Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 3:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My feelings about abortions and when life starts has absolutely no basis
in any religious views I may have. I believe that the
medical/scientific community defined when a fetus becomes viable and a
"life" begins that fit social pressures of the time.

===

I do not doubt your sincerity or integrity, and you're certainly
entitled to your beliefs. I'd argue however that your beliefs are
religious in nature whether you acknowledge it or not. I say that
because they appear to be based on faith that your instincts are
correct rather than on some rigorously defined criteria. The supreme
court and the scientific community have based their opinions and
decisions on the best available facts. I think it's commendable that
they did not allow themselves to be pressured by faith based belief
systems.

As a matter of curiosity, how do you feel about the termination of
life support systems for patients who have been declared "brain dead"?


Interesting that you brought up the subject of terminating life support
systems because I had added my feelings about that in a previous post
but deleted it to stay "on topic".

But first, be assured, my position on abortions has nothing to do with
religion. I am not a member of any church and I don't practice any kind
of religion.

Here's the thing with abortions. The push to legalize abortions began
in the 1960's leading to the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973.
It should be noted that 1973 was also when early, crude DNA sequencing
methods were first being developed.

Roe vs Wade set the standard of "viability" (initially 24 to 28 weeks)
as the measure for abortions. Viability meant the fetus or baby
(depending on what you believe) would *not* survive outside the womb
even when artificial measures were used to keep it .... get this ...
"alive". The term "viability" has become the measure of the fetus
(baby) being a human being or not.

Meanwhile, DNA sequencing has improved immensely since Roe vs Wade.
It has been recently determined that the fertilized, single cell that
starts at conception has *all* the DNA structure of a human being.
Half comes from the mother, the other half from the father.

So, that opens Pandora's Box in my mind. When *is* it a human being?

That all said, I am not a crusader to limit abortions. It's up to the
woman and what she believes.

As for termination of life support when brain dead, hopefully the
affected person executed a living will and/or a relative has proxy
to make that decision. I see that as a completely different issue
though. Being brain dead is a measurable state. When a fertilized
human egg becomes a human being isn't ... other than the DNA evidence
that I mentioned.

I have no problem with pulling life support for someone who has been
determined to be brain dead. I also support human euthanasia, based on
personal wishes by terminally ill people.

I am against the death penalty with very limited exceptions.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 7:05 PM, wrote:
On 27 Aug 2015 21:44:29 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

confirmed in Senate

or not and that was my point.


I think the Republicans are going to lose the Senate in 2016.

Are you really...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor. Donnie was kidding.

Actually, he lacks a sense of humor Lang with intelligence.

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

I see you are showing your low IQ again. The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. At least castrate him.



"You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously."



Kalif Swill has never recovered from that tumble off the roof.

Ha ha ha. You and Krause are both fairly stupid.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:08:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

As for termination of life support when brain dead, hopefully the
affected person executed a living will and/or a relative has proxy
to make that decision. I see that as a completely different issue
though. Being brain dead is a measurable state. When a fertilized
human egg becomes a human being isn't ... other than the DNA evidence
that I mentioned.

===

I can forsee a day when we may be able to measure brain waves at some
stage of fetal development. I would accept that as evidence of life,
just as we do with a person who is otherwise comatose.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 8:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor. Donnie was kidding.

Actually, he lacks a sense of humor Lang with intelligence.


Who is Lang?

Are you really...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/27/15 8:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.

Actually, he lacks a sense of humor Lang with intelligence.


Who is Lang?

Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot.

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



"Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding."



I was trying to be sarcastic to Swill's outrageous blathering, but I
guess humour will work too.

Give up on humor. You are too dumb to pull it off.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 8:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:08:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

As for termination of life support when brain dead, hopefully the
affected person executed a living will and/or a relative has proxy
to make that decision. I see that as a completely different issue
though. Being brain dead is a measurable state. When a fertilized
human egg becomes a human being isn't ... other than the DNA evidence
that I mentioned.

===

I can forsee a day when we may be able to measure brain waves at some
stage of fetal development. I would accept that as evidence of life,
just as we do with a person who is otherwise comatose.



Evidence already exists that a fetus has some basic brain activity as
early as the fifth week. By the sixth week it will respond to touch.

Are you really...
 

Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. *Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?

Are you really...
 

On 8/28/15 2:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/27/2015 8:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:08:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

As for termination of life support when brain dead, hopefully the
affected person executed a living will and/or a relative has proxy
to make that decision. I see that as a completely different issue
though. Being brain dead is a measurable state. When a fertilized
human egg becomes a human being isn't ... other than the DNA evidence
that I mentioned.

===

I can forsee a day when we may be able to measure brain waves at some
stage of fetal development. I would accept that as evidence of life,
just as we do with a person who is otherwise comatose.



Evidence already exists that a fetus has some basic brain activity as
early as the fifth week. By the sixth week it will respond to touch.

And by the seventh week, it's asking for a Miller Lite.

Are you really...
 

On 8/28/2015 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?

How did you know he was a Binger?
Oh, by the way, that dumb blackberry of yours replaces the first letter
of some words with an apostrophe.

Are you really...
 

On 8/28/15 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?



Weekend, midweek, high noon, what's the difference? At least 75% of his
posts make absolutely no sense, with or without "spelling robot" induced
errors.

Are you really...
 

On Friday, 28 August 2015 10:27:07 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/28/15 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?



Weekend, midweek, high noon, what's the difference? At least 75% of his
posts make absolutely no sense, with or without "spelling robot" induced
errors.


I agree wholeheartedly with this post!

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2015 10:27:07 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/28/15 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?



Weekend, midweek, high noon, what's the difference? At least 75% of his
posts make absolutely no sense, with or without "spelling robot" induced
errors.


I agree wholeheartedly with this post!

That is because you are a dumb ass, and hook your wagon to liar, financial
idiot.

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?

Dumb Ass! You drunk?

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf
===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?
Especially crack babies.
Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!
They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?
===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.
So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!
Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.

Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?
I see you are showing your low IQ again. The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. At least castrate him.


"You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously."



Kalif Swill has never recovered from that tumble off the roof.

You lack original thoughts, dummy.

Are you really...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:37:49 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.
===

As Don's official spokesperson it is now your obligation to flag any
post of his where he's kidding. Otherwise you might want to let him
speak for himself since he seems perfectly capable.


Except that he can't quote worth a damn.

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....
Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.


"Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding."



I was trying to be sarcastic to Swill's outrageous blathering, but I guess humour will work too.


You try and fail at a lot of things. Buying a quality boat, keeping a
clean yard, backing a trailered boat, speaking your own mind, choosing
your friends, etc...

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?


Nice work - until YOU have a typo, eh?

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2015 10:27:07 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/28/15 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend binging, Swill?


Weekend, midweek, high noon, what's the difference? At least 75% of his
posts make absolutely no sense, with or without "spelling robot" induced
errors.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post!


Of course you do. It's a requirement, eh?

Are you really...
 

Alex
True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
- show quoted text -
Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?
I see you are showing your low IQ again. *The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. *At least castrate him.


"You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously."



Kalif Swill has never recovered from that tumble off the roof.


"You lack original thoughts, dummy."


Ditzy Dan Kruger..... I'm more concerned with accuracy than trying to be creative. Y'all mistakenly expect me to be like your Repugnant hopefulls.

Are you really...
 

On 8/29/2015 11:49 PM, Alex wrote:
True North wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2015 10:27:07 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/28/15 7:19 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"Guy in charge of something. Lack with some iPad spelling robot."


What the 'ell? You getting an early start on the weekend
binging, Swill?


Weekend, midweek, high noon, what's the difference? At least 75% of his
posts make absolutely no sense, with or without "spelling robot" induced
errors.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post!


Of course you do. It's a requirement, eh?
They can't help it. They're Siamese twins joined at the butt hole. When
one poops, the other has to react.

Are you really...
 

On 8/30/2015 7:40 AM, True North wrote:
I'm more concerned with accuracy than trying to be creative.

You fail at both. If you wanted either, you chose the wrong role model
to mimic.

Are you really...
 

StinktJim farts...

"They can't help it. They're Siamese twins joined at the butt hole. When
one poops, the other has to react."



Hey Stinky, why do you always have s*it on your mind? Can't you even clean up your act for Sunday?

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:39:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:20:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins.

===

It's very easy to dance around that issue. It is your choice. The
generally accepted view of "life" however includes the ability to
survive on your own among other things. The notion that "life" is
present among a clump of multiplying cells is mostly a religious
thing. I have nothing against religion and people should be free to
believe what they want. The law however should be based on science
and generally accepted principles. The law has spoken with regard to
women's right to an abortion.

Letting religion take precedence over facts and science has led to all
sorts of mischief in the past including the notion that the sun and
planets revolved around the earth. People of science were persecuted
and sometimes executed if they disagreed with the church's position no
matter how demonstrably erroneous it was. We see the same thing today
with Darwin, evolution, brain death, the beginning of life, etc.

If your definition of 'life' had any meaning, then there would be none. Almost no
animal can survive on their own immediately after birth. For damn sure, no human can
do so.

That statement was not well thought out.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:39:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Almost no
animal can survive on their own immediately after birth. For damn sure, no human can
do so.

That is a very "mammalian" response ;-)

Specieist !

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 06:02:49 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

StinktJim farts...

"They can't help it. They're Siamese twins joined at the butt hole. When
one poops, the other has to react."



Hey Stinky, why do you always have s*it on your mind? Can't you even clean up your act for Sunday?

Actually, he had you on his mind. Why do you equate yourself with that stuff?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:44:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.
--

So shooting into a house at random is OK if you are not sure if there
is someone inside?
Just curious about how we are supposed to reconcile this?

No firearms involved.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:13:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:39:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Almost no
animal can survive on their own immediately after birth. For damn sure, no human can
do so.

That is a very "mammalian" response ;-)

Specieist !

yeah, well....I'm not perfect.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

Are you really...
 

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:19:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

What question?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:17:11 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:19:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

What question?

===

Why would anyone want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.?

You seem to be very worried about the life of an unborn clump of cells
for some reason, why not a little concern for the woman and the
unwanted child?

Are you really...
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:29:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:17:11 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:19:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

What question?

===

Why would anyone want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.?

No one *wants* unwanted babies to be born, regardless of the cause. The morning after
pill should be readily available to any woman who asks, in my opinion.

You seem to be very worried about the life of an unborn clump of cells
for some reason, why not a little concern for the woman and the
unwanted child?

Again, look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'clump of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

And that's pretty early in the pregnancy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:16:57 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:29:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:17:11 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:19:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

What question?

===

Why would anyone want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.?

No one *wants* unwanted babies to be born, regardless of the cause. The morning after
pill should be readily available to any woman who asks, in my opinion.

You seem to be very worried about the life of an unborn clump of cells
for some reason, why not a little concern for the woman and the
unwanted child?

Again, look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'clump of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

And that's pretty early in the pregnancy.


No problem, we can just wait until they have committed a few dozen
felonies and we can kill them then.

Are you really...
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:16:57 -0400, John H. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:29:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:17:11 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:19:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:56:15 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:00:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:37:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

I noted, upon my return, that you conveniently skipped this:

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

===

Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.

You didn't answer my questions!

===

Answer my question and I might answer yours.

What question?

===

Why would anyone want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world, particularly a woman who
had been raped, subject to incest, a pre-teen, etc.?

No one *wants* unwanted babies to be born, regardless of the cause. The morning after
pill should be readily available to any woman who asks, in my opinion.

You seem to be very worried about the life of an unborn clump of cells
for some reason, why not a little concern for the woman and the
unwanted child?

Again, look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'clump of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

And that's pretty early in the pregnancy.

~~crickets~~
--

Ban idiots, not guns!