In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of
> an abortion.

Cite?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months be worth
> ending a life for?

Life begins at birth.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> > > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it all
> > > boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important than
> > > an entire lifetime of the baby?
> >
> > It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
>
> How about if you were that baby?

That's a stupid argument. If I were that fetus, I wouldn't know, would I?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
> the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)

At birth.

For all intents and purposes - the law, government, society, even the
Catholic Church - a person's age is calculated from the date of birth,
not of conception. Nobody counts the nine months spent in utero.

Ask a pregnant woman with children how many children she has. She'll say
something like "Two with another one on the way." She doesn't say
"Three."

You can't take a dependency exemption or claim the child tax credit on
your tax return for a fetus.

Governments don't issue death certificates and families do not hold
funeral services for fetuses after a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion
(or an induced one, for that matter).

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> > > >> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
> > > >> > abortion.
> > > >>
> > > >> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?
>
> http://realchoice.0catch.com/library.../aa070700a.htm
> http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
> http://www.word-of-hope.org/grieving.html
> http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe08.html

All anti-choice groups and thus biased.

How about some studies from _disinterested_ sources?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:45:23 -0600, D.F. Manno wrote
(in article >):

> Life begins at birth.

I'm one that believes that life begins at the moment of conception, a belief
that seems to be increasingly confirmed as technology monitors what happens
subsequent to conception.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas .....

> > > > > Again, you trivialize women by reducing life-changing
> > > > > experiences to "convenience"?
> > > >
> > > > OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months
> > >
> > > You mean the possible disruption of the rest of her life.
> >
> > If the baby is put up for adoption?
>
> Yes, because of missed opportunities while pregnant.

Right. That sounds fair. Missed opportunities = Death.
So when someone kills someone else because their victim was hindering
their opportunities, that's ok?

> > > Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own
> > > body and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.
> >
> > Not if you're the baby.
>
> You just will not recognize that it is a female adult human being whose
> life is being disrupted, will you?

Disruption = Death? How can any sane person say its ok to kill someone
because they are disrupting someone's life?

> > But she's really setting the stage for a vastly more dangerous life
> > for her mental state as well as her physical state.
>
> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental state
> than any other woman.

I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and regret
is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.

> > The dangerous medical procedure is the abortion itself. Far more
> > dangerous than having the baby and giving it up for adoption.
>
> Wrong; there is a higher percentage of women dying in childbirth or from
> pregnancies than there is of women dying from abortions. In fact, the
> death rate is one per 100,000 abortions for abortions done before the
> 12th week (which is more than 90% of all abortions). The death rate
> after 12 weeks is 3 per 100,000 abortions. The death rate for carrying
> to full maternal term is nine per 100,000.
>
> Source: The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine, page
> 58, middle column, first paragraph.

Surely you don't expect that rebuttal to carry the slightest bit of
weight? I used the word dangerous because the abortion carries suicide
rates far higher than if there was none, breast cancer rates are far
higher among abortion users, etc. Did you not read anything from the
prochoice site? It was from the PRO CHOICE site. Not exactly biased
against abortion ya know? You must hang around with people with no
soul.

> > OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months be worth
> > ending a life for?
>
> Life begins at birth.

Ya think?
So what about this face? If you held this fetus in your hands, you would
not feel anything? Like holding a doll or toy?
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/...4_weeks-01.jpg
You can really say this person has no life and no value?
What about if you were that person?

In article >,
"D.F. Manno" > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > > > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it all
> > > > boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important than
> > > > an entire lifetime of the baby?
> > >
> > > It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
> >
> > How about if you were that baby?
>
> That's a stupid argument. If I were that fetus, I wouldn't know, would I?

Duh...I think you're missing the point.
OK - we'll dumb it down for you.
Pretend that fetus is you back then and your mother has recently told
you that you were almost aborted because she didn't want to be disrupted
for a few months. How would you feel?

In article >,
"D.F. Manno" > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
> > the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)
>
> At birth.
>
> For all intents and purposes - the law, government, society, even the
> Catholic Church - a person's age is calculated from the date of birth,
> not of conception. Nobody counts the nine months spent in utero.
>
> Ask a pregnant woman with children how many children she has. She'll say
> something like "Two with another one on the way." She doesn't say
> "Three."
>
> You can't take a dependency exemption or claim the child tax credit on
> your tax return for a fetus.
>
> Governments don't issue death certificates and families do not hold
> funeral services for fetuses after a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion
> (or an induced one, for that matter).

So why, when women have a miscarriage, does it affects them so badly?
Doesn't make sense does it? If the fetus is not a person, has no value,
is not worth our caring about, you might as well toss it aside if its
going to disrupt somebody's life. And if the fetus isn't born, why get
upset? You can just hop into bed and procreate again? But in reality,
every mother knows that a fetus has great worth, immense value, and
miscarriage is a tragic and heart wrenching loss.

> > > > >> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
> > > > >> > abortion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?
> >
> > http://realchoice.0catch.com/library.../aa070700a.htm
> > http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
> > http://www.word-of-hope.org/grieving.html
> > http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe08.html
>
> All anti-choice groups and thus biased.

www.prochoice.com is anti-choice? Can you even read?

> How about some studies from _disinterested_ sources?

How about some common sense? I pity the women in some of you people's
lives.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:54:04 -0600, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article >):

> In article ET>,
> TaliesinSoft > wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, I hope the day comes when contraception is easily
>> applied and effective, both for the male and for the female, that
>> children will be brought to this earth only when wanted.
>
> That is the goal of the pro-choice community.


Methinkums we do be in agreement here!



--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas .....

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:01 -0600, JZ wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
>> the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)
>
> To me life begins at the moment of conception, the moment the sperm and egg
> unite, the moment the combination of the two produces something unique and
> likely never to be duplicated.

Well you're wrong. Life began about 3G years ago and has continued in a
continuous link ever since then.

Michelle wrote:

> >> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
> >> and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.

I wrote:
> > Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
> > their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be

KK > wrote:
> so ... they have just as much control over their bodies as you'll allow?
>
>
> Nice. And save the "may or may not be your opinion". Only someone who
> feels that way would tell women what they "should" do with their bodies.

Your emotionalism is showing. Michelle made a statement, I followed up
with an extension to her statement and a question; i.e. "If abortion is
about a woman being able to control her own body" ->>> "Then women
should control their bodies and not get pregnant"

It's called discussion. Asking the other person's opinion and for
clarification.

I in no way implied my control over anyone else's body.

Just remember "KK" - thinking for someone else (telling them what they
think) means you give them the right to think for _you_. Isn't that what
you've been doing?

--
Edo ergo sum

I wrote:
>
> > Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
> > their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> They should, but sometimes those measures don't work; sometimes the
> woman has no choice; sometimes the heat of passion causes them to not
> to; and sometimes the guy lies about having had a vasectomy.
>
> Regardless, whatever the reason they got pregnant, that's no excuse to
> prevent them from terminating the pregnancy.

Thank you for clarifying that, Michelle.

--
Edo ergo sum

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:38:36 -0800, Jim wrote:

> Michelle wrote:
>
>> >> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own
>> >> body and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.
>
> I wrote:
>> > Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
>> > their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be
>
> KK > wrote:
>> so ... they have just as much control over their bodies as you'll
>> allow?
>>
>>
>> Nice. And save the "may or may not be your opinion". Only someone who
>> feels that way would tell women what they "should" do with their
>> bodies.
>
> Your emotionalism is showing.


Maybe a little. So?


> Michelle made a statement, I followed up
> with an extension to her statement and a question; i.e. "If abortion is
> about a woman being able to control her own body" ->>> "Then women
> should control their bodies and not get pregnant"

> It's called discussion. Asking the other person's opinion and for
> clarification.

And I find the question offensive - your deciding at what point she's
allowed responsibility.



>
> I in no way implied my control over anyone else's body.
>
> Just remember "KK" - thinking for someone else (telling them what they
> think) means you give them the right to think for _you_. Isn't that what
> you've been doing?

No. That doesn't make any sense. I called out your "question" because
you wishy-washily don't take a position, I assume to avoid being asked
questions yourself. That's weak.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:01 -0600, JZ wrote:

>> >> > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess
>> >> > it all boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more
>> >> > important than an entire lifetime of the baby?
>> >>
>> >> It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
>> >
>> > How about if you were that baby?
>>
>> How about it? My rights - inasmuch as a non-person can have rights -
>> don't supercede those of the mother.
>
> Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
> the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)

Well, according to the law, and common sense, at birth.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:25:25 -0600, JZ wrote:

> So why, when women have a miscarriage, does it affects them so badly?

People who lose limbs take it pretty badly, too.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:07:36 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote:

> a belief
> that seems to be increasingly confirmed

How has is been "confirmed"?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:18:31 -0600, JZ wrote:

> You can really say this person has no life and no value?

No. We just said it's not a person. Yet.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:43:45 -0600, JZ wrote:

> The dangerous medical procedure is the abortion itself. Far more
> dangerous than having the baby

You failed the last time you were asked to support a claim. Let's see
some support for this one.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
>):

[responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
life begins at conception]
>
> How has is been "confirmed"?

Take a look at
<http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas .....

"TaliesinSoft" > wrote in message
al.NET...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> >):
>
> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support
> that
> life begins at conception]
>>
>> How has is been "confirmed"?
>
> Take a look at
> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and
> yawning.
> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
>

It's just a clump of cells like a scab or a toenail. Everyone knows that
the fetus is just a tumor that women can rip out of their body at their own
discretion. It's akin to cutting one's hair...

In article >,
JZ > wrote:

> D.F. Manno > wrote:
> > JZ > wrote:
> >
> > > > > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die.
> > > > > I guess it all boils down to this: Is the convenience
> > > > > of a woman more important than an entire lifetime of
> > > > > the baby?
> > > >
> > > > It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
> > >
> > > How about if you were that baby?
> >
> > That's a stupid argument. If I were that fetus, I wouldn't
> > know, would I?
>
> Duh...I think you're missing the point. OK - we'll dumb it down
> for you. Pretend that fetus is you back then and your mother
> has recently told you that you were almost aborted because she
> didn't want to be disrupted for a few months. How would you
> feel?

Very surprised. My mother's been dead for 14 years.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > > Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
> > > state than any other woman.
> >
> > I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
> > regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>
> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.

How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
his life.

In article >,
Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > So what about this face? If you held this fetus in your hands, you would
> > not feel anything? Like holding a doll or toy?
> > http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/...4_weeks-01.jpg
> > You can really say this person has no life and no value?
> > What about if you were that person?
>
> Do you realize that only 1.1% of abortions are after the 20th week of
> pregnancy? That fetus in the link you provided is at 24 weeks. That
> means that abortions at that point are even more rare than 1.1%.
>
> And furthermore, there has to be a compelling medical need; the health
> or life of the woman is at risk, or the fetus is inviable.
>
> Why don't you show a picture of an embryo, zygote, or blastula? Those
> are the stages of pregnancy where 69% of all abortions happen.
>
> Oh, I'll do it for you, since you probably wouldn't anyway.
>
> Embryo: <http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/pictures/embryo.gif>
>
> Zygote: <http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/zygote.jpg>
>
> Blastula:
> <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rfi...her%20blastula.
> jpg>

So when does life begin? When the fetus doesn't quite resemble a baby?
When there are little fingers? When there is a face? What is the
demarcation line between a blob and a person? If you were that fetus,
your opinions here would be a tad different.

> > I used the word dangerous because the abortion carries suicide rates
> > far higher than if there was none,
>
> You keep saying that, but have yet to offer any objective, unbiased
> references.

I sent you pages and pages of references. Read if you wish.

> > breast cancer rates are far higher among abortion users,
>
> That lie has been disproved many times over.

Really? Send an URL or 2.

> > Did you not read anything from the prochoice site? It was from the
> > PRO CHOICE site.
>
> No, it wasn't; it was a from an anti-choice site that lies about itself.
>
> Were you so stupid as not to research the site? Or are you deliberately
> lying about it?

Sorry - didn't realize it wasn't a pro-choice site. Still, facts are
facts. Read and believe if you wish. But when I talk to mothers the
choices they make are so brain-dead easy to see if they are happy or not
with them. You either do unto others as you would have them do unto you
or you selfishly put yourself in front of life and extinguish it.

I wonder why people instinctively treat pregnant women with respect and
compassion. Because their womb carries no value? I think not. Why is
a crime of violence worse when a pregnant woman dies if the womb has no
value?

> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
> life begins at conception]
> >
> > How has is been "confirmed"?
>
> Take a look at
> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?

Superb. How can anyone look at a video of a baby reacting to their
environment and say he or she is not a person? Its just an absurd
excuse for murder. Murder for convenience because we don't to disrupt
someone's life. Someone that has been foolish and careless with their
body and won't be responsible. And how about the SLIGHT disruption to
the baby's life? How about execution? Isn't that a disruption?

In article >,
"tar~bal" > wrote:

> "TaliesinSoft" > wrote in message
> al.NET...
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> > >):
> >
> > [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support
> > that
> > life begins at conception]
> >>
> >> How has is been "confirmed"?
> >
> > Take a look at
> > <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> > Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> > still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and
> > yawning.
> > If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
> >
>
> It's just a clump of cells like a scab or a toenail. Everyone knows that
> the fetus is just a tumor that women can rip out of their body at their own
> discretion. It's akin to cutting one's hair...

Right....lol!
Remember people, we were all fetuses at one time. And our mothers had
the opportunity to get rid of all of us. But they didn't and we now
have life. Look at your child and imagine them as a fetus. Then
imagine terminating that precious life. Abortion takes on a new light
now doesn't it?

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno > wrote:
>> > JZ > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die.
>> > > > > I guess it all boils down to this: Is the convenience
>> > > > > of a woman more important than an entire lifetime of
>> > > > > the baby?
>> > > >
>> > > > It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
>> > >
>> > > How about if you were that baby?
>> >
>> > That's a stupid argument. If I were that fetus, I wouldn't
>> > know, would I?
>>
>> Duh...I think you're missing the point. OK - we'll dumb it down
>> for you. Pretend that fetus is you back then and your mother
>> has recently told you that you were almost aborted because she
>> didn't want to be disrupted for a few months. How would you
>> feel?
>
> Very surprised. My mother's been dead for 14 years.
>

In that case, you'd really get the point, I'd imagine...

"JZ" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> JZ > wrote:
>>
>> > > Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>> > > state than any other woman.
>> >
>> > I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>> > regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>
>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>
> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
> they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
> more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
> that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
> woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
> his life.

Michelle is a miserable person. Let her have her abortion argument because
she's never gonna get one unless *******s figure out a way to have unwanted
pregnancies.

Pretty funny, she seems the most rabid about causes that are never going to
affect her like abortion and *** marriage. Makes one think that she is
bitter on purpose...

"JZ" > wrote in message
...
>> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support
>> that
>> life begins at conception]
>> >
>> > How has is been "confirmed"?
>>
>> Take a look at
>> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
>> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
>> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and
>> yawning.
>> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
>
> Superb. How can anyone look at a video of a baby reacting to their
> environment and say he or she is not a person? Its just an absurd
> excuse for murder. Murder for convenience because we don't to disrupt
> someone's life. Someone that has been foolish and careless with their
> body and won't be responsible. And how about the SLIGHT disruption to
> the baby's life? How about execution? Isn't that a disruption?

I was against abortion before, but now I think that every woman should be
entitled to ONE abortion. And in that process, they should rip out her
reproductive organs as well.

JZ wrote:
> In article >,
> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> JZ > wrote:
>>
>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>> state than any other woman.
>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>
> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
> they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
> more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
> that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
> woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
> his life.

How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> >):
>
> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
> life begins at conception]
>> How has is been "confirmed"?
>
> Take a look at
> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?

Who said anything about it not being life? Idiot!
>

JZ wrote:
> In article >,

>> Blastula:
>> <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rfi...her%20blastula.
>> jpg>
>
> So when does life begin?

Life began about 3G years ago and has continued in a single line ever
since then.

"martin" > wrote in message
...
> JZ wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> JZ > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>>> state than any other woman.
>>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>>
>> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
>> they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
>> more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
>> that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
>> woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
>> his life.
>
> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
> her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
> starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.

I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she had an
abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:11:33 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> >):
>
> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support
> that life begins at conception]
>>
>> How has is been "confirmed"?
>
> Take a look at
> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies
> of still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and
> yawning. If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?


Yeah? At conception? That's a neat trick, not having arms, or noses.

My point was that "life" isn't an objective value that can be "confirmed"
the way you claimed. I imagine you saw that, and is why you removed your
claim.

> I'm one that believes that life begins at the moment of conception, a
> belief that seems to be increasingly confirmed

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:11:33 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
>> >):
>>
>> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support
>> that life begins at conception]
>>>
>>> How has is been "confirmed"?
>>
>> Take a look at
>> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
>> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies
>> of still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and
>> yawning. If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
>
>
> Yeah? At conception? That's a neat trick, not having arms, or noses.
>

Maybe it was some really old sperm.

Hey, I have some life growing in my refrigerator.

tar~bal wrote:
> "martin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JZ wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> JZ > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>>>> state than any other woman.
>>>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>>>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>>> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
>>> they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
>>> more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
>>> that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
>>> woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
>>> his life.
>> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
>> her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
>> starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.
>
> I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she had an
> abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?

I see no moral issues good or bad.

Now, back to my question.

How many women have you personally supported to the tune of $300,000 for
the costs of bringing up a baby that you want her to drop?
>
>