Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDA unleashes new threat to human babies
American Life League, Inc. ^ | Release issued 21 Nov 01

Posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail

FDA unleashes new threat to human babies

"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."

With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.

"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."

"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."

Release issued: 21 Nov 01

©2001 American Life League, Inc.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-407 next last
See also a previous FR post: Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent.
1 posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: toenail; *Abortion_list; *Pro_life
bump
2 posted on 11/22/2001 11:04:28 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toenail
Y'know, when I read crap like this latest FDA threat to human life, I can't help but wonder whether we, in the long run, are not already doomed to defeat by the Muzzel-em masses ?!?!?!
3 posted on 11/22/2001 11:09:17 PM PST by GeekDejure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeekDejure
Y'know, when I read crap like this latest FDA threat to human life, I can't help but wonder whether we, in the long run, are not already doomed to defeat by the Muzzel-em masses ?!?!?!

We're destroying ourselves -- no Islamic help required.

4 posted on 11/22/2001 11:13:12 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: toenail
How is contreception a threat to babies?

Most contraceptive prevent the fertilzation of the egg. No fetus ever exists.

If they abort a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy it is not killing a baby human. It is killing a fetus which has the potential to become a baby human.

I think the only real threat here is to those who want to limit the freedom of women to control their reproductive functions and thereby keep them enslaved to an outdated morality.

5 posted on 11/22/2001 11:27:38 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcl
I agree with your statements regarding a non-fertilized egg. When you introduce the "up to 3 months it is a fetus and not a baby" statement though, you have changed the argument considerably. Is 2 months and 3 weeks not a baby, while 3 months and 1 week is? The arbitrary nature of this approach is troubling, because it doesn't adequately address the definition of a "baby." Using 3 months can't satisfy either side of the debate if the argument is truly about human life versus women's rights. It is a compromise that effectively accomplshes nothing with respect to the real debate.
6 posted on 11/22/2001 11:40:20 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Follow along, please....

"How is contreception a threat to babies?"

Contraception isn't a threat to anyone who doesn't exist. Most chemicals and methods of birth control are FRAUDULENTLY marketed as contraceptives, meaning they prevent sperm and egg from ever meeting. If sperm and egg never meet, no baby. Are you with me so far?

"Most contraceptive prevent the fertilzation of the egg. No fetus ever exists."

"Contraceptives" sometimes prevent the fertilization of the egg. Abortifacients destroy the new human being.

"If they abort a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy it is not killing a baby human. It is killing a fetus which has the potential to become a baby human."

I've given up on trying to argue with people who don't accept scientific fact and instead wallow off into some philosophical and theological quagmire of their own making. A distinct human organism is formed at conception. Read a biology textbook.

"I think the only real threat here is to those who want to limit the freedom of women to control their reproductive functions and thereby keep them enslaved to an outdated morality."

Feel free to reproduce. Feel free not to reproduce. But when two genetically distinct human organisms mingle their chromosomes, they create a new distinct human organism. At any point after conception, we're no longer talk about reproduction, since the reproduction has already occurred.

And it is not now, nor has it ever been, moral to intentionally starve an innocent human, in any stage of his or her life.

7 posted on 11/22/2001 11:41:47 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
ping
8 posted on 11/22/2001 11:57:19 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Using 3 months can't satisfy either side of the debate if the argument is truly about human life versus women's rights.

I will admit that it is not clear when a fetus becomes a human. In my mind it is somewhere between month 3 and month 6.

There are some guide lines created by society.

One guide line is when can a person who murders a pregnant woman be also charged with the homicide of the fetus. Generally this is when the woman in noticably pregnant, the baby is moving and responding to external stimulus. These effects are normally first seen between month 3 and 6.

Another guide line is when do people treat a miscarried fetus as a normal deceased person. By this I mean, giving the deceased a name, putting the deceased in a casket, have a funeral, wake, burial and marking the grave with a tombstone. Certainly these sort of rituals are almost never carried out for miscarried fetuses in the first trimester. As ugly as it may sound, most first trimester fetuses end up flushed down a toilet. Certainly no one who truely believed that a first trimester fetus was a full human being would tolerate flushing that human being down a toilet.

Thus, I have to conclude that a fetus is clearly not a human being during the first trimester. Exactly when the fetus becomes a human after the first trimester is not clear to me.

9 posted on 11/22/2001 11:59:35 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pcl; bluefish
When Do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
10 posted on 11/23/2001 12:13:47 AM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pcl
"There are some guide lines created by society."

You forgot to mention the longstanding common law right of preborns to inherit property. Any preborn.

11 posted on 11/23/2001 12:15:56 AM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Yeah according to the prolife movement(well, most of it) since life begins at conception(I won't necessarily argue on that point) then God aborted my baby with my girlfriend. I mean, the thing couldn't have been more than a couple weeks old, but that developing pregnancy could have had a positive impact on my life. Or negative, who knows...

The fact is, I refuse to recognize a zygote as possessing the same moral and legal rights as a human that has been born into this world. I'm against the barbarity of partial birth, because it's obvious that it's killing a fully developed baby.

At the VERY least, pro-lifers should want women to NOT be undergoing surgical procedures and to take the Morning After pill, so that chances are no embryo has been destroyed, and there's only a small chance that it's preventing the blastocyst from attaching to the uterine wall. However, since it's invention they've been against it. Since women for all time, illegal or legal, will exercise this option, why not do it when the "life" is only a few hours old. Can you honestly compare a recently fertilized egg to a newborn, to a 10 year old, to an 60 year old?

Pcl is right in one way. When the life is naturally aborted early on, there's sadness, some regret over the "potential"(which is actually the root of so-called guilt of women who've had abortions) but there's no consideration of it as a child. And what of anencephalic babies born with nothing but a brain stem? They are alive(though not without assistance) but they can NEVER develop a life as we know it. Yet to prove a pro-life point, one of these families that had an anencephalic baby had to watch it die slowly, and witness organs that might have helped babies that had a chance at something real in life lose out on organs because of steady degradation.

12 posted on 11/23/2001 12:34:52 AM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: toenail
You forgot to mention the longstanding common law right of preborns to inherit property. Any preborn.

Interesting. I have never heard of this. Please provide some references.

13 posted on 11/23/2001 12:46:17 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pcl
I will admit that it is not clear when a fetus becomes a human. In my mind it is somewhere between month 3 and month 6. posted by pcl
(The typical death cultist approach to frame the argument in such a way as to eliminate whatever segment of human lifetime the pukes want to marginalize. You, pcl, began your lifetime at conception. Period. There has been no time since your conception that you had not yet come into existence. Your lack of biological truth regarding the concept of human life causes you to wander off down transactional pathways hallmarked by sanctioned killing of any, repeat, ANY, class of humans a particular interest groups wishes to margenalize. You imply that some prior date after conception was the moment you came into being, when in fact it is absolutely a fact of science that YOU came into existence at conception, even before you in your natural human state began seeking life support from the female human from whose body you eventually migrated. Your reasoning could just as easily be applied to all humans from 3 months postnatal onward, with all those biological things defined as not yet human beings prior to three months postnatal ... in fact, a demon's servant named Prof. Springer at Princeton has tried that very reasoning.) It never ceases to amaze me that twisted minds like Springer's get paid high salaries by liberal colleges to spew forth so much illogic in the name of enlightenment. I'll not let your --you pcl-- foolishness pass without noting the stupidity you embrace so willingly.

You should be ashamed of trying to spew the following sh!t here at FR.

Certainly no one who truely(sic) believed that a first trimester fetus was a full human being (The fact is, you were a full human being just after conception, but your anatomy and physiology wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it appears to be now, in your delusions of godhood declarations regarding human beings. Before puberty, a child is not yet a full human being like it will be after onset of same. Want to margenalize all those at some arbitrary point of your future choosing, as your value system 'evolves'? Of course you could. Such gross evil has occurred in human history. It's time to bring such demonic idiocy to a halt, by accepting the truth, that every human lifetime begins at conception, whether in a petri dish or a fallopian tube. Your effort to establish that the beginning is not the beginning because you want to ignore the truth of the beginning and arbitrarily establish some other beginning point along the continue of individual lifetime is demented and agenda laden. There is not good reason to continue under such delusional thinking. Stop it!) would tolerate flushing that human being down a toilet. And you're trying your damndest to make that 'flushing' a non-human event; tragically, it is not a non-human event. You require a bit more edumacation to see that the zygote (that was who you were long ago, and you were you even then at that early point in your lifetime) seeks life support. An organism that seeks life support from its environment is a unit of individual life, even at the single cell stage in a lifetime of perhaps eighty or ninty years (may God grant that you live that long and more, if you so desire). If your little exercise is designed to hang a nebulous guilt in the air regarding the embryonic individual human beings that DO on occasion end up flushed unknowingly down the toilet, let me assure you, the tragedy is real, for the human species has lost an individual unique to the whole race due to inability to achieve life support at a crucial stage in that individual's lifetime already begun. There is no condemnation in such an accident, as you ought recognize; it is sad that an individual human, being completely human at that stage in a lifetime already begun, was unable to achieve life support from its environment. PERIOD..

Thus, I have to conclude that a fetus is clearly not a human being during the first trimester. Exactly when the fetus becomes a human after the first trimester is not clear to me. Yeah, you would like for the truth to be so malleable, so negotiable, eh?

Try to reason this out: at what point, going backward from your now existence, was there not a you; at what point in the CONTINUUM that is the lifetime of pcl did the human status of pcl begin?

14 posted on 11/23/2001 8:12:04 AM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pcl
If they abort a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy it is not killing a baby human. It is killing a fetus which has the potential to become a baby human.

What planet are you from? You decide what is life? How bold of you!

I completely disagree with this ridiculous statement! On what grounds do you decide?

The best birth control is abstinence. Maybe if we had more moral people, we would have less killing babies for convenience.

Slaved to outdated moralities

So says you and who else? Go back to sleep.

15 posted on 11/23/2001 10:30:54 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wwjdn
PCL is a Masochist who says stupid things so that rational folks will flame her endlessly. It gives her pleasure like a little tickle she can attend to.
16 posted on 11/23/2001 10:41:27 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Maybe this quote will help: "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. Theodore Roosevelt

You say morals are outdated, then I say the above stated quote fits you nicely.

17 posted on 11/23/2001 10:42:44 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Well if you believe that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception, then you have no choice but to live with fact that

Anti-Abortionist Flush Humans Down The Toilet

Which is what the vast majority of you do with early term miscarriages.

18 posted on 11/23/2001 11:16:44 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pcl
I think the only real threat here is to those who want to limit the freedom of women to control their reproductive functions and thereby keep them enslaved to an outdated morality.

Let me state my difference of opinion in a run-on sentence modeled after yours:
I think the only real threat of "outdated morality" here is to those who want to limit the freedom of women by separating personal responsibility from sensual pleasure and thereby keep them enslaved to an aborfacient drug(or whatever else works).

19 posted on 11/23/2001 11:22:24 AM PST by irgbar-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
PCL is a Masochist who..

Have you ever made a post that was not an attack or a bump. I looked over your post list and that is all I can see. You heart is so filled with hate that I am absolutely sure you are false Christian. I feel great sorry for the burden of pain you are carrying.

20 posted on 11/23/2001 11:23:09 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wwjdn
You say morals are outdated, then I say the above stated quote fits you nicely.

Morals are an individual thing, not someting imposed on one human being by another. Why can't you people just live your own unhappy lives. Why must you insist that everyone else carry your burdens of guilt and unhappiness? I know misery loves company but I draw the line when misery demands company.

21 posted on 11/23/2001 11:27:35 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
my law partner was talking about a surrogacy case he was handling. I won't do them for a variety of reasons, two main ones are - invetro creates more than one baby etc. and surragacy is high tech prostitution. anyhway, Joe will handle them and was trying to remember the word for a very early fetus to tell me and my office manager some story and was saying, "right after conception, I forget what you call it." and I said "Joe, Mrs. K and I call it a baby." It was a totally good moment. Having said that, I'm looking to see why this is more than contraception. I am now safely past child bearing and believe that natural family planning is best but am not morally opposed to contraception for others but once that conception happens, it changes. i.e.... IUDs are bad, birth control pills are not good but I don't think that they are totally evil.
22 posted on 11/23/2001 11:34:47 AM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: irgbar-man
The bottom line is personal choice. You want to control the behavior of others. I want people to be free to choose.

The Christian God gives man the freedom of choice. Why can't you follow in his footsteps?

23 posted on 11/23/2001 11:35:20 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pcl
I wish to control myself. I think others can spare themselves misery if they would do likewise, keep their feet on the floor and choose life. Freedom is not "doing what I want" but "doing what I ought."
24 posted on 11/23/2001 11:52:49 AM PST by irgbar-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Here we go again, kind of reminds me of the "I am rubber, you are glue" analogy (SIGH).

I see you lived up to my expectations, the same old poor women views I often see from you.

Morals are an individual thing, not someting imposed on one human being by another. Why can't you people just live your own unhappy lives. Why must you insist that everyone else carry your burdens of guilt and unhappiness? I know misery loves company but I draw the line when misery demands company.

Morals are not an individual thing it is the basis of our culture in the United States. People want to destroy morals because they aren't convenient. I'll wager that you would argue that men have no say in a pregnancy (I hope I'm wrong).

I was trying to be nice before and point out that morals are necessary. I was hoping that you would simply reply that morals are good, but that's not going to happen.

25 posted on 11/23/2001 11:56:32 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: toenail; Libertarianize the GOP; GovernmentShrinker
Maybe someone can answer a few questions for me.

1. What is it that constitutes a human being? Is it simply the possession of human DNA? The hair follicles that have all too rapidly been leaving the top of my head contain human DNA but are not considered to be a human.

2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.

3. What separates humans from other living animals? I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.

4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.

5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?

6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.

7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.

8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.

26 posted on 11/23/2001 3:44:25 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcl
You're a bit transparent. You like the notion of a woman'sright to hire a serial killer and don't want anyone endangering that right. You're never gonna be able to see that every individual lifetime begins at conception, so I don't care to communicate further with your dementia.
27 posted on 11/23/2001 3:51:12 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
You're never gonna be able to see that every individual lifetime begins at conception

You are right about that. And you are never going to admit to being among the "we flush humans down the toilet" crowd.

28 posted on 11/23/2001 4:41:48 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
1. What is it that constitutes a human being? Is it simply the possession of human DNA? The hair follicles that have all too rapidly been leaving the top of my head contain human DNA but are not considered to be a human.

What constitutes a human being is being the original entity conceived by a sperm and egg. Like you.

2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.

This is not a pro-life arguement, but a pro-killing one.

3. What separates humans from other living animals?

Many things. We also have a lot in common.

I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.

Many of the already born fit the above criteria. Should others have the right to kill them? Isn't this a choice?

4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.

The woman has presumably already made her choice by having sex.

5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?

Negligence of having brought said person into being.

6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.

What's the question?

7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.

The paties in question should have thought of that before they entered the contract.

8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.

It's not the baby's fault that she took the risk of conception.

29 posted on 11/23/2001 7:57:37 PM PST by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Concentrate
At least you've decided to admit that she is hiring the killing of another individual ... we're making some progress with you. Now, if we could persuade you to care about that other, innocent, helpless, hapless human being, well ...

8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude. 29 posted by Concentrate

30 posted on 11/23/2001 8:12:45 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wwjdn
bump
31 posted on 11/23/2001 8:24:14 PM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pcl; wwjdn
***Morals are an individual thing, not someting imposed on one human being by another***

Oh yes...morality is relative, right? Wrong. What great tolerance you have for those that honor life rather than murdering babies...not.

32 posted on 11/23/2001 8:26:22 PM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pcl
***The Christian God gives man the freedom of choice. Why can't you follow in his footsteps?***

God does give man/woman freedom of choice...free will. He would never condone a woman murdering her baby. Perhaps you should reconsider your footsteps and align them with His.

33 posted on 11/23/2001 8:28:20 PM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pcl
If a fetus is not a baby, then what is it? A heart is beating-the child is growing and will grow for the next 20+ years, and hopefully mentally beyond that....when the chromosomes link-a new, special, unlike anyother human being is developing. The road map is laid out, and all it takes is 20 years (or maybe just a little longer) for all physical parts to stop the growth cycle. Who are YOU to say life is there until a certain moment in the spectrum of growth? And if you believe in God, would you care to debate your idea of when a so called fetus (medical term) becomes a so called baby? Abortion is the murder of someone who does not have a voice yet. (BTW-newborns cannot voice their preferances either.)
34 posted on 11/23/2001 8:31:31 PM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pcl
In the above, I meant to say, and if you believe in God, would you care to debate your idea of just exactly when, precisely, a fetus becomes a real baby in your mind? Abortion is not about the growing life, and that is what is wrong with abortion. It is about selfish, irresponsible women and men who look for convenience and kill to maintain the same.
35 posted on 11/23/2001 8:33:36 PM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
He would never condone a woman murdering her baby

You are authorized to speak for God?

36 posted on 11/23/2001 8:35:34 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Why are you angry at God?
37 posted on 11/23/2001 8:37:57 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: toenail
I've given up on trying to argue with people who don't accept scientific fact and instead wallow off into some philosophical and theological quagmire of their own making. A distinct human organism is formed at conception. Read a biology textbook.

Mm hmm-a distinct human organism, but not a baby. Big, big difference.

38 posted on 11/23/2001 8:42:15 PM PST by Marathon Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Republic
would you care to debate your idea of just exactly when, precisely, a fetus becomes a real baby in your mind

I have done so above.

Would you care to specify just exactly when in a pregnancy you would honor a miscarried baby with the human trappings of a name, funeral, burial, tombstone, etc?

When I see the majority of the anti-abortionist crowd treating their two week old miscarried fetuses like humans then maybe I will start to believe that you actually believe what you preach.

39 posted on 11/23/2001 8:42:17 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Again, WHY are you mad at God?
40 posted on 11/23/2001 8:43:35 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Why are you angry at God?

Why are you angry at mankind?

41 posted on 11/23/2001 8:43:54 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Nope. I asked first.
42 posted on 11/23/2001 8:44:29 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Is that you, XBob?... Planted any kittens lately to grow cattails, pcl?
43 posted on 11/23/2001 8:51:35 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Ok, I am angry at a distinct set of human beings who want to force their will upon other women. This has nothing to do with god. It is about people wanting to control other people. It is about people wanting to enslave other people with outdated principles or morality.
44 posted on 11/23/2001 8:52:45 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pcl
Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through Him. His Word is the same today, yesterday and for eternity. I'm not sure about that outdated thing you mentioned.

Now, if you don't want to believe what the Bible says, that's fine. I won't argue with you. It's sad that you don't believe it, but I won't argue with you. You are, after all, pro choice. And please, that is NOT said with any nastiness, meanness or anything.

45 posted on 11/23/2001 8:58:26 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: pcl
"It is about people wanting to control other people. It is about people wanting to enslave other people with outdated principles or morality."

Given your type of logic, the Nazis were enslaved by us because we forced them to stop killing Jews. Ditto for slaveholders in this country. We "controlled" them too, when we forced them to stop enslaving people.

Your arguments are pathetic.

46 posted on 11/23/2001 9:00:30 PM PST by Artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
It's sad that you are living your life believing in fables and myths, but I won't argue with you. You are, after all, against free choice. And please, that is NOT said with any nastiness, meanness or anything.
47 posted on 11/23/2001 9:03:43 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pcl
:-)
48 posted on 11/23/2001 9:05:18 PM PST by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Artist
Jew, slaves, etc are people. A two week old fetus is not a person. You really can not believe what you are saying. You don't treat a deceased two week old fetus as a person.

Live your own life. Stop worring about what other people do in the privacy of their homes.

49 posted on 11/23/2001 9:08:42 PM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Concentrate
I don’t think we are communicating on any level. The best I can guess from your replies is that you believe legal niceties should be irrelevant.
50 posted on 11/23/2001 9:12:35 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-407 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson