag.


How about I say "Self-respecting people hate Jews." that would tell everyone what I was really thinking, unquestionably. And it wouldn't matter how furiously I back-pedaled, everyone would know and there would be nothing I could do about it.

You want that children conceived of rape should all be aborted.


Can a newborn baby reflect on its childhood? No. Guess its not a child then, fit for killing by whomever "decides". Points not valid, as stated.


There is no "gay gene". It never existed. It was a THEORY, which even the Scientific "elite" are now abandoning. But please, tell me more oh wise and learned one.

And yes, homosexual people are afforded the protections provided PEOPLE. I think the acts of homosexuality should be illegal and punishable, as they were until most recently. No, not selective at all. Nice try though, you dunce. Keep on ingnoring every point I make while coming up with new brainless schemes every 5 seconds, thinking I'll become so preoccupied with those that I'll forget the main issue.


So human suffering is reason enough to end life? Then why do you CLAIM to feel bad about the mother offing herself? I suppose that "entity" (another way to say A PERSON) was never meant to be either. The fact that she will never know any more joys in life is an "acceptable result".


On that we can certainly agree.


Take these silly, foolish little pieces of "argument" of yours, and apply them to ANY PREGNANT WOMAN AT ANY STAGE OF PREGNANCY! They completely ignore the question of HUMAN LIFE, and of the MORALITY of abortion.

Example: Mommy is trying to get a new job,...but there's a problem, she has to take care of little Janey, and that day-care is so costly. Why put her through this "hassle", when she can just take Janey down to the dark man in the alley who can cut her up with a saw, put the pieces into a gabage bag, and throw it away.

"Practical" and "social" reasons! But I suppose, with you, where human life is concerned, "any excuse will do".


Ahh, but there are certain undeniable things upon which they all HAVE TO agree, due to overwhelming empirical evidence. Among those is A NEW HUMAN PERSON BEGINS WHEN THE SPERM MEETS THE EGG, ie AT CONCEPTION! So sorry, not a bullet struck, and I am looping to come up behind you and fire another heat-seeker at your fragile Sopwith.


AHA!!! So you admit that human beings in a state of "temporary non-sentience" are not inhuman becuase of it. "Temporary" 1. lasting, existing, serving, or effective for a time only; not permanent: a temporary need; a temporary job. Would you say then,...that a baby inside the womb's "non-sentience" would be "temporary"? Oh wait, you would HAVE TO!! I am grinning so smirkily right now. Now I've got you nailed to the wall, you slimy piece of green Jell-O.


What, first you say "sentience",...then you say "If the baby is alive"...? Wouldn't a HEART-BEAT from a HUMAN HEART have something to do with being ALIVE? Because that begins 3 weeks after conception. So is it, "sentiency" or being "alive" that constitute what it means to be a human person? I think you are confusing yourself.


Yes, it IS a human being. FROM THE POINT OF CONCEPTION IT IS HOMO SAPIENS AND NO OTHER!

I cannot continue such a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge Scientific facts proven long ago. Go back to High School and re-learn this.


Sentiency, as has been proven, is not what constitutes personhood. Same as: walking, talking, hearing, speaking, independent survival, color, gender, height, weight, age, mental capacity. None of those are central as to what constitutes a "person". Now, you were saying?


I have looked and I responded to all of your garbage you threw my way, though regrettably, as it has been such a waste of my time.

It's like a lion, chasing a chimp through an office building,....and the chimp just keeps climbing higher and higher,...throwing chairs and tables in the way in terror,...not able to realize that once he reaches the top floor he will be cornered, and not able to withstand the lion.


Sometimes it takes "people" in general longer to come around, as will be the case with abortion, and its starting now. But that doesn't change the fact that today's world is rife with little fairy-boys who couldn't care less if a woman was being raped in an alley as they walked past it. They either wouldn't care, or their little heart would bleed but they'd be too much a coward to go take a crowbar and cave the rapist's skull in with it.


Plenty of people whom I PERSONALLY KNOW, are conceived outside of marriage, or inside of marriage by unplanned. And they know this. But I love them anyway. A person's origin has nothing to do with the fact that they are Homo Sapiens, HUMAN, made in God's as according to His word, and worthy of all the protections afforded! A person conceived by a rape IS NO LESS HUMAN THAN YOU OR I! I keep telling YOU!


Yes, surely it is a difficult thing, to not even be scratching the surface. I have said this all along, and everyone else knows it too.


Yes, I would in fact love to meet these people. So I could tell them, if they don't know already, just how much God loves them and is a Father to them regardless of how they came to be on earth, or who has scorned them because of it.

Would YOU like to meet them,...and seeing their faces, tell them about how YOU think they should have all been aborted and not allowed to live?

Now tell me, who is a slimy toad?


Apparently (again) you are unaware of what DNA is, I'm so sorry the public schooling system has failed you so, Seanus.


No kidding, as*hole. I already said this several times. It is apart, once again, from the FACT that as a human being, we begin AT CONCEPTION! Can't you get that?


Yes, punishing those who act to harm others, the protection of human life IS the purpose of the LAW!


How many times? As many times as they are sincere in repenting. Isaid I don't treat them as murderers, even the ones who haven't repented. They are largely deceived and it would be insensitive.

What exactly is your point in all this?


And you are a cross-dressing Transvestite. How? "Just look above to your posts"

Please connect statements and accusations with reality, and demonstrate the "how" to the rest of us. This you have not done.


Yes, surely it has nothing at all to do with the protection of human life, as I have only stated about a hundred times in sequence so far, and will continue. You know, I'm sure the good little Nazis thought similar things of Christians who hid Jews in their homes in Nazi occupied Europe. Damned Religious Nutters. Always out to ruin everyone's fun.


No. The difference is that "lifers" believe human life is precious and should be protected, in the womb or anywhere else. "Choicers" are cowards and weaklings, even murderers,...they are those who are sexually promiscuous, perverse, rebellious, and how DARE anyone tell them what to do with THEIR body! No morality, just right to do as they please with no consequence.

"My body, my choice". The mantra of the "choicer". Well answer me this then, M-G,...what part of a WOMAN'S body, is the "fetus"? Go on, answer the question you sniveling coward.


Yes, I have done nothing here but keep drabbling on about a vengeful and unforgiving God. Shows you haven't read a word. So shut the f*ck up about it.

You are such a fool, you sit there fat and lazy in your chair, and attack the very One who created you, and whose servants have lived, spoken, fought, bled and died to provide you a safe haven by which to mock and insult them. You are a pimple.


Yes, you have perfectly described Seanus. But you forgot to add that he also completely ignores when his "points" are struck down one after the other, and REFUSES to address the most pertinent ones.

1) There is more than one legal system, fella. I'm an English teacher so I can tell you all about the definite article, the, then school you on the Romano-Germanic or Anglo-American system if you wish. I speak not for the Talmud or Koran, sorry.

2) Shrubco was a self-confessed Christian and look what he did to the world. Iraq, 9/11 and Afghanistan being but 3. "Hitler WAS a Catholic", you wrote. Glad that you agree!! Is a Catholic "Godless"? My father is moral for different reasons. The Bible may have played its part but he has never read it to my knowledge, nor was its proverbs and content ever passed down to him. Used to be? Christianity is likely getting stronger in the fight against radical Islam. There has been talk of America even indirectly helping Russia but this is for another thread. No digressing!

3) Oh, I know that alright. It's still not separated, it is connected. It's not a separate party with individual decision-making ability.

4) Hehehe, you've just done it again. As I have said before, I am neither a woman nor a legislator. In this case, just a key rattler who has NEVER said that all women should get an abortion after rape. It's her choice. Self-respecting in the sense of ridding herself of sth spawned from a heinous crime.

5) Fair point! I said most children though which means there is a demarcation line. It all goes back to growth and development. Oh, and sentience ;) ;)

6) Right, so it was just a card shuffle, was it? Oh, they made that choice against all the taboo, parental influence and innate drive, did they? My friend wrangled with all sorts of issues and never read the Bible. He told me that he was gay for as long as he could remember but, for so long, couldn't bring himself to admit it. Now he is fine with it. I've talked to a few guys and they all told me they were born that way to their best knowledge.

7) No, it was not meant to be because there shouldn't have been a morally reprehensible action to bring it about. I know that that's not the fault of the 'kid to be' but the window is there before sentience. As I said, I don't like it but life isn't fair.

8) I will protect human life wherever I can and this includes standard abortions as it's a life form. However, abortion is complicated and we have to balance such concerns against your ones. Sorry, but that's the way it is done. A woman will more fully reinforce that. She will put the case more strongly than I.

9) Yes, this golden conception point again ;) That life wasn't meant to be!! Sorry, ever heard of necessary evils?

10) Of course, I agree with you and I didn't say otherwise. As an anti-abortionist, it should be allowed to pass through to sentience. I am not inconsistent in saying that. However, the window of non-sentience grants that opportunity in rape cases. Temporary non-sentience in living, separated humans is a different story. Murder them and you are down for 25 years. They have never been sentient and we are and have been.

11) You are going into euthanasia type territory and PVS. He is human but barely even sentient as a vegetable. The same as a zygote/embryo. Pulse/heart rate and breathing after 3 weeks?

12) You ducked the sentience debate so that was your call. We differ here!

13) I was saying that a window exists.

14) It's starting but they aren't there yet.

15) Rape is an exception. End of! You are talking about standard abortions.

16) To be continued. I have football (soccer) to play. That's why my arguments were so short towards the end.

PS There is scope for debate and I will sit down more after your reply and think it through more fully than this post. Thanks!