1. You are ignoring the fact that the supposition for believing in this "Jeezus" person includes the belief that he performed fantastic, supernatural feats.

2. It is perfectly plausible to assert that at one point in history, a person named *George Washington* was alive and was the president of the US.
For one thing, there are untold numbers of eyewitness accounts, and there are voluminous writings by dozens of historians precisely detailing his actions and his everyday existence.
1. No, this started with Vile's assertion that a mortal man named Jesus may not have existed. I was referring to nothing divine.

2. Yeah but those are writings which, as with the Roman Senate writings, really prove nothing. If you have faith in them, then you may believe them if you want to believe. But they are not proof.

Again I will say that any sane person must at least believe that Jesus existed. It is a historical fact.

Not a fact. I wouldn't go that far. I do however believe that he existed, though I don't believe he did any miracles. He was credited with many things after his death as well - generations after. Just like the bible, which was written hundreds of years after the events occurred. That leaves quite a lot of room for exageration, fudging and outright making things up.

Actually, it requires no proof what-so-ever. All it requires is faith.

No disrespect intended, but saying that you have faith in something is just saying that you have no evidence for it.

If there is evidence for it, then it is no longer faith - it's a theory. If you prove that theory, then it's a fact.

1. No, this started with Vile's assertion that a mortal man named Jesus may not have existed.
I was referring to nothing divine.

It is a virtual certainty that SOME person or persons going by the name of Christus (i.e., Jesus) lived in that era....there are numerous mentions of such persons.

But you know full well that we are NOT talking about a supposed ordinary human being. The person we are talking about here is the SAME "Jesus" who is claimed to be a supernatural deity. You can jettison the intellectual dishonesty.


Yeah but those are writings which, as with the Roman Senate writings, really prove nothing. If you have faith in them, then you may believe them if you want to believe. But they are not proof.

It is perfectly plausible and believable --with NO reliance whatsoever on the existence of supernaturalism and miracles and omnipotent deities-- to assert that at one point in history, a person named *George Washington* was alive a couple of hundred years ago and was the president of the US.

For one thing, there are untold numbers of eyewitness accounts, and there are voluminous writings by dozens of historians --whose writings still exist in their original and undiluted form-- precisely detailing his actions and his everyday existence. We have actual letters that the man himself wrote and signed. We have his dentures. Bona fide physical evidence of his existence.

OTOH, to assert that 2000 years ago there was a an omnipotent deity with limitless supernatural powers, walking the earth in the form of a human, is a FAR more implausible and fantastic claim, and requires a far greater burden of proof on the person or persons claiming the existence of said supernatural being before it can be accepted as factual.

I find it unlikely that someone with such a central role in the Bible was completely fictional. It's perfectly believable that there was a person from Nazareth called Jesus who preached that he was the Messiah and was executed by crucifixion. What isn't so believable are the things that are attributed to him, such as performing miracles and being born from a virgin.

All of the study of history is a leap of faith.

To a degree that's true.


Vile asked gm for proof of the veracity of his Roman Senate letters.

Actaully, I believe it was rendova who posted the "letter".


None is possible. But if we apply the same standard to our study of history, we have no proof of George Washington either. None - since we can't "prove" the veracity of any writings that pertain to him. Were they all a scam written in the 1770's? Prove otherwise.

Anti-theists (as opposed to atheists who don't care one way or the other) can make the same argument very easily about Jesus. But anything that ever happened, for which there are no longer any living witnesses, is no less an example of faith than believing in Jesus.

Perhaps "proof" is the wrong word here. What I was trying to get at is that when it comes to Jesus, many people are willing to accept that he existed even though there is no "evidence" to support this claim. As FT pointed out, there is much more evidence to suggest Geoge Washington existed than there is for Jesus.

Personally, I think that when it comes to accepting that a person was a "historical fact", you should have more evidence than we have supporting the claim that Jesus was a real person. In addition, I do agree that since the claim is that Jesus was something more than just an ordinary man, more than ordinary evidentiary support should be provided to back up such a claim. Curiously, most Christians are willing to accept these extraordinary tales on the basis of less than ordinary amounts of evidence. I never understood this willingness to adopt a totally credulous attitude towards this one subject.

Personally, I think that when it comes to accepting that a person was a "historical fact", you should have more evidence than we have supporting the claim that Jesus was a real person. In addition, I do agree that since the claim is that Jesus was something more than just an ordinary man, more than ordinary evidentiary support should be provided to back up such a claim. Curiously, most Christians are willing to accept these extraordinary tales on the basis of less than ordinary amounts of evidence. I never understood this willingness to adopt a totally credulous attitude towards this one subject.

There's a dearth of credible evidence, no doubt--excepting Tacitus and a few others--yet, many records were surely destroyed, most especially when the Roman Empire toppled.
A mere 151 years ago the Civil War ended, yet many Confederate records are missing, due to fires, etc.
One can imagine what happened to many Roman records--however, while I believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a bonafide historical entity, to believe he was indeed a diety is asking a lot of many--then and now.

For the record, I do believe he was not of this earth, but my opinion means nothing to this thread or elsewhere.

Jesus existed. He said He was God. He was either a liar, a lunitict or Lord.

Yes yes I know my spelling is bad so what.


There's a dearth of credible evidence, no doubt--excepting Tacitus and a few others--yet, many records were surely destroyed, most especially when the Roman Empire toppled.
A mere 151 years ago the Civil War ended, yet many Confederate records are missing, due to fires, etc.
One can imagine what happened to many Roman records--however, while I believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a bonafide historical entity, to believe he was indeed a diety is asking a lot of many--then and now.

For the record, I do believe he was not of this earth, but my opinion means nothing to this thread or elsewhere.

I've not criticized your spelling or your beliefs, gmsisko.

I find it unlikely that someone with such a central role in the Bible was completely fictional. It's perfectly believable that there was a person from Nazareth called Jesus who preached that he was the Messiah and was executed by crucifixion. What isn't so believable are the things that are attributed to him, such as performing miracles and being born from a virgin.

But Jester, since you and I and every other sane person on the planet know that tales of Jesus walking on water, and tales of the dead rising from their graves and strolling around are completely impossible, lies[/b] to those reading it], then why should we not cast a very critical eye at all the REST of what the Bible says?!?

You begin with the statement -- [i]I find it unlikely that someone with such a central role in the Bible was completely fictional."--- which to me speaks of an attitude that -- "Hey, it's the Bible after all, so we probably need to give it the benefit of the doubt".

But since we KNOW that so many of its tales [the laughable fables of the dead walking being a perfect example] are complete bullshit, WHY give creedence to ANYTHING that that compendium of lies is saying?!

Yes yes I know my spelling is bad so what.
It means you're too lazy to at least use a spell checker. But if that's the image you want to project, that's your prerogative.

As FT pointed out, there is much more evidence to suggest Geoge Washington existed than there is for Jesus.
So this comes down to quantity?

All of the evidence in both cases is writings. Are writings proof or not?

So this comes down to quantity?

All of the evidence in both cases is writings. Are writings proof or not?
Well, the writings of George Washington are signed by him. He signed big important things, in fact, that still survive. The same can't really be said of Jesus, of whom only hearsay reports confirm his existence, and no real survivng portraits of him from the time he was alive. We have portraits of Washington which were painted when he was alive. The final piece of evidence...that suspicious stump in the back yard where the cherry tree used to be...

But you know full well that we are NOT talking about a supposed ordinary human being. The person we are talking about here is the SAME "Jesus" who is claimed to be a supernatural deity. You can jettison the intellectual dishonesty. Feel free to imagine what I said if you like, but here are the quotes that started this:

"Jesus was fictitious? Even most hardcore atheists don't believe that."
"Even Jewish scholars, who don't believe he was the Messiah, acknowledge he was a Jew who started Christianity."

If I said atheists believe he existed, I OBVIOUSLY meant a human being named Jesus.

It's only natural and human to doubt. Even Thomas doubted, and he was there.
It comes down to faith, like others have said.

But Jester, since you and I and every other sane person on the planet know that tales of Jesus walking on water, and tales of the dead rising from their graves and strolling around are completely impossible, lies[/b] to those reading it], then why should we not cast a very critical eye at all the REST of what the Bible says?!?

You begin with the statement -- [i]I find it unlikely that someone with such a central role in the Bible was completely fictional."--- which to me speaks of an attitude that -- "Hey, it's the Bible after all, so we probably need to give it the benefit of the doubt".

But since we KNOW that so many of its tales [the laughable fables of the dead walking being a perfect example] are complete bullshit, WHY give creedence to ANYTHING that that compendium of lies is saying?!Many ancient myths and legends have been found to be based on actual events, places, and people. The Iliad, King Arthur, and the Ramayana come to mind. They all have a historical nucleus with various myths and stories attached to it. This may well be the case with the Bible, a similar ancient text, with the mythology focusing around an actual person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

You believe that the Earth came from a big blob that exploded. Am I correct?
That belief takes more faith than believing that an all powerfull God came here as a man, performed miricales. lived a sinless life, and died for our sins, then rose from the dead.

We all have sin, you and me, that is why He came. If you don't want to believ it, then it is fine.

It is a historical fact that Jesus existed and walked the Earth. If you don't want to believe in the miricles, it is fine. But evolution takes just as much faith.


But Jester, since you and I and every other sane person on the planet know that tales of Jesus walking on water, and tales of the dead rising from their graves and strolling around are completely impossible, lies[/b] to those reading it], then why should we not cast a very critical eye at all the REST of what the Bible says?!?

You begin with the statement -- [i]I find it unlikely that someone with such a central role in the Bible was completely fictional."--- which to me speaks of an attitude that -- "Hey, it's the Bible after all, so we probably need to give it the benefit of the doubt".

But since we KNOW that so many of its tales [the laughable fables of the dead walking being a perfect example] are complete bullshit, WHY give creedence to ANYTHING that that compendium of lies is saying?!

You believe that the Earth came from a big blob that exploded. Am I correct?
That belief takes more faith than believing that an all powerfull God came here as a man, performed miricales. lived a sinless life, and died for our sins, then rose from the dead.
Both are possible. Neither has been 100% proven. We all have to believe in something, and even when it takes a bit of faith, I'd like to think that my beliefs also have logic in them as well. Blind faith is just stupid, educated guessing makes sense.

In this thread there have been people voicing pro abortion and anti abortion sentiments. I came across this at another site in which I participate.

View this film and see if you feel the same when it is ended.

Warning, parts of the film are extremely graphic.

http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm

In this thread there have been people voicing pro abortion and anti abortion sentiments.
Frogger, not one person here is pro-abortion.

Semantics, Borg. Simply semantics.

No one is neutral on the topic. If you aren't anti-abortion you are
pro-abortion.

Semantics, Borg. Simply semantics.

No one is neutral on the topic. If you aren't anti-abortion you are
pro-abortion.

What if they have no opinion on the subject?

BTW, I didn't watch your film.

If you aren't anti-abortion you are pro-abortion.
No, one is not. I don't want anyone to have an abortion. I don't believe the government is better at making the decision to have one than the woman who is carrying the fetus. Thus, one could make the argument that I'm anti-abortion. I am, however, pro-choice. To be quite honest, calling yourself anti-abortion is redundant; you would be better described as anti-choice.

How about we make both sides happy and refer to people as being either "pro-killing-little-unborn-babies" and "pro-oppressing-women"?

Until such time that the fetus can survive outside of the womb, it is not a life. I support all manner of prophylactic birth control, and making the informed choice to abort that fetus at any time during the first trimester. The government needs to stay out of it. The various churches - especially the Roman Catholic - need to stay out of it. To the Catholic hierarchy I say: don't presume to make the rules if you're not going to play the game.

The greatest misdeed is when good men see the wrong, and do nothing.

You want to say anti choice? Anti choice is too broad. When it comes to a meal, I am pro-choice. When people are at a car dealer, I am pro-choice.

When the choice is to murder a life I am anti-abortion.



No, one is not. I don't want anyone to have an abortion. I don't believe the government is better at making the decision to have one than the woman who is carrying the fetus. Thus, one could make the argument that I'm anti-abortion. I am, however, pro-choice. To be quite honest, calling yourself anti-abortion is redundant; you would be better described as anti-choice.

The greatest misdeed is when good men see the wrong, and do nothing.

You want to say anti choice? Anti choice is too broad. When it comes to a meal, I am pro-choice. When people are at a car dealer, I am pro-choice.

When the choice is to murder a life I am anti-abortion.

The second greatest misdeed is when good men take it upon themselves to be the arbiters of what is good for everyone.

As es pointed out, you see a life where others see potential life. You arrogantly decide that you are right and wish to force others to let you decide the matter for them.

I sincerely doubt there's much difference in the emotional feeling about abortion between people here on both sides of the issue. The difference is whose decision it is to make.

The fetus is a life. No baby can support it self with out help. By your reasoning, it would be okay to kill any helpless life.

Brood of vipers, repent.



The second greatest misdeed is when good men take it upon themselves to be the arbiters of what is good for everyone.

As es pointed out, you see a life where others see potential life. You arrogantly decide that you are right and wish to force others to let you decide the matter for them.

I sincerely doubt there's much difference in the emotional feeling about abortion between people here on both sides of the issue. The difference is whose decision it is to make.

The fetus is a life.

Ok.


No baby can support it self with out help.

Ok.


By your reasoning, it would be okay to kill any helpless life.

That's quite a leap you make there sisko.


Brood of vipers, repent.

Get thee to a nunnery!

When a fetus reaches a point to where it can breathe on its' own, then it is alive. That's typically after 39 weeks of gestation.

Go breed with your own vipers.

You believe that the Earth came from a big blob that exploded. Am I correct?
That belief takes more faith than believing that an all powerfull God came here as a man, performed miricales. lived a sinless life, and died for our sins, then rose from the dead.

We all have sin, you and me, that is why He came. If you don't want to believ it, then it is fine.

It is a historical fact that Jesus existed and walked the Earth. If you don't want to believe in the miricles, it is fine. But evolution takes just as much faith.

In your words sisko...

You haven't proven anyting. Back up your retarded statements with facts!

Until such time that the fetus can survive outside of the womb, it is not a life.

When a fetus reaches a point to where it can breathe on its' own, then it is alive.

Using your reasoning anyone who is on life support including those who need assistance in breathing is not really alive. Try telling that to the person with emphasema who has to use an oxygen tank to survive.

There seems to be some fallacy that people have total control over their bodies even to the point of destrying life simply because that life is in their womb. We do not have autonomy over our bodies. Just try standing in a public square and cutting yourself repeatedly with a straight razor to see if we do.

The desires of the woman do not supercede the right of the baby to live.

Afetus is alive from day one!


When a fetus reaches a point to where it can breathe on its' own, then it is alive. That's typically after 39 weeks of gestation.

Go breed with your own vipers.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, however misguided it may be.

You may see his beliefs as misguided, but it would behoove you to not throw out reason when forming your own stance. A fetus is a separate entity from the mother genetically, it is also alive. However, it is not self-sustaining nor is it living by its own volition, as well as not separated from the mother. That forces the idea upon us that a fetus is human life, it is just not a person and therefore can be subject to the wishes of the mother who is carrying it.

It would be my wish that no one would ever have an abortion, as I view it as one of the most morally reprehensible actions a human can do, but being that I believe my views on this issue should not interfere with the lives of others, and that extenuating circumstances such as rape, etc effect it, I do not wish to have it banned or outlawed.

You may see his beliefs as misguided, but it would behoove you to not throw out reason when forming your own stance. A fetus is a separate entity from the mother genetically, it is also alive. However, it is not self-sustaining nor is it living by its own volition, as well as not separated from the mother. That forces the idea upon us that a fetus is human life, it is just not a person and therefore can be subject to the wishes of the mother who is carrying it.

It would be my wish that no one would ever have an abortion, as I view it as one of the most morally reprehensible actions a human can do, but being that I believe my views on this issue should not interfere with the lives of others, and that extenuating circumstances such as rape, etc effect it, I do not wish to have it banned or outlawed.

A well thought out and well expressed opinion, but according to Frogger you must either be pro or anti.

A well thought out and well expressed opinion, but according to Frogger you must either be pro or anti.

Indeed. Emotional, knee-jerk opinions only, please.

evakian,

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?

What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person. Sort of like saying to Joe Smith, yeah, we know Billy Brown raped the woman but we're gonna kill you in his place.

The only truely innocent person in almost all abortions is the unborn child.

The only reason for allowing abortions should be to save the life of the mother because in that instance you are weighing one life against another and the fully formed life has precedence. When abortions are formed for reasons other than to save the life of the mother you are weighing the unborn child's life against the wishes, not the needs but the wishes of the mother and in my opinion life trumps desires and wishes every time.

evakian,

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?

What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person. Sort of like saying to Joe Smith, yeah, we know Billy Brown raped the woman but we're gonna kill you in his place.

The only truely innocent person in almost all abortions is the unborn child.

The only reason for allowing abortions should be to save the life of the mother because in that instance you are weighing one life against another and the fully formed life has precedence. When abortions are formed for reasons other than to save the life of the mother you are weighing the unborn child's life against the wishes, not the needs but the wishes of the mother and in my opinion life trumps desires and wishes every time.
Frogger, I've mentioned this before to you, but you didn't adequately answer it, I think. A sperm is life. It is unborn. Why do I not hear you trumpeting the sperm's right to life?

As our friend George Carlin said: "...Not every ejaculation deserves a name..."

The person that's pregnant has the right to choose if they remain as such. Foster homes and adoption agencies are not the answer. Adoption laws are incredibly strict, and once a child is over a certain age, they're pretty much destined for life in some agency group home vying for attention among 6-15 other unwanted children. There's a lot more kids available than there are willing & acceptable adults to take them in.

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?
What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person.

While what YOU are proposing is to force the woman to bear (and probably raise) the child of the one man on the earth that she ---very likely-- despises the most.

__________________________________________________ _

"Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric
Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament,three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are
the sky-god religions. They are,literally,patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in
those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates."______Gore Vidal

While what YOU are proposing is to force the woman to bear (and probably raise) the child of the one man on the earth that she ---very likely-- despises the most.

Yes, I am proposing to force the woman to bear the child. While that is not the perfect solution I see it as a far better one than killing the unborn child. Just what crime did the child commit to deserve the death penalty?

As for raising the child alone...............I think that if we want women who are neither emotionally or fiscally able to care for a child to carry that child to term we, as a society, have a responsibility to that woman and to that child.

Regarding your question concerning sperm. The millions of sperm in an average ejaculate are not human nor do they by themselves possess any humanity. It is not until they are combined with an egg that their humanity begins. Using your logic we should save a woman's egg every month because it has the potential to combine with a sperm and become a human. Carrying your line of thinking even further we should save our fingernail clippings and sweep the floor of the barber shop for our shorn hair because they contain DNA that can be cloned. Arguments can be reduced to absurdities and that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?

For the same reason that coercion can make a difference in whether someone is punished for committing a crime or not. If they commit the crime freely, we prosecute them, but if they were coerced into committing a crime we do not.


What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person.

And what you are proposing is to make the woman pay for the crime of another person, twice.


When abortions are formed for reasons other than to save the life of the mother you are weighing the unborn child's life against the wishes, not the needs but the wishes of the mother and in my opinion life trumps desires and wishes every time.

In my opinion, the only opinion that matters is that of the rape victim.

It's a rotten situation all the way around, but I think it's wrong to assume that all situations have a solution that will benefit everyone. In this situation only the mother has a choice, the fetus does not.

Abortion is murder because the unborn child is alive with a heart beat. Some will say it's not, but it involves the snuffing out of a human life - so it's hard to see how it isn't.

The issue is not so cut & dry though in the real world. Abortions will happen - illegal or not, they will still occur.

When women are raped, it's something that was forced upon her, she has to carry the child, she isn't just a test tube - she has rights to decide not to carry the child. I think that is entirely reasonable.

I'm against abortion, but I'm not for making it illegal - that will not solve a thing. The only realistic solution is ongoing better education for young girls (& boys) about contraception.

And what you are proposing is to make the woman pay for the crime of another person, twice.

I feel very sorry for the woman. She has gone through a terrible ordeal and she didn't ask to become pregnant. Forcing her to carry the baby to term and deliver it is a hard thing to do. As bad as the consequences are for the woman they pale in comparison to the consequences for the unborn child.


What you are proposing is killing the child, a totally innocent victim. As I posted before we are weighing a woman's feelings against an unborn child's life. I think the baby's life trumps the woman's feelings.

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?
It is hard to think why it wouldn't.

What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person. Sort of like saying to Joe Smith, yeah, we know Billy Brown raped the woman but we're gonna kill you in his place.
The rapist should be punished accordingly, meanwhile it is the mother's body and her responsibility, therefore it is her choice.

The only truely innocent person in almost all abortions is the unborn child.
I agree.

As I posted before we are weighing a woman's feelings against an unborn child's life. I think the baby's life trumps the woman's feelings.
I don't. It is a gestating child, not a full-fledged person, and it is the woman who is in charge of her body and her life.

Originally Posted by Frogger
Why should rape or even incest make a difference?

It is hard to think why it wouldn't.

Saying it is hard to think why it wouldn't is not an answer.

Give reasons why the life of the child should be contingent on the manner in which it was conceived. Does the fact that the child was the product of rape or incest make that child's life any less valuable? Does the fact that the mother was raped mean that the child is to be killed as some sort of sacrifice to make her feel better? How do the circumstances of the pregnancy affect the innocence of the child?

The child isn't born at that point, the mother has to carry it in HER body. She has every right to say no if she was raped.

Why don't you ask the child what the child wants.

Would you like to be aborted?


The child isn't born at that point, the mother has to carry it in HER body. She has every right to say no if she was raped.

Why don't you ask the child what the child wants.



And tell me - how would we do that? A vulcan mind meld?

We can certainly ask the mother, whose body the child is in.

No, Drew, we can't do a Vulcan mind meld but we can extrapolate the almost universal answer to the question by asking people now alive if they would have prefered being aborted rather than born.

Let's start with you. If you were the product of rape would you prefer that your mother had had an abortion and you had never been born?

http://www.cpforlife.org/8eb97b20.jpg


My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.

?!?!?!

Why would a supposedly "perfect" god give one set of his 'perfect' rules to one group and then later --in the pages of the SAME "perfect" book of his-- tell another group --"Ahh...that menstruating rule was stupid. It is no longer in effect"..................?!?!?!?.
Because it's a pretty well known fact that "God" didn't write the book, nor did he speak to ANY of the disciples directly.

Why are we arguing about this? No one is ever going to agree. No one is ever going to change his mind.

Not true, Borg. I used to be pro-choice but after a long time of really considering the question I am now completely anti-abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother.

The doctor who appeared in the film I posted was an abortion doctor and one of the founders of NARAL and he is now anti-abortion.

The reason the pro-abortion people dont want to discuss it is because it makes them uncomfortable. They would much rather the debate ended and no one ever again brought up the innocent victims of abortion.

Wow, the girl with CP spells better than SisKo...

The reason the pro-abortion people dont want to discuss it is because it makes them uncomfortable. They would much rather the debate ended and no one ever again brought up the innocent victims of abortion.
Once again, I'm not pro-abortion, but the topic doesn't make me uncomfortable.I just think we've discussed it enough already on the forum. Same with gay marriage.

Why should rape or even incest make a difference?
Frogger - you know I like you, but I've got a serious question here: are you out of your fucking mind?!?!? What if some swarthy ex-convict who possessed the IQ of a peanut raped your wife??? Would you still be gung-ho about her having his child?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it, and if not, then you need to see a therapist...
What you are proposing is making the unborn child pay for the crime of another person.
And Vile was ABSOLUTELY correct when he said that your solution involves making the mother pay TWICE for being raped by some scumbag, and moreover, possibly with her life when she's FORCED to endure the pain and possible complications of delivering that baby. Before the fourth week of pregnancy, that child is nothing more than a viable mass of tissue anyway. Read; can't make decisions and won't feel any pain, hence, not a functioning human being. Now before you get all pissy, don't bother disputing the above statements; they're completely factual. My point is simple: when conception is FORCED upon a person, then don't you think it's only fair to let that person decide whether or not they want to keep that viable mass of tissue inside them?

Oh dear, I have Frogger all sharp around the edges. Meep! Hopefully you'll be a good sport.
The reason the pro-abortion people dont want to discuss it is because it makes them uncomfortable.
It makes me uncomfortable when we discuss abortion, I sometimes get upset when I hear the stories of a woman approaching the abortion clinic, but I am always an active participant in the discussions, so that is balderdash.

They would much rather the debate ended and no one ever again brought up the innocent victims of abortion.
The entire debate revolves around those very innocents and their mothers, so that is nonsense.

Does the fact that the child was the product of rape or incest make that child's life any less valuable?
No, but it changes the outlook that the impregnated may have. However, why is it that you would put any value in a mass of human tissue that has yet to become a person?

How do the circumstances of the pregnancy affect the innocence of the child?
They don't effect the innocence of the child, the circumstances effect the outlook and options a mother may have. Being raped (incestuous or otherwise), being too young, being diseased, the child being disabled, the financial situation, the family situation, and the wishes of the parents all come into play; the child doesn't get input because it is not a person.

Yes, I am proposing to force the woman to bear the child. While that is not the perfect solution I see it as a far better one than killing the unborn child.

STOP right there, Frogger.

Repeat after me; there is no "child" involved in this decision.

There is only an undifferentiated mass of tissue, and deciding to NOT let it develop into a human takes no more thought or conscience that ridding oneself of a fucking tapeworm.

And, as Prae just pointed out, i'd truly like to see YOU telling your wife who'd been raped by some worthless piece of shit criminal --"Yes, honey, you MUST carry this felonious scumbag's fetus to term, and we will raise it as if it were our own!!"

Frogger - you know I like you, but I've got a serious question here: are you out of your fucking mind?!?!? What if some swarthy ex-convict who possessed the IQ of a peanut raped your wife??? Would you still be gung-ho about her having his child?

Swarthy or not, I would hope my wife would not have an abortion. I am opposed to abortion, not just as some intellectual exercise but totally and unequivically opposed to it.

If my wife was raped I would want the rapist punished not the innocent child.

If my wife was raped I would want the rapist punished not the innocent child.
Yeah, well you're punishing her, too, and the funny thing is SHE'S YOUR WIFE.

You speak of rape as if it is a big cause of abortions. The fact is that rape accounts for less than 3 percent of abortions.

The real reason people want to be free to have abortions is because they want to be able to have sex when ever they want. If an child is concieved, it's not a big deal, they will just abort.

BE HONEST STOP TALKING ABOUT RAPE AS IF IT ALWAYS HAPPENS.

LOOK IT UP LESS THAN THREE PERCENT


Frogger - you know I like you, but I've got a serious question here: are you out of your fucking mind?!?!? What if some swarthy ex-convict who possessed the IQ of a peanut raped your wife??? Would you still be gung-ho about her having his child?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it, and if not, then you need to see a therapist...

And Vile was ABSOLUTELY correct when he said that your solution involves making the mother pay TWICE for being raped by some scumbag, and moreover, possibly with her life when she's FORCED to endure the pain and possible complications of delivering that baby. Before the fourth week of pregnancy, that child is nothing more than a viable mass of tissue anyway. Read; can't make decisions and won't feel any pain, hence, not a functioning human being. Now before you get all pissy, don't bother disputing the above statements; they're completely factual. My point is simple: when conception is FORCED upon a person, then don't you think it's only fair to let that person decide whether or not they want to keep that viable mass of tissue inside them?

LOOK IT UP LESS THAN THREE PERCENT
I wasn't disputing that.

I used to be pro-choice but after a long time of really considering the question I am now completely anti-abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother.


Ahh...so what you're saying is that your threshold for allowing the murder of an unborn "child" is just different from mine. Why is the mother's life more important in your opinion?

Also, what defines a threat to the life of the mother? Does the condition have to be 100% fatal if she gives birth, or would a 50/50 chance of death be enough cause to abort?

My friend is getting an abortion this week. Makes me happy and proud to live in a nation where she can legally do this.
Well in Ireland abortion is illegal,Im not sure,but it may be the only place in the EU that it is,anyway,I believe in aboration on medical grounds and exceptional circumstances.

You speak of rape as if it is a big cause of abortions. The fact is that rape accounts for less than 3 percent of abortions.

That's fine sisko, but irrelevant to the discussion at this point.


The real reason people want to be free to have abortions is because they want to be able to have sex when ever they want. If an child is concieved, it's not a big deal, they will just abort.

I think the real reason is because people don't want the government involved in the decision, and I agree.


BE HONEST STOP TALKING ABOUT RAPE AS IF IT ALWAYS HAPPENS.

LOOK IT UP LESS THAN THREE PERCENT

YOUR CAPS LOCK IS STUCK ON AGAIN SISKO!

Yes, my threshold is quite different. My threshold is reached when the mother's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy.

Here are the reason women gave when asked why they had an abortion. Notice how few abortions were for rape or incest. Then look at how many were because the woman Ninety one percent of abortions are for the sake of convenience. I just don't see convenience as being a valid enough reason to take the life of an unborn child.

reason % of abortions
rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)
unready for responsibility 21
is too immature or young to have child 11 (12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12 (14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion 1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 8 (7.9)
can't afford baby now 21 (21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life 16
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant 1
other

Yes, my threshold is quite different. My threshold is reached when the mother's life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy.


Ok. Fair enough. You posted earlier that you used to be pro-choice, but now you're anti-abortion. You seem convinced that before you were wrong, and now you're right. So certain in fact, that you're willing to impose your new-found wisdom on someone else, and tell a woman that she can't have an abortion if she was raped, the victim of incest, or even if there are concerns she might not be able to conceive again if she carries the fetus to term.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm trying to figure out how you can be so certain that your specific restrictions regarding abortion are correct for everyone.

I can be so certain because there are certain absolutes in life, among them, convenience never trumps life.

I can be so certain because there are certain absolutes in life, among them, convenience never trumps life.

I think we all agree that abortions of convenience are wrong Frogger, you state the obvious very well. The debate arose when you proclaimed your opposition to all abortions except when the life of the mother was threatened. This restricts a lot more abortions than the ones of convenience, and that's what we were debating.

I believe in abortion on medical grounds and exceptional circumstances.

I agree completely here, and I think perhaps you do too Frogger. I just don't want a politician deciding what those medical grounds and special circumstances are. That's a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor.

Any abortion other than one to save the life of the mother is an abortion of convenience.

Say the child is handicapped. Does that mean the child should be killed? How about right after the child is born but before an attachement is formed with it? How about simply snuffing it?

Among my degrees I have a Master's in Special Education and was at one time assistant to the director of a large special education after school, weekend and summer program that dealt with mentally, emotionally and physically challenged children and adults. Lots of our clients were severly handicapped and yet I never met a single one who didn't value his or her life. I know for a fact that none of them would have opted to have been aborted.

I conversed with teenagers who were so handicapped they had to be fed and diapered and spoke by pointing to letters on a board with a pointer attached to a band that circled their head. They valued their lives and lived them as fully as they possibly could.

In all my years working with them I never met a single one who's life was not worth living.

That's fine sisko, but irrelevant to the discussion at this point.

It is very relevant. You toss rape into the discussion as if it is one of the biggest reasons to get an abortion. Once again I tell you BE HONEST.


I think the real reason is because people don't want the government involved in the decision, and I agree.

Once again I tell you that the governments main responsibilites is to protect the innocent life within it's borders. Abortion is murder, the government should be involved in murder.



YOUR CAPS LOCK IS STUCK ON AGAIN SISKO!

No, I put it on, it might knock some sense into your thick head!

No, I put it on, it might knock some sense into your thick head!
Vilepagan is one of the most clear-minded and fair members of this forum, however you come across as a blind, partisan guy disinterested in having intelligent discussion. Oh, and by the way, your capitalization of every letter in a sentence is simply obnoxious.

Any abortion other than one to save the life of the mother is an abortion of convenience.
Your values obviously cause friction with others. Why do you believe it is necessary to enforce your will over others? (especially when they do not share your values) I know your answer, but try to surprise us. :)

No, I put it on, it might knock some sense into your thick head!

All caps is considered yelling, and it just makes it look like you've gone off your meds.

You also need to learn how to use the "Quotes" tag.


It is very relevant. You toss rape into the discussion as if it is one of the biggest reasons to get an abortion. Once again I tell you BE HONEST.

Well, the irony here is astounding. You tell me to be honest in a sentence containing falsehoods of your own. I didn't introduce rape into the discussion, Frogger did when he said he wouldn't allow abortion in the case
of rape. I also have made no comment whatever on the number or type of abortions, again, that would be Frogger. Perhaps you have us confused. I know you seem confused.

Your values obviously cause friction with others. Why do you believe it is necessary to enforce your will over others? (especially when they do not share your values) I know your answer, but try to surprise us. :)

If my values cause friction with others perhaps others should change their values. I don't hold my values lightly and will defend them vigorously. What makes you think that you have more right to defend your values than I do mine or that you have more right to cause friction between you and me than I have to cause friction between you and me?

I am not enforcing my will over others. I do not go to abortion clinics and forbid women to have abortions. I do not shoot abortion doctors. I give my views on the subject. That is not forcing them on others. The fact that you and others do not share my views is neither here nor there. I do not hold them in order to please others. I hold them because I think they are valid and true.

If I were to change my views or fail to defend them simply because they don't meet with universal approval I would not be much of a man.

Your post has really surprised and disappointed me, evakian. Since I first started posting here I considered you one of the most open-minded posters at the site. I think that I might perhaps have to re-evaluate my initial perception. If you honestly think that someone should be afraid to voice their opinion because others don't agree with it you are not the person I thought you were.

Why is it that so many men protest abortions? Especially men pretty much beyond the age of fathering children (50+ years). I've seen many protests in action in front of abortion clinics in several states, and it's pretty much the same all over. Makes little sense.

Paul, thank you for the American flag avatar. I gather it is in honor of our celebration of the Fourth of July.

Why is it that so many men protest abortions? Especially men pretty much beyond the age of fathering children (50+ years). I've seen many protests in action in front of abortion clinics in several states, and it's pretty much the same all over. Makes little sense.

Should we value life less as we get older? I would expect just the opposite that one would value life more as one comes closer to the end of one's own.

It is Frogger:to honor The United States of America,and my American friends,have a Great day ALL of you guys.

I think the world in general is valueing life less these days.
PS Im posting messages on the wrong threads,sorry guys,my minds a bit pickled at the minute.

Frogger is a smart guy!


Same to you, I hope all of you FT, Vile, Paulic, Frogger, (everyone here) has a great fourth!!

God Bless The USA!!! The greatest nation on Gods Green Earth!!

ID 4 yeah baby!!!!


It is Frogger:to honor The United States of America,and my American friends,have a Great day ALL of you guys.

Why is it that so many men protest abortions? Especially men pretty much beyond the age of fathering children (50+ years). Their conscience-driven involvement is just as valid as that of post-menopausal women, committed lesbians, committed celibate women and infertile women who also protest.

Foster homes and adoption agencies are not the answer. Adoption laws are incredibly strict, and once a child is over a certain age, they're pretty much destined for life in some agency group home vying for attention among 6-15 other unwanted children. There's a lot more kids available than there are willing & acceptable adults to take them in.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that living out your childhood in foster homes or group homes is a less acceptable alternative to abortion?

Perhaps you should talk to some people in that situation.

I've long supported the right to choose. Having spent some 30+ years working in & aound the social services field has shown me the fate of countless unwanted children. Reality is a tough instructor. I was a program director at a very old child care facility in NY state, with 4 boys group homes under my umbrella. We housed over 300 children within the agency some under more restrictions than others. The group homes were the "final" step before full independent living. My charges were 13-20, the group homes were always full and the adoptions very rare.

There is no perfect answer. But murder is not the correct answer.

I've long supported the right to choose. Having spent some 30+ years working in & aound the social services field has shown me the fate of countless unwanted children. Reality is a tough instructor. I was a program director at a very old child care facility in NY state, with 4 boys group homes under my umbrella. We housed over 300 children within the agency some under more restrictions than others. The group homes were the "final" step before full independent living. My charges were 13-20, the group homes were always full and the adoptions very rare.

If my values cause friction with others perhaps others should change their values.
How about make it easier for all of us and change your own values? :D

I am not enforcing my will over others.
Anyone who pushes for the outlawing of abortion wants to enforce their will upon others.
I give my views on the subject. That is not forcing them on others.
I never said you force your will upon others, but you most assuredly want to make it a necessity to enforce your will and butt into the personal lives of sad and misled women, as you have shown in your contempt of abortion (which nearly matches mine, but not quite). Perhaps you should reread my post, because you are apparently misconstruing it's meaning.

I hold them because I think they are valid and true.
Let us pretend I am a young woman pregnant with a baby, what makes your opinion more valid than mine in the way that I have to carry my baby to term because of your mindset?

Your post has really surprised and disappointed me, evakian. Since I first started posting here I considered you one of the most open-minded posters at the site. I think that I might perhaps have to re-evaluate my initial perception.
Your post really surprised me, I thought Frogger was good with reading comprehension, perhaps I should re-evaluate my view of you. :rolleyes: :D

I am easily one of the most open-minded people on this very forum. I argue points of view I don't hold without a second thought, I don't expect anyone to live up to my standards, and I am not offended by anything short of rape and murder.

If you honestly think that someone should be afraid to voice their opinion because others don't agree with it you are not the person I thought you were. If you honestly think that I believe that, than you are not the person I thought you were. :p

Frogger, I cut corners to be polite whenever I can, I consider all viewpoints and love to discuss other's viewpoints, you've no reason to be mad at me and I have no reason to be mad at you. I suspect you are only angry at me because I have different views than you. You're also preying on my desire to appease you by making me feel bad for voicing my opinion. I never said what you just claimed I said, and you know I don't believe that ludicrous ideal you claim I adhere to.

I've long supported the right to choose. Having spent some 30+ years working in & aound the social services field has shown me the fate of countless unwanted children...... My charges were 13-20, the group homes were always full and the adoptions very rare.So you think abortion would have been better for them?

I've long supported the right to choose. Having spent some 30+ years working in & aound the social services field has shown me the fate of countless unwanted children. Reality is a tough instructor. I was a program director at a very old child care facility in NY state, with 4 boys group homes under my umbrella. We housed over 300 children within the agency some under more restrictions than others. The group homes were the "final" step before full independent living. My charges were 13-20, the group homes were always full and the adoptions very rare.


My son-in-law does almost the exact same thing now and he will tell you that not a single one of those children would choose to be aborted rather than born. I think it is pretty damned arrogant for people to decide that another person's life is so without value that that person would be better off had he been aborted.

It's not up to the fetus! The choice is up to the individual who is carrying the fetus. Should she decide during her first trimester - for whatever reason - that she does not want to be pregnant, that's her choice. It is not for anyone else to shove their values down her throat.

How is it that so many are so concerned about forcing their will on others when it means the pregnant woman and so few are concerned about the woman forcing her view on the unborn child?

If we force our view on the woman she is inconvenienced. If we allow her to force her view on the child the child is dead.

Being dead is a lot worse than being incovenienced.

The rights of the living, breathing human beings outweigh that of any growth going on inside of them.

It is not a growth. Cancer is a growth. It is an unborn child.

It is not a growth. Cancer is a growth. It is an unborn child.
So is a sperm. So is an egg.

A sperm and an egg is not an unborn child. Where are you getting this from Borg?

A sperm and an egg is not an unborn child. Where are you getting this from Borg?
It holds the same potential to become life as an embryo or fetus, albeit at a lower success rate. A sperm and an egg are unquestionably living cells. Shouldn't Frogger's logic extend to their protection as well?

No, because neither a spern nor an egg on it's own is a new life. They are no more or less important than the skin cells on your arm.

A sperm + an egg together is a new life from the moment they join.

No, because neither a spern nor an egg on it's own is a new life. They are no more or less important than the skin cells on your arm.

A sperm + an egg together is a new life from the moment they join.
Reproductive cells can't be compared to skin cells; the DNA is only half there. A sperm cell and an egg one second before fertilization differ from the embryo one second after fertilization differ in "life" how, exactly? I will grant that the embryo suddenly gains potential to divide. However, fundamentally, the two are similar and are integral parts to ultimately making a baby. My ultimate point is, drawing a line at fertilization as the beginnig of life is still drawing a fairly arbitrary line. I know I'm drawing an arbitrary line when I say that abortions while the embryo is still an embryo and not a fetus (up to 8 weeks) are fine and not morally suspect at all. I'd like to have anti-choice people admit that as well. You could indeed draw the line earlier than fertilization, since both sperm and egg are essential baby-making components.