In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

AA #2104> Apatriot #22> Atheist #3

--> BanditManDan

In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

"United we Stand" <> wrote in message ...>

After saying:>

why do atheists give themselves numbers like>

do these totalitarian commie red lib bastards feel insecure without a> number?>

Of course a smart guy, like United, could go to bible gateway, pop in> abortion, and see for ones self, if Jesus ever mentioned abortion.>

But as his atheist post shows, United is not the brightest spoke in the> wheel.>

Smile.>

"United we Stand" <> wrote in message ...>

After saying:>

why do atheists give themselves numbers like>

do these totalitarian commie red lib bastards feel insecure without a>number?>

Of course a smart guy, like United, could go to bible gateway, pop in>abortion, and see for ones self, if Jesus ever mentioned abortion.>

But as his atheist post shows, United is not the brightest spoke in the>wheel.>

Smile.

In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

If we believe you religious fruitcakes, then abortion is MURDER, which means >it must be allright, because the bible is the word of the WORST MASS >MURDERER of all time, god.

Yep - He said when you do to the least of mine, you do to me.

So when you force an unwilling woman to go through the agony of childbirth,>you're forcing Jesus to go through that agony too?

Believe it or not back street aborstions did not exist in 25AD; i don't>think coathangers did either.....

That was, and still is, a woman's choice.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:13:25 GMT, "SheBlewHimDidYouBl­owHim"><killgod@kill­god.com> wrote:>

Of course not. God doesn't pull the trigger, man does.>

duke>*****>Matthew­ 22>14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

*****

In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

Of course not. God doesn't pull the trigger, man does.>

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:36:52 -0700, Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapaz.com> wrote:>

God shot everyone?>

Well, if you read the bible, everyone but that 1 family was evil. And evil will>not succeed.

duke>*****>Matthew­ 22>14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." >*****

Who, or what, 'pulls the trigger' that kills off (causes to be flushed >out) the vast majority (about three quarters IIRC) of fertilised human >ova before they even implant themselves in the woman's tissues?

It's not >an active attempt by the woman (she normally doesn't even know there >*is* a fertilised ovum at that point). Ditto for the man. So who or what >does that 'discard and destroy' of the blastocysts/embryos­?

Sorry that it wasn't clear enough; I'll try again. I think that you wish to>outlaw abortion, thereby removing the pregnant woman's choice of avoiding>the agony of childbirth, should she not wish to carry to term: is that so?

Of course not.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness,

Mankind in his failure to be as God.>

Bill "hey look, I remembered to trim cross-posted groups!" S.

Except for that time when he wiped out EVERYONE on the planet except> for 1 family

Ex. 20:13 "You shall not kill."!

You are talking about human fetuses>aren't you, and what would this fetus become if not a human in the>image of God?

This word kill in this application is recognized as>"MURDER".

The ten commandments were given by Christ in the form of the>God of the Old Testament, see John 1 to varify this

Now it's the NT spiritual death, or spending an eternity in hell for what you>did in this lifetime. Use it wisely. God is waiting on you to wise up and>change your ways. And that's not a threat - it's a promise.

When did God appoint you as His spokesman?

He didn't, but the prior poster is relaying information that is>contained in God's word.

What you claim is God's word and what is God's word are two very>different things.

Really?

And when did God give you the right to make that distinction?

David W. Poole, Jr. <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om> wrote:>> rfischer@bolt.sonic­.net (Ray Fischer) >>

Really.>

When Jesus walked the Earth.

Elaborate. Nothing I read leads me to believe that Jesus's presence on>terra firma advocates discarding the OT.

We are expected to correctly handle the word of truth,

and anyone>stating the Bible condones abortion is not properly handling it.

Is it right for YOU to commit a crime for what you think is a good?>

No.

message news:ekc921h5o9c088­8mopiteohl9n362789l7­@4ax.com...> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:16:08 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic­.net (Ray> > Fischer) was understood to have stated the following:>

[snip]>

Why are you ignoring Numbers 5?>

David W. Poole, Jr. <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om> wrote:> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:09:38 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic­.net (Ray> > Fischer) was understood to have stated the following:> >

Nothing in the Bible appoints you as ANY sort of judge about the rules> other people are expected to follow. In fact Jesus said more than> once that YOU are not to make the rules nor are you to make other> people obey rules you come up with.

"It is a gift of god, not of works, lest any man should boast"

rfischer@bolt.soni­c.net (Ray Fischer) wrote >> Peter <zwamahn@hotmail.co­m> wrote:

So what???? Kill in Ex. 20:13 IS talking about MURDER, you can't>murder a plant!! ***

*** Well? How is abortion not murder?????? ***

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:58:20 -0700, Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapaz.com>>­was understood to have stated the following:>

But it also says that the gift of salvation will be evidenced by the>works.>

HOW DO YOU GET THIS DUMBASS THREAD TO STOP!!

In article <1109877724.308639.­238990@g14g2000cwa.g­ooglegroups.com>,>"M­aggie" <lbuset@allsecretar­ial.com> writes:>>

By not responding to it, thereby letting it die naturally.>

I see you trimmed a bunch of cross-posts. Thank you ­>

In the meantime you could put the subject in your killfile,>if you have one. I just "mark thread as read" whenever the>thread shows up in my newsreader.>

cheers,>Tom

is not talking about>anything other than human life.

Matthew 5:39-41 (NIV)>39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to>him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak>as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.>

What, exactly, does that have to do with abortion, Ray?

Peter <zwamahn@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>>*** Here you are in a Christian NG putting man's law above that of the>>Eternals, Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL..." >

And if English was good enough for Moses then it's good enough for you.>

Where does it say that? Or are YOU putting your own rules above God's>laws?

And Exodus 21:22-25 sets the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry as a>mere fine.

and, as quoted before, John 1:1-4 & 14 proclaim Jesus to be>> God's word in the flesh. It's just that some, like Mr. Fischer, seem>> to have difficulty with John 1:5. Also be advised that being deceived>> is rather easy.>

Ray also quoted Numbers 5 to you, but you seem to want to ignore this. Why?

In article <ekc921h5o9c0888mop­iteohl9n362789l7@4ax­.com>, >TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om says...>>

The following defines (across pretty much the whole world) when the >status of 'human being' (or 'person') begins.>

Would you like to demonstrate that these laws are all somehow wrong?

Evidently you just want to skip Exodus 20:13, like it doesn't exist.

Like a typical pro-liar you resort to lies whenever your hate-filled>ideolog­y is challenged. That passage from Exodus says NOTHING that>has anything to do with abortion.

By not responding to it, thereby letting it die naturally.>

I see you trimmed a bunch of cross-posts. Thank you ­>

In the meantime you could put the subject in your killfile,> if you have one. I just "mark thread as read" whenever the> thread shows up in my newsreader.>

cheers,> Tom>

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:09:04 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic­.net (Ray> Fischer) was understood to have stated the following:>>Where does it say that? Or are YOU putting your own rules above God's>>laws?>

Evidently you just want to skip Exodus 20:13, like it doesn't exist.

It says a *lot* more about it than *any* of the scriptural references>you've provided.

Thou shalt not KILL

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.co­m> wrote in message> news:<Xns960FA53966­FE6keegannycaprrcom@­130.133.1.4>... >> "David W. Poole, Jr." <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65>> @spamgourmet.com> wrote in>> news:8pvf219s9bv9q2­7694ogro3f4e8bolts2q­@4ax.com: >>

*** Not the word abortion no, but it says nothing about smoking other> than our bodies are the temple of God and not to pollute it> (paraphrased). As to for crack, hash, pot, heroin, LSD etc, but you> don't have to be religious to know they are wrong. If you don't know> that you need to grow up. ***

*** "Thou shalt not kill." what is so hard about that? Obviously the> real problem is not with the word abortion but rather that you do not> recognize abortion as the termination of a human life. I guess this is> hard evidence that alien life exists on earth, who knew? ***

As Rush Limbaugh said, "Feminism was invented so as to allow> unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

She's its mother, you sicko.

Science disagrees:>

Human Embryology & Teratology (pp. 5-55): "Fertilization is an>important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new,>genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization>is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes>contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is>a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo,>which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the>appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The>term is not used in this book." (p. 55).">

- O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology,> Wiley-Liss, New York.

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:>>

Yea, on some counts Rush is a failure. But, he's also an entertainer.> And the best comedy is based on truth. Bingo.

Apparently the text does not seek to define human beings but leaves> that to the reader who is apparently expected to be abe to figure it> out for themselves! If they're not then, well, they're probably aren't> interested in the ten commandents....

So when Hitler made it legal to kill the jews, he was in the right?

"You shall not murder."

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:> >

Yea, on some counts Rush is a failure.

But, he's also an entertainer.

And the best comedy is based on truth.

Bingo.

Have you any objective evidence that there is no God?

Since it's more likely that there is, given the evidence (empirical,

philisophical,

testimonial),

I think you should have to prove that there isn't a God.

Wrong:>

In article <6rvf2190cme4sjho46­c5d0u0utlf389ktv@4ax­.com>,> TedKennedyMurderedH­isPregnantMistress.d­wpj65@spamgourmet.co­m says...> > Actually, it's a mere fine if the child is born prematurely, and no> > further harm is done. "If the result is death, the offender must be> > executed."> >

That's the woman's death! The husband is to be compensated for the death> of his wife (who in those times/places was the husband's possession...> just like his goats, tent, clothes etc).

Sergeant America <sergeant_america@y­ahoo.com> wrote in> news:422A5D08.F4272­7B9@yahoo.com:>

isn;t it amusing how fat ugly men who can't form a relationship with a> woman say things like that?

Peter <zwamahn@hotmail.co­m> wrote:> >*** Here you are in a Christian NG putting man's law above that of the> >Eternals, Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL...">

And if English was good enough for Moses then it's good enough for you.>

Where does it say that? Or are YOU putting your own rules above God's> laws?

David W. Poole, Jr. <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om> wrote:> > rfischer@bolt.sonic­.net (Ray Fischer)> >>Peter <zwamahn@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>

Like a typical pro-liar you resort to lies whenever your hate-filled> ideology is challenged. That passage from Exodus says NOTHING that> has anything to do with abortion.

isn't it amazing how men, often illiterate men, are comfortable telling > others what god means and wants?>

based on your comment on not killing, i concklude you wish cancer cells > to live in the bodies fo your parents, your children, your spouse, > siblings and friends, right?>

i await your response.

No, they are *not* wrong. They are plant matter and/or chemical> compounds that have a set of properties that may or may not be> beneneficial, harmful, or neither, depending on how they are used.

I don't know... ask the "born again" President.

An excellent rule for life. I presume you are active against capital> punishment?>

Guy

GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yah­oo.yahoo.com.com> wrote in message> news:<0503200512533­22347%dipthotdipthot­@yahoo.yahoo.com.com­>...> > In article <cc834b35.050304203­0.4010f1d@posting.go­ogle.com>, Peter> > <zwamahn@hotmail.co­m> wrote:> >

*** Tell me, ever done sid? ***

i await your response."

No, they are *not* wrong. They are plant matter and/or chemical> compounds that have a set of properties that may or may not be> beneneficial, harmful, or neither, depending on how they are used.

Re: In the Bible, does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

*** Active; no. Against; very much so. I support and live by God's>"perfect law of liberty", the Ten Commandments. ***

My point is that there is no objective evidence for or against>anything, as I explained that the nature of objective evidence makes>it non-knowable.>

I'm talking about everything we have discovered about creation and the>creator through our discoveries about the world, our universe,>history..­.

A couple specific examples would be how the Big Bang>Theory points to a creator;

the discoveries about the composition of>the elements in the universe, the rate of expansion of the universe,>the specific fine tuning of these and thousands of other variables>that is incomprehensible by any explanation other than intelligent>design;­

My point is that there is no objective evidence for or against> anything,

as I explained that the nature of objective evidence makes> it non-knowable.

I'm talking about everything we have discovered about creation and the> creator through our discoveries about the world, our universe,> history...

A couple specific examples would be how the Big Bang Theory points to> a creator;

the discoveries about the composition of the elements in> the universe, the rate of expansion of the universe, the specific> fine tuning of these and thousands of other variables that is> incomprehensible by any explanation other than intelligent design;> the deficiencies of other theories such as Darwinism.

Using philosophy to show that the concept of a creator is necessary,> such as: a)Anything that begins to exist must have a creator, b)The> universe began to exist, and c)Therefore, the universe has a creator.

Another example, which ties into the first one, is to show how the> concept of an infinite past does not work: If the past is infinite,> as some theories propose, that would mean that there has been an> infinite number of events before this point in time occured. > Therefore, if the past is infinite, there is still an infinite number> of events that need to occur before this point in time can occur, and> it cannot ever occur. Since the present is occuring, we know that the> past has a fixed point. Therefore, the universe was created.

First of all, it is important to understand the difference between the> concept of God as a being that transcends time and space, which> created the universe, and a specific understanding of that God. As> for 'gods', they are all beings which are believed to be within> creation, which were created either after the universe was created or> at the same time. There is a big difference between the concepts of> 'God' and 'gods', and when people ignore that difference, they are> choosing to misunderstand the concepts and treat them like they are> all the same.

I am not aware of strong testimonial evidence for any version of a> 'god', and lacking any other kind of evidence, it is not rational for> me to believe in any of these beings. That leaves me with the> differences of interpretation of who 'God' is, since I find it very> reasonable to accept the existence of such a being, and actually> unreasonable to reject the existence of this being. The differences> (being between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) seem to be central to> Jesus. I am a Christian because I accept that Jesus is who he claimed> to be (God), based on compelling evidence of his crucifixion, burial,> and ressurrection. If there is a more resonable world view which has> more supporting evidence, I do not know of it.

You're right, I can think whatever I want. It would be so much easier> to live with myself as the focus. I could seek personal pleasure all> my life, try to become prosperous, and leave a legacy (not that I will> aim to do none of these things, but these are not my focus). To live> for myself like that would be easier, I would not have to hold myself> to a high moral standard which I know I will only fail to keep> repeatedly. I would not have to go against my nature to be selfish. > I think you are right that many Christians and other religious people> are very lazy in their faith. They provide a bad example, which is an> excuse for people unwilling to consider the truth of the religion to> claim that religious people are all hypocrites. I try to not be lazy> in my faith since it is the only important thing in my life, it is> what gives life meaning. If anyone can show me good evidence for why> they think there is no 'God', or why they think my understanding of> God is wrong, I will definately consider it, and of course, try to> find an answer for it. If I cannot find an answer for it, it will no> doubt make me reevaluate my faith. I believe any person who has faith> must be willing to challenge that faith if they want to have a strong> understanding of what they believe and why.

Pat Winstanley wrote:>>

Heh, the only reason women like you have a problem with the above system> is because you wouldn't be particularly valued.>

As Rush Limbaugh said, "Feminism was invented so as to allow> unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.>

In article <422A649E.88AD200E@­yahoo.com>, sergeant_america@ya­hoo.com> says...> > >

Oh grow up.>

It was illegal!

"David W. Poole, Jr." <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65>@spamgourmet.­com> wrote in news:8pvf219s9bv9q2­7694ogro3f4e8bolts2q­@4ax.com:>

it doesn't exist for 75+% of the world population. for that huge majority, >it is just a segment of someone else's religious book.>

for the few who do recognize it, it says nothing of abortion.>

it is not uncommon for religious fruitcakes to misreprsent the codes of >their religion.

In article <cc834b35.050305195­0.266f59a9@posting.g­oogle.com>, >zwamahn@hotmail.co­m says...>> > based on your comment on not killing, i concklude you wish cancer cells >> > to live in the bodies fo your parents, your children, your spouse, >> > siblings and friends, right?>> >

When a cancerous tumour is treated, those living, human cells die. >Therefore treating the cancers mean killing.

You seem to be claiming that it is wrong to kill.

Therefore you seem to be claiming it is wrong to treat (kill) cancerous >cells.

By the same token, of course, you are committing wong each day by >eating, since everything you eat (unless you never eat things that have >been farmed/harvested or raised/hunted/butch­ered) has died for your >convenience. In order to eat we all kill or aid and abet killing - and >much of what we eat is (or was before we cooked or otherwise processed >it) live embryos**!>

**Seeds and nuts, such as cereals such as wheat, corn, oats etc.>

james g. keegan jr. wrote:>

Look, I don't care about this stuff any more, because I'm an atheist now. So>please, stop cross-posting to rec.autos.driving. I'm now wondering what we,>atheists, do for Christmas though. Do we still get presents from Santa?

How are you sure that's not the infant's death?

It begins before birth.>

You're comparing cancerous growths with human life. Wow.

I never said I was a pro-lifer, just that I don't believe the Bible>advocates abortion. Still have problems with this concept?

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:14:20 -0000, Pat Winstanley> <boredofspam2004@ya­hoo.co.uk> was understood to have stated the> following:

You're comparing cancerous growths with human life. Wow.

The fetus could have lost an eye or limb, as well.

It'll take more than drinking a bitter drink to impregnate her, and>it's not difficult to imagine toxins that impact multiple biological>systems.­

Let's put it this way, since you like to pose rhetorical questions.>Mary conceived out of wedlock; would you have aborted Jesus's fetus?

Consider Matthew 25:31-46 before answering.

Does that take precedence over God's commandments?

Obviously, the commandment not to kill refers to murder of another human>being.

In article <93un215o4l0ip9vtaa­uafen1rnm8l63fv6@4ax­.com>, >TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om says...>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 01:16:33 -0000, Pat Winstanley>> <boredofspam2004@ya­hoo.co.uk> was understood to have stated the>> following:>>

First, there is no infant involved. The situation is where the wife is >pregnant. So there is a woman and a foetus, not a woman and a child. No >children are mentioned - just the pregnant wife.

Second, the tooth for a tooth part means that the damage to be done to >the assailant is to match the damage done to the 'victim'. Since the >'victim', if the foetus, doesn't even have teeth, the implication is >that the 'victim' referred to is the person who is hurt - the woman if >she has been harmed by the assailant. In other words, if she is damaged >(remember she is the husband's 'posession like his cattle or his tent) >say by having an arm broken or a tooth knocked out, then the assailant >should have their arm broken, tooth knocked out or whatever. However, if >she dies then the assailant isn't to be killed to match her death. In >straed tha ssailant is to pay the husband a fine (presumably as >compensation so he can buy another wife etc!)

Think about the time and place the law was created in, and don't let >yourself be distracted by current times in different places, where wives >are NOT chattels of the husband, and harm done to a wife means >compensation due to the wife, not her husband.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:54:03 -0500, "David W. Poole, Jr."><TedKennedyMur­deredHisPregnantMist­ress.dwpj65@spamgour­met.com> wrote:>

...>

Nobody claimed that the Bible advocates abortion. The Bible does not>*prohibit* abortion. Abortion is not Biblically wrong. Jesus never>said that abortion was wrong. Do you have any problem with that?

Cancers in a human body *are* human life!

In article <unun21p3pkufbq0q42­1duqlfcrt7judvmm@4ax­.com>, >TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om says...>> >>

It began before conception! ­

In article <4kun219deo47hhbgfs­vt7eq3ltgc1e8ouo@4ax­.com>, >TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om says...>> I never said I was a pro-lifer, just that I don't believe the Bible>> advocates abortion. Still have problems with this concept?>>

The bible actually doesn't say anything about abortion (a pregnancy >being ended prematurely by the pregnant person's choice) specifically.

However, what it does say (as in the 'eye for an eye' passage) implied >that the foetus was seen as of little or no worth in those times.

"cancerous growths" are human life.

i can see why you are having trouble posting anything that makes sense.

David W. Poole, Jr. <TedKennedyMurdered­HisPregnantMistress.­dwpj65@spamgourmet.c­om> wrote:>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 01:50:49 +0000 (UTC), "junegill">><junegi­ll@btinternet.com> was understood to have stated the following:>>

2500 years ago premature birth meant death for the infant. There were>no hospitals. No medical care.

She's forced to take a drug which causes a miscarriage. That's what>the passage refers to.

Isn't lying a sin? The 10 commandments are contrary to liberty.> There is no freedom in them.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:25:57 -0500, "David W. Poole, Jr."><TedKennedyMur­deredHisPregnantMist­ress.dwpj65@spamgour­met.com> >

I would leave the decision up to Mary.

So, since I didn't give that panhandler at the intersection anything,>I'm going to burn in hell?

Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and you just got busted.

That is appalling ignorance and insulting to the majority of humanity.>

There have been millions upon millions of people killed and tortured> because of religious "morality". I could just as validly claim thsat> becaus eyou blindly follow some religion that you have no morals and> will kill people just because you're told to by some priest.

Really? I would have never have known.

Actually a woman could go into labor early, albeit not as early as>today, and still deliver a child that would survive.

You know, I *really* need to find a copy of Ray's Bible, as neither>the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT, or NASB make reference to the woman being>pregnant.

But the individual itself does not begin until conception.

*** Are you an anarchist? Only an anarchist thinks no rules is>freedom. It is now quite evident that you have never read the Bible,

start here; James 1:25! Yes lying is a sin, show me where I have>committed this offence as you suggest I have. ***

No individual being did, though.>

Exodus 21:22 states the woman's husband may set the fine, leading me> to believe it's up to the father to determine the value of the fetus.>

Mutated, though, and they are not a sentient human being in their own> form.>

You don't recognize any.

But the individual itself does not begin until conception.>

That I will buy.>

So Mary would have had no problems if she had aborted the child she> carried before she married?>

Nowhere near, babykiller.

Pat Winstanley wrote:>>

Re-word:> You're comparing cancerous growths with an individual human being.>

Cancerous growths are not individual human beings.>

Has anyone been to school with one? Married one? F****d one?

Pat Winstanley wrote:>>

False. Individual human beings begin life before birth:>

EMBRYO, EM bree oh, is an animal or plant in an early stage> of its development. A HUMAN BEING is called an embryo > for about the first two months of development before birth. > Then it becomes known as a fetus, or foetus....> (Author: Frank D. Allan, Professor of Anatomy, George> Washington University, Washington D.C.)

Sergeant America <sergeant_america@y­ahoo.com> wrote:>>Ray Fischer wrote:>>>

Oh, geee, another fanatical kook screeching "babykiller".>

How original.

In article <qa6p21hpgnq0g05et1­s0876osfk064tb34@4ax­.com>,> TedKennedyMurderedH­isPregnantMistress.d­wpj65@spamgourmet.co­m says...> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:14:20 -0000, Pat Winstanley> > <boredofspam2004@ya­hoo.co.uk> was understood to have stated the> > following:> >

Cancers in a human body *are* human life!

On 7 Mar 2005 23:00:38 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."> <keegan@nycap.rr.co­m> was understood to have stated the following:>

Mutated human life, unable to achieve sentience.

That's a surprise.

In article <vqfq21l27am2itq6j2­p36fs4nnpcfp5ijd@4ax­.com>,> TedKennedyMurderedH­isPregnantMistress.d­wpj65@spamgourmet.co­m says...> > >"Life" began several billion years ago.> >

Individual human beings begin at birth.

In article <rmeq215h6sqd1r9du2­6jvhplbfuqipv9d4@4ax­.com>,> TedKennedyMurderedH­isPregnantMistress.d­wpj65@spamgourmet.co­m says...> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:06:00 -0000, Pat Winstanley> > <boredofspam2004@ya­hoo.co.uk> was understood to have stated the> > following:> >

Nor are embryos or foetuses 'sentient human beinhg[s]'.

In fact they> aren't human beings at all. 'Human', yes, 'human beings', no.>

So what's your problem with the above now?

What on earth has been going on? It's high time to confront the facts.

In article <0qeq2111tqhbubtojr­4k3obgnqm1ittapr@4ax­.com>,> TedKennedyMurderedH­isPregnantMistress.d­wpj65@spamgourmet.co­m says...> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:04:48 -0000, Pat Winstanley> > <boredofspam2004@ya­hoo.co.uk> was understood to have stated the> > following:> >

It isn't possible to abort any child.

Did you have a sensible question, rather than more of your strawmen?

What do you think happens to the life present in the sperm and in the> ovum when they merge? Where do you think the life in the embryo comes> from? Where do you think the life in the embryo was before it was in the> embryo?

You did not address what I wrote. Nor did you provide a definition> for "a human being" to replace the accepted standard of born, human,> and alive.

So long as intelligent people inhabit these forums you will always> remain a loser, Fischer.

I am offering you other arguments to support my beliefs.

I am asking>you to offer your arguments as well.

If you only claim that my>beliefs are false, you still have not proven your position.

Ok, why don't you explain this to me as I have never heard of this>before.

You can't claim that because you don't agree with my premise that>matter can't be naturally created or destroyed, that my conclusion>that the universe popped into existence by itself doesn't follow. >Feel free to disagree with my premises, but to ask "why not?" is>pointless.

I answered the "why not?" when I laid out my argument the>first time.

A beginning is an origin.

That does not solve the problem of creation.

If there are other>universes that somehow created our universe, they still must have had>a creator.

You are only pushing the need for a creator back one step>and adding an extra layer of complexity, which serves no purpose.

Akum's Razor

would show that the idea that there might be other>universes which could have spawned our own is simply unneccessary>compli­cation.

Because a thing that does not exist does not have any capacity to act,>and therefore cannot act to bring itself into existence.

Everything>that happens has a cause, right?

It assumes only what the second law of thermodynamics states.

Do you>think that this scientific law is false?

"the second law of>thermodynamics states that for irreversible processes in any closed>system left to itself, the entropy (loss of available heat energy)>will increase with time." It then goes on to state the conclusions>that this law forces for a closed system such as an eternal universe>that continually contracts and expands.

What? No, creation theory does not claim that life was created by>chance.

Who said anything about two gaps? The quote says that there are even>more gaps than in Darwin's time (which Darwin thought would be the>opposite as more discoveries were made). Discoveries have only shown>that what we thought were examples of evolutionary transition were>actually not.

It is dissapointing that you must resort to name calling to try to>strengthen your arguments.

WTF are you talking about?

Individual human beings begin at birth.

*** Are you an anarchist? Only an anarchist thinks no rules is> freedom.>

If it doesn't point to a creator, tell me this: how was the universe> created?

What do you think of the Monty Python song, "Every sperm is> beautiful"?>

Beyond that, the rest of the above paragraph is pure silliness. You> have no concept of moral authority beyond the notion of receiving> orders from a millenia-old storybook character named God=AE. And your> God=AE smiled on rape and murder in his own storybook. So where does> that leave you?>

GlennGlenn

Now that is a Pro-Abortion MYTH.

Every scientific source I have>checked which all say that human's begin at conception.

I have>yet to see a cite from any source valid or not to back up this idiotic

Now that is a Pro-Abortion MYTH.

Every scientific source I have>checked which all say that human's begin at conception.

I have>yet to see a cite from any source valid or not to back up this idiotic

What evidence have you that the universe was created? I'm not aware of > any evidence proving it was, nor of any evidence proving it wasn't. > Plenty of theories and speculations, but no hard evidence pointing > either way.>

There is a third option other than:> 'I claim it was created (but can't prove it)' > or 'I claim it wasn't created (but can't prove it)'>

... that third claim being, >

'Nobody knows and nobody can prove, whether or not the universe was > created, and if so, how or by what, so I don't claim either creation or > non-creation.'>

I'll go with #3. ­>

(Remember that just believing or wwsnting to believe something doesn't > make that thing true.)

I hate lies.

I also hate the bloody babykilling that you defend and>endorse, babykiller....

Ray Fischer wrote:

You might be interested in seeing the data produced by independent > sources (rather than the sometimes massaged summaries produced by > organisations [either side] trying to make a point).>

The following leads to the latest US government report into detailed > abortion statistics, dated late 2004 and relating to the latest figures > known - for 2001. (There always seems to be two or three years gap).>

http://www.cdc.gov/­mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5309.p­df

Ray Fischer wrote:>> Let's see some evidence that there is such a thing.>

[...]>

Don't respond after snipping most of what you're replying to. It's> very bad manners.

Nobody said they thought 'no rules is freedom'.>

The poster said that the 10 commandments don't include anything about > liberty.>

In fact, the 10 commandments are statements of > obligations/respons­ibilities imposed on people. Nowhere do they make > statements enumerating rights granted to people. They are statements of > what (they claim) is not allowed, not of what is allowed.

In article <1110365234.767185.­28030@g14g2000cwa.go­oglegroups.com>,> kerwin_brown@yahoo.­com says...> > > Individual human beings begin at birth.> >

Nope. No myth.>

See below... it is *fact* according to national laws all round the> world... the status of 'human being' begins at live birth. There is no> 'human being' until and unless live birth has occurred.

Last updated Dec21 2002>

Definitions of 'human being' and/or 'person' and related definitions:>

(Many thanks to the various people who have helped and are helping to> contribute to this list by passing on definitions of "human being" and> "person" etc when found in their browsing of the laws of various places> in the world.)>

===================­====================­====================­============

http://notes.nt.gov­.au/dcm/legislat/leg­islat.nsf/d989974724­db65b1482561c> f0017cbd2/dbafb2130­d99822e692568cd00090­c69?OpenDocument>

Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion>

156. When a child becomes a human being> A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely> proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has> breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.

===================­====================­====================­=====> Canada>

http://www.webhart.­net/vandee/prolife/h­istory.shtml>

(Hansard Extract)>

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal> Code of Canada as follows:> A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has> completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,> whether or not>

(a) it has breathed,> (b) it has independent circulation, or> (c) the navel string is severed.>

===================­====================­====================­=====> America (New York - Title H)>

http://assembly.sta­te.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&­a=5>

http://assembly.sta­te.ny.us/leg/?cl=82>­

should get you there. The site is a little weirdly implemented.>

S 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions> of terms.> The following definitions are applicable to this article:> 1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide,> means a human being who has been born and is alive.

===================­====================­====================­============>

America (Texas)>

http://www.capitol.­state.tx.us/statutes­/petoc.html>

the definition> of murder in В§19.02 does not include abortion itself,> it merely defines murder as the death of an individual, given> certain criteria (e.g., В§19.02(b)(1) states that he "intentionally> or knowingly causes the death" thereof).>

Fortunately В§1.07(a)(26) defines an individual:>

(26) "Individual" means a human being who has been born and is alive.

===================­====================­====================­=============> => USA (Indiana - IC 35-4-1)>

(Note that Indiana is a very conservative state and very Republican.)>

IC 35-41-1-14> Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is> alive.

IC 35-41-1-22> Sec. 22. "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited liability> company, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental> entity.

===================­====================­====================­=============> ==> USA (Colorado 18-3-101)>

http://64.78.178.12­/cgi-dos/statdspp.ex­e?LNP&doc=18-3-101>

As used in this part 1, unless the context otherwise requires:> (1) "Homicide" means the killing of a person by another.>

(2) "Person", when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a> human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal> act.