soc.women

Ray Fischer wrote:

> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Chaddock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken Chaddock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gwenyth Bennet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 3, 7:27 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gwen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Aug 3, 6:29 am, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:26:40 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
>>>>>>>>>> wrote, in part:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As written, the bill would ban women from
>>>>>>>>>>>seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the
>>>>>>>>>>>fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women
>>>>>>>>>>>would be required to submit a list of possible fathers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is disgusting, because the murder of an innocent child is no less
>>>>>>>>>>murder simply because the woman has her partner as an accessory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lying about the issue isn't going to score you points with anybody but
>>>>>>>>>the slimeballs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hang on a sec.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You did read the paragraph below? I thought Quad put forward good
>>>>>>>>arguments from both a pro and anti view as to why this proposal was a
>>>>>>>>load of crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I addressed John Savard's lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which "lie" would that be ? Many pro-life supporters *BELIEVE* that a
>>>>>>fetus is simply one stage in the continuum of human life and as such, is
>>>>>>as inseparable from the child it will become as that child is from the
>>>>>>adult it will become.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pro-liars believe many irrational things. You even believe that a
>>>>>fetus is a human being worthy of rights but a pregnant women is not a
>>>>>human being with rights.
>>>>
>>>> The only liar in this thread appears to be you Ray.
>>>
>>>
>>>"I know you are but what am I?"
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> I realize that you, like many others, don't have the moral fortitude to
>>>>accept that abortion (with current technology) means killing a fetus
>>>>that is a developing human being
>>>
>>>
>>>In the same way that using a condom kills a million developing human
>>>beings.
>>
>> You see Ray, it's extremist, logically deficient and objectively (and
>>obviously) incorrect statements like this that destroy your credibility.
>
>
> That you're too stupid to recognize that I used your argument against
> you is something I see regularly from pro-liar morons.

Oh I recognized you unsuccessful semantic ploy...I ignored it since it
was of no consequence but to make it clearer, the fundamental difference
between the action of a condom and an abortion is that a condom (when it
works as intended) *prevents* a conception, where as an abortion
terminates an existing conception, whether at the stage of 4 week embryo
or 40 week fetus.

>>Condom use no more destroys a fetus

> I didn't write "fetus", moron.

An imaginative, yet disingenuous use of semantics to attempt to create
a point of attack against my, essentially unassailable argument.

From Webester's Medical dictionary
Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after
conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until
the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation
from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of
pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus.

If everything works as nature intended and there is no disease or
injury, an unaborted (whether natural or therapeutic) embryo WILL
develop into a fetus and an unaborted fetus WILL develop into a human
child. For simplicity and brevity, I used the term "fetus" rather than
embryo and fetus separately for the very simple reason that a condom can
PREVENT both but "KILLS" neither while an abortion "KILLS" (or it your
delicate sensibilities prefer, "TERMINATES") both...

...Ken