Dude, you are a generous man...

Ok. No "revolutionary lather" btw. America can do that in it's own time on its own schedule.

I have to repeat myself often because others forget what I've already said or missed it or purposefully pretend I never said it. Why re-type the same thing when it's already there ?

I wouldn't do it if I didn't need to.

So what is your complaint ?

Want me to type and retype the same thing(s) forever, is that it ?

I think it's more accurate to say that you can't comprehend that someone might not agree with you, so you assume the problem has to be that they didn't read it. If repeating doesn't work, then it's obviously a problem with the font you're using, so a second repeat * with stars, a new font, and a different color will probably clear up the confusion.* If that doesn't work, then going back to step one and repeating the repeating process is in order.

All disagreements with your views are the result of people not reading what you say enough times and in the right color, with stars.

And, my complaint is that posting the same thing over and over again is a waste of your time, USPO's bandwidth and the trouble of me having to skip posts of yours to see the next one.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

You can "think it's accurate" to say that if you wish.

I think it's accurate to say that you're "full of it."

Oh, no, we read what you write.

It's just that is so fuckin' easy to dismiss as tripe...

I'm content to let anyone reading take both of our assessments into consideration and make their own judgment on the matter.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Exactly. Like I said, it's a potential human being, and for that reason you believe it should be treated as an actual one. You can split hairs about "joined and combined DNA," or make misstatements like that it will do this "if left alone," but what it comes down to is still the fact that it will become a "fully functional human being" -- which, of course, implies that it isn't one now.

So don't get all huffy about what your argument isn't, when you say yourself that's what it is. At most, you just use different words.

Why not?

In both cases, you have something that isn't a human being.

In both cases, you have something that can become a human being under certain conditions.

We can dismiss the sperm cell because it's mathematically impossible for all sperm cells to grow into babies, there aren't enough ova for that. But:

A fertilized ovum can grow into a baby if it's successfully implanted in the uterus, if the mother's health is and remains good enough, if no unforeseen factors cause a spontaneous abortion, if it has no genetic abnormalities that would lead to a stillbirth, and if all goes well with the birth process itself.

An unfertilized ovum can grow into a baby if it's fertilized by a sperm cell, if it's successfully implanted in the uterus, if the mother's health is and remains good enough, if no unforeseen factors cause a spontaneous abortion, if it has no genetic abnormalities that would lead to a stillbirth, and if all goes well with the birth process itself.

Not much difference in those two paragraphs, is there? Now tell me, why do those seven little words, "if it's fertilized by a sperm cell," suddenly mean that we should treat the fertilized ovum as if it were a person, but not the unfertilized one? I mean, neither one of them is a person, or even close to it, NOW. So, what? Are you saying there's something mystical or spiritual about having a complete set of chromosomes?

Yes, it is. You talk about the death of insensate human tissue without any feelings, in ways that would only be appropriate if it HAD feelings. There is certainly no logical basis for thinking that way. It is entirely a matter of emotion.

No huffy happening here.

Your weak argument demands you to keep comparing apples to oranges.

It's looking more desperate with each attempt.

So you say. On text on an internet forum

Why do you say that?

Because you keep doing it.

jizz in hand or an egg in an ovary in NO way compares to a newly formed human in the womb.

If they DO then spanking the monkey is murder too. I think I pointed this out already way back

Why not just say, "I don't know anything about biology or reproduction!" It'd save you a lot of time.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Of course it does. I've already explained why. They are both potential human beings, but neither one of them is a human being yet.

If you want to dismiss that enormous similarity, explain why you are dismissing it, but don't sit there and say they "in no way" compare with each other, when quite obviously there are a LOT of ways they compare.

And if it were mathematically possible for every sperm cell to participate in fertilization, that would be true. Since it isn't, we consider only the ova, which CAN all be fertilized.

I said THAT way back as well.

It doesn't. They're completely different things. Your argument demands you equate them though.

Go ahead and do it if you must. I'm only pointing out what's obvious.

Yes, ok. Ridiculous but ok if you say so.

Here's some reading for you:

-------------------------------

Public-relations moves by Pro-Choice groups have defined the movement as one of personal choice--a question of who decides. It sounds like this: "Nobody likes abortion. But who decides who will have an abortion--the woman or the government?"

This sounds convincing at first, but try it with any other action involving a victim. We don't argue that rape should be legal ("Who decides--the men who are personally involved, or the government?") No one argues that, since rape will happen anyway, it should be "safe and legal." Instead, we recognize the shifting of the question and say, "Wait just a minute. This isn't about who decides, but about whether we humans have a moral obligation to defend other defenceless humans. What about the victim?

The real question with abortion is whether one class of unique living human beings (the unborn) can be denied legal protection simply because it's easier to live without them. If the fetus is a living human being, then he or she deserves full legal protection--even protection from a mother who does not want to carry him. Why? Because it's wrong to kill innocent people.

The fetus is biologically human (not a chicken or a bunny). The fetus is living (it is not dead tissue). The fetus is unique (its unique genetic code is different from either its mother or father).

In a Congressional hearing in the 1980s, 22 experts were asked when human life begins--11 supported legal abortion, 11 opposed it. One expert said life began at "implantation" (when the fertilized egg implants in the womb a week after conception). The other 23 all said life began at conception. Abortion is killing a living human. This is scientific fact. It is becoming more common today to define pregnancy as starting at implantation. That's an issue of semantics, however. Life--unique human life--begins at conception.

The philosophical point my pro-choice friends make at this point is to argue that, while the fetus is a unique living human being, it is not yet a legal person and therefore has no rights.

I wonder who decides which human beings are persons and which ones are non-persons. Sounds like Dred Scott to me.

Or Auschwitz.

Some will object to giving the unborn legal protection, saying "You can't legislate morality." I try to respect people when they say things like this--they're probably just repeating what somebody else said to them. But it's a terribly naive line of argumentation. Every law on the books is legislating someone's morality. I wear my seatbelt. Why? Because the state makes me. Why? Because it's wrong to kill--even to kill oneself. Assault is illegal in most places, too. Why? Because assault is wrong, and whenever immoral actions have victims, it's the governments job to legislate morality. Government doesn't protect the innocent by the power of suggestion.

But whose morality? Yours? Mine? No. If we decide our own eh\thical guidelines, we'll always put ourselves on top and others beneath us. It's human nature to define reality in a way that maximizes our own power at the expense of others.

What Should Christians Think about Abortion?

"The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Abortion

We are allowed to take life under the prescribed requirements of law such as self defense, war, execution, etc. Each of these areas deals with Law. Self defense is justified because an antagonist is breaking the law (burglary, robbery, assault, etc.) and we can use force to protect ourselves and our property. War is the legal declaration of hostilities towards another nation. Execution is the legal taking of life against someone who has committed a crime or crimes worthy of execution. In each case, the antagonists are dealt with for the wrongs they are committing.

However, the baby in the womb has done no wrong yet it is executed. It is executed but has broken no law! What crime has been committed? What law have a broken in their existence? None. Yet they are killed.

why is abortion wrong?


The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed:

This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?

This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.

What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?

This is saying that value of humanity is based upon development.

At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?

If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible t