Blog of a woman seeking an abortion...

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:59 pm

I found tis blog today, it's by a woman who got pregnant mistakenly, (haven't yet found the post about the exact details, maybe a condom broke, or something) already had 3 children and could not afford to take care of another, so tried at numerous health care facilities to obtain the day after pill and was refused. She finally did find one willing ot give it to her, but by then it was too late, and she is now pregnant and seeking an abortion. I thought it was very brave of her to share her story like that. Especially after i saw this post:

http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/1 ... -post.html

read what people said to her, and the part about sending her fatal herbs in the guise of 'help'... WTF?! ok, don't agree with abortion, fine, whatever. Don't have one. but to wish death upon a woman for seeking one herself, what the hell is wrong with these people?! they're the ones that are 'sick' not her... especially since she tried to end it literally the day it happened, when it was nothing more than a clump of cells barely able to be seen by the naked eye, but was refused on moral/religious grounds. They're the ones that refused her are the ones responsible for her having to take more drastic measures in the first place.

EDIT: ah, yep, it was a broken condom: http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... ndoms.html

[Edited on 8/10/06 by Bamfette]

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:46 pm

This is really sad. I dunno, shit happens, mistakes happen, and no matter how careful people are....yeah, shit happens. I don't understand all the hatred, and all the death threats. I guess the whole "kill the mother, kill the baby" thing doesnt apply? Or they dont care about the fetus all THAT much to wish death upon its mother, and therein on it.

Whatever. People can all have their opinions. And that's fine. People can choose to believe abortion is wrong, and can choose to never have one. But I don't understand how people can think these reactions are appropriate, or how people can believe that every single person in this world should live according to their own moral values. It's so god damned short sighted and ridiculously selfish. Get over yourselves. No one is perfect. It reminds me (appropriately enough) of a few Ani Difranco quotes from her "Lost Woman Song" (which is brilliant) "You are like fish in the water, who don't know that they are wet. As far as I can tell, the world isn't perfect yet." and "They pound on reality hoping it will break, I don't think there's one of them who leads a life free of mistakes." Pretty on the mark....

One thing over this whole thing that pisses me off is the confusion over "pro-choice/pro-abortion". How is it hard to understand that that is NOT the case at ALL? I am pro-choice. However, personally, I believe abortion is wrong. Were I to find myself in the position of an unwanted pregnancy...I'd have to suck it up. I made my bed, I'll go lay in it. But that's not to say I believe everyone in the world should think like me, or treat this as I do. I don't have any ill feelings for people who do seek abortions, in fact I think it's a terribly hard decision to come to, and the person doing it needs support more than anything. Because it is a PAINFUL experience. And this poor woman, she's right. If she has this baby, she is worsening all of her childrens quality of life, including the baby. She'll have another child to support, whom she cannot afford. And where will her support be then? I'd like to know if any of those haters sending her mail would be willing to send her some support if she did in fact have the child. That's be an interesting experiment. Because it seems like people care more about the fetus than the actual child.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:59 am

The death wishes came from internet trolls. I won't comment on what their stand on abortion may be, because it's irrelevant. They are just plain predators, and if the woman said, "I won't have an abortion," trolls would pounce on her for that, too.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:38 pm

I have mixed feelings here.

I find her inability to obtain emergency contraception (plan B) after a broken condom to be deplorable. The whole point of the plan B program was to make it available to those who need and want it and times like this (when their plan A contraception fails).

The various trolls are her board also disgust me. How dare they judge like that - they don't even know her.

Then again, I admit that her calling the growing fetus a "parasite" and seeing it as the equivalent as a cancerous lesion is really disturbing to me. It's true her options are slim and her situation difficult, but it seems like she only adds to her own pain and suffering by thinking this way. Her options are still not closed even though they are no longer as easy.

Adoption is a big commitment and a brave step, but it provides a childless couple with the very thing she doesn't want. All she needs to do is go back to seeing the thing inside her as alive and equal (not better than her). It isn't easy or simple or quick - but it would make some infertile couple very very happy and maybe help her heal as well from a trauma that was not so much physical as beauracratic.

I know what I'm saying here is unpopular. She should go get her abortion and get rid of that parasite! And sure, if that's what she wants, I wouldn't stop her. I'm just saying that if my mother hadn't taken the brave steps she had, I too would have been a parasite in some bioharzard bucket, and not here typing this.

I respect her for that.

-e

Garble · Post by **Garble** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:34 pm

I actually went from being "Pro Life" to being "Pro Choice" without changing my opinion on abortion.

It's dangerous. It's traumatic. It's even morally questionable to pick an arbitrary point at which to decide when a pregnancy is okay to end and when it isn't. I think abortion is an awful choice.

But it has to be a choice.

Women have been ending their own pregnancies for as long as they've had wombs. They've poisoned themselves with alcohol and/or freaky weeds. They've thrown themselves down stairs. They've stabbed themselves with all kinds of things. It's only recently (from a historical perspective) that women could do it without serious risk to their lives.

If we made abortion illegal it wouldn't stop abortions from happening. Poor women and girls would be more likely to injure themselves, while those with means will simply have "curettage" procedures. (My mom worked in a hospital back before Roe v. Wade.)

I'm still all for reducing the number of abortions. But I've realized the most effective ways to do that are comprehensive sex ed, birth control and increased means for adoption. It just so happens these are all things more heavily favored by the "Pro Choice" movement than the "Pro Life" movement.

Then there's the whole, crazy ban on stem-cell research... which has nothing to do with abortion but for some reason people think it does.

[Edited on 10-10-0606 by Garble]

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:11 am

Originally posted by Garble
I actually went from being "Pro Life" to being "Pro Choice" without changing my opinion on abortion.

I suppose I did too only in the opposite direction or maybe ... well ... I hate labels.

You see in the late 1980s/early 90s the Pro-Life movement was all about flashing horrific baby pictures, bombing clinics, and killing "abortion doctors". As an adoptee I was always for the idea of "choice" and in particular, educated choices such as contraception, abstenance, and yes, adoption. To me abortion was a "choice" but it wasn't one I'd choose either for myself or recommend to another.

Still, you wouldn't catch me dead with any dead baby posters either.

And so many of the young members of my Catholic church find it rather shocking that I have been a marcher in most of the country's major Washington DC Pro-Choice rallies. (I'm talking about the HUGE ones with thousands of women that occurred in the early and mid-nineties.)

And it's interesting for me to explain to them that just a decade ago, the "Pro-Life" label that they now enjoy, in which they participate in community education and support, was very very different. Some of them even go to our local planned parenthood to pray with women getting abortions and offer their emotional support to them and their boyfriends/friends/husbands etc. This is a pretty radical turnaround compared to what I experienced in college where I did "clinic defense" (creating a human barrier around women entering clinics so religious fantics could yell profanities and spray fake blood at us instead of them).

So what am I? Neither.

I don't think abortions should be legal, but I also don't believe in pushing my beliefs on a secular society.

I admit to sitting the fence, but I have no regrets and the view looks good for here.

-e

(And yeah, stem cells, cord blood... people need to do their research....)

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:20 pm

Originally posted by Saint Kurt

(And yeah, stem cells, cord blood... people need to do their research....)

Well, if they did their research they'd have nothing to protest about

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:22 pm

I think i need to clarify here, Em, I'm not saying I agree with this woman about everything, I think that adoption in many cases would be a good alternative to abortion... I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. There is a difference. I really don't know exactly what I would do in her situation, it's one of those things you can't really know for sure till you find yourself faced with it for real. However, adoption has a lot attached to it, namely carrying the baby to term, which means your life has to make some large changes. no drinking, smoking, (aparently this woman does both) and in the later stages, a lot of discomfort, you may have to give up tome on work, etc. Some people just aren't prepared to do all that for a baby they know they'll give up, and I can understand that. Like Lisa said, she's made her choice, and she doesn't deserve to be treated like she has because of it.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:07 pm

I, on the other hand, never sat the fence on this issue, because I never approached abortion as a religious issue. Simple logic, humanist philosophy, history, and science were convincing enough to me. The rights to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, choice, and so forth do not exist independently of the right to live.

We have laws against murder because we recognize to some extent that one's rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not come at the expense of another human life, and that no one person has the right to decide that another person would be better off dead. Of course, society makes exceptions for people it deems "less equal" than others.

Also, science has never conclusively proven that there is any point in development when a non-human becomes human. And history has proven that whenever we take one group of species homo sapiens and decide they're less than human, we've been wrong. In the US we were wrong about Native Americans, Africans, Catholics, Irish immigrants, Jews, Germans, Japanese, Italians, the poor, the disabled, and women being less entitled to human rights. So I think even just based on our history, my suspicion that we are also wrong about feti being less than human is well-founded.

I don't think feti are more important than adult women. I subscribe to the radical notion that all human organisms are equal. Which is why I opposed elective abortion even when I did not believe in God, I continue to oppose abortion for the same not-particularly-religious reasons, and I think it's just as wrong for internet trolls to send death threats.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:26 pm

Originally posted by Bamfette
I think i need to clarify here, Em, I'm not saying I agree with this woman about everything, I think that adoption in many cases would be a good alternative to abortion... I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. There is a difference.

No worries. I wasn't responding to anything you said, I was actually responding to her jump and the jump you see so often from "I can't have it therefore abortion".

I agree that she's in a terrible situation she shouldn't have even ever been in (since EC should have been made immediately and easily available to her without the morality hijinks) however it wasn't. Now she's in a situation where she's thinking of something growing in her body as a "parasite" that doesn't have to be.

I was merely suggesting an alternative way of looking at a terrible situation that might turn "positive" (ie. the equivalent of giving a gift). She's locked into a more limited set of choices, but why can't it be choices with an "s" instead of running headlong into a single choice that even she sees as so negative. It's, like I said, not for everyone and a HUGE committment, but it's a choice.

As for secular vs. religous I think this is one area where it is hard to know. One can go round and round saying where did morality come from? I tend to use the golden rule myself is it occurs in both religion and philosophy. However, it is unmistakable that in this current moral climate in the country at large this is considered to be a secular/religious debate within a secular government. Until candidates stop declaring themselves "pro-life" for the religious vote, we can't afford to see it any other way.

This is a matter of education not religion.

-e

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:30 pm

I always wonder about people (women) who say they support choice but would never have an abortion themselves. I used to think that. Then I had an pregnancy scare. I wasn't pregnant, thankfully, but I don't think that way any more. When I went into the clinic for that pregnancy test, I was fully prepared to set another appointment to end it immediately if it came back positive.

I'm saying (ADMITTING) this now because I think a lot of the issues and problems around abortion come from this huge stigma where even people who support it claim they would never ever take advantage of the freedom to have one. When even people who support choice say things like "I think abortion is wrong" how can ANYONE expect that women who get abortions should be treated better than they are? All this mealy-mouthed blabbering about how it's a hard choice and then "but it's the wrong one". Really? Then why should anyone have the choice, if it's so wrong? It's very confusing.

I guess I am pro-choice, "in the pro-abortion sense". It's fucking absurd that I would even have to make that distinction. It's okay for other women to get abortions, but you can't have anyone thinking that you're a dirty whore who would actually get one. Come on.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting an abortion. It doesn't make you a bad evil selfish person - no more than anyone else. But as long as people keep believing it does, even alleged supporters, people are going to continue treating people like this woman like shit. It's not a mystery. It's right there, in this thread.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:46 pm

There's a false dichotomy there, suggesting either we think there's nothing wrong with abortion, or we think women are evil for getting an abortion. I would guess, actually, that most people who think abortion is wrong, even among the most active pro-lifers, also believe that threatening or maligning a woman who seeks abortion is also wrong. I believe elective abortion is wrong in pretty much every circumstance, but the intentions of women seeking abortion are not necessarily evil or even selfish. Some, perhaps, but I think they're probably a small minority.

I think most pro-choicers who personally oppose abortion believe, like General Lee did about slavery, that it's not the choice they would make, but it should be an option for others.

I'd disagree respectfully with that, of course, because slavery, like elective abortion, depends on the very idea that one person's worth as a human being is dependent entirely on the opinion of another person. But I also think the civility of this debate can only be greatly increased without the black and white "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

[Edited on 11/10/0606 by Angelique]

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:56 pm

I'd like to clarify that I believe abortion is the wrong choice for myself but it doesn't mean I think lowly of women who get them. I don't think it's something to be ashamed of in the least and I'd never think of someone as a whore or any of that for getting one, or thinking about getting one. What it comes down to is one making the best decision for oneself and being able to have support for thier decision. That's what pro-choice is.

Really, it's a personal decision to be made by the person dealing with the situation when they deal with it. The government and the law should have no place.

[Edited on 11/10/0606 by NachtcGleiskette]

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:32 pm

Well it all depends on what people believe actually is a 'human life' personally, I don't think a fetus is a human life, not yet. I believe a certain level of cognitive thought is required first. Late term, I would have serious issues, but early like this woman is looking to do, I don't have a problem with what she's doing. again, I am not sure what I would choose, but I don't think she's wrong. The embryo is at this point little more than a clump of cells, looks more like a tadpole than anything you could call human, It does not yet have a brain to form a thought of any kind. It has the POTENTIAL to become human, but so does an unfetilized egg or some sperm. I'm not prepared to say exactly where the line is that it becomes human, so I'll just say 'the earlier, the better'

And i don't mean to be wishy washy... it's just a touchy subject, so I'll state it clear now. I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion, per se, but not sure if it's for me. and sometimes the fanatic pro life people make the other side look like they are all about killing babies, and ENJOY abortion, advocate it as a good thing for everyone, which isn't true, it's not good for everyone, just some. That is why I distinguished myself as not 'pro abortion' I think it should be considered as a last ditch decision after contraception fails, and should NOT be taken lightly, but once the decision is made, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, especially if done within the first couple months.

I dunno, it's like.... I coud understand killing in defense of your or someone elses life. But it doesn't make me 'pro killing' that makes it seem like I enjoy death, when I don't, but I recognize that it can be necessary at times.

[Edited on 11/10/06 by Bamfette]

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:39 am

At a mere 8 weeks gestation, a fetus isn't even classified an embryo any more. He or she looks recognizeably human, and has all systems present, just needs some time for growth and development. Of course, I don't see much merit to basing one's right to live on appearance or level of development, anyway. Science has not proven there is any definitive point other than conception when it is possible for a couple of cells to become a fully individual human organism, and so I think the proper ethical course of action is to treat feti and their parents (and everyone else, for that matter) as equal.

(And for the record, I received better prenatal care from specialists who shared my radical opinion that feti are people.)

Post by **HoodedMan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:56 pm

Originally posted by NachtcGleiskette
Really, it's a personal decision to be made by the person dealing with the situation when they deal with it. The government and the law should have no place.

That's the crux of the matter, I think, and the foundation for my political beliefs, which are similar to those expressed above but not quite the same.

I believe abortion is wrong. Forget this unknown point at which a fetus becomes a baby; it doesn't matter to me. By performing an abortion, you are ending the potential for a human life. The same argument could be applied to the use of contraception, but that doesn't really matter to me because I don't have to worry about such things. It's also much less concrete; when you're pregnant, there is certainty of development of human life. Otherwise there's not. That's not my point.

My point is that while that's my view, it's not others' view. No individual in our social collective ever has the same views as everyone else on any one topic. The government has no right to pick one person's or one group's view over another. It's not its job to enforce morals.

Therefore, the government needs to keep out and allow people the choice. If you think you need to have an abortion, fine. I may disagree and I may think what you're doing is wrong, but it's not my decision and I won't push my beliefs on you.

So you should be allowed by law to have that abortion, and may your God have mercy on your soul. Not my problem or the government's.

Originally posted by Angelique
(And for the record, I received better prenatal care from specialists who shared my radical opinion that feti are people.)

Um, what exactly is your point? Those specialists are better doctors because of their belief? They're better people? That's a blatant red herring fallacy and utter nonsense. Please don't waste our members' time with that sort of reasoning. Again.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:10 am

If you had read the blog, which was devoted in no small part to just how terrible pro-lifers are, and known what I had experienced with my pregnancies, you'd see that what I've said is neither a red herring nor utter nonsense. The specialists I mentioned were just examples of kind, compassionate professionals who treated both myself and my children as people deserving of respect. I could feel safer and more secure knowing that my children and I were in the care of people who neither regarded me as a human incubator, nor regarded my children as parasitic blobs of cells. And that was not even the central point I was trying to make, hence the parentheses.

I do think it is the government's business to support one group's views over another's, to an extent. It isn't always right, but it is the very essence of how a democratic republic is supposed to work. And insofar as the government does not endorse any specific religion over another or go overboard and interfere with our day-to-day lives, its very purpose is to make and enforce laws according to a religiously non-specific moral code. If not, Richard Ramirez would be out murdering as his own personal moral code dictated, rather than rotting in prison. (Yes, there are people who are actually pro-killing, and I hope our government continues to support our views over theirs! An example, not a red herring.)

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:45 am

Canada has no laws about abortion whatsoever. That is how it should be. I don't WANT to have to have an abortion. It's like Plan D. But it's still a plan.

I'm of the apparently unpopular opinion that if you can induce labour and have it survive... congratulations, you've created life. Otherwise, good try (or not) but really nothing for anyone who is not directly involved to worry about.

While we're on the topic, does anyone know where I can find the extremely rare and difficult to find "full colour, highly detailed, expelled at roughly four weeks embryo" pic? The living embryo pics are nice, but I need to see that thing in natural light. You can find tons of gory dead fetus pics, but since it still looks like a shrimp at that point, the four week embryo is nowhere to be found.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:11 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
If you had read the blog, which was devoted in no small part to just how terrible pro-lifers are, and known what I had experienced with my pregnancies, you'd see that what I've said is neither a red herring nor utter nonsense.

I did in fact read the blog. Your point did not relate to the contents of the blog nor to the discussion in this thread in any way, shape, or form, except insofar as you were implying that pro-lifers were better people than those who were not. It may not have been your central point but you put it "on the record" as a part of your argument. And it's nonsense. You attempted to have your readers infer an unfair generalization, and you're still trying to do it.

Originally posted by Angelique
The specialists I mentioned were just examples of kind, compassionate professionals who treated both myself and my children as people deserving of respect.

Great. I'm happy for you. This doesn't have to do with their political views.

Originally posted by Angelique
I could feel safer and more secure knowing that my children and I were in the care of people who neither regarded me as a human incubator, nor regarded my children as parasitic blobs of cells.

And here's were you explicitly state what you were implying in your earlier post. That that's how all pro-choice people are. It's bullshit, and I am in fact offended that you would put forth such an asinine generalization.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:05 pm

I was just stating my experience, not making any generalizations. Quite unlike the comments that, without sharing any reason to back it up, basically called all pro-lifers woman-hating Neanderthals.

I had actual experiences of being mistreated by people who called themselves "pro-choice." Worst example- I had to go to the ER for kidney stones and wound up having to fend off pressure- not just unsolicited and completely unsupported medical advice, but outright pressure to abort. Under these circumstances, I think I had both a right as well as a responsibility to my children to be less than trusting.

You may think it is a stretch, but I don't think being pro-life or pro-choice is restricted to merely being a political view. Rather, it's an outlook regarding the equality of all human life, and I have seen for myself just how such an outlook has carried over into how my children and I were treated.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:13 pm

I'm sorry you were mistreated. Please don't infer a sarcastic tone from that; I really am.

But it doesn't make your argument any more valid, nor does it make your unfair generalizations any more fair. This is my last word on this topic. I'm not saying it has to be yours; in fact, I'm sure it won't be, but I just don't like repeating myself.

[Edited on 13/10/06 by HoodedMan]

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:05 am

I'm still not counting an embryo as "human life". Humans are special because? Human life is considered more valuable than other life because? We can think. An embryo can't think; therefore it is not.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:50 pm

We can think. An embryo can't think; therefore it is not.

Ooo. Please don't go here; it scares me.

Human embryos will have the capacity to think when they're born. Or, some of them will, there are some "birthed" humans out there now who can't "think", should we take away their rights? If so, how should we determine the proper level of cognitive ability required in order to be deserving of rights?

It's not that I don't agree that mother of an unborn child is far more advanced both cognitively and developmentally; she is. And therefore it is true that only the mother is going to "care" if the embryo goes away, but to try and put this into any kind of legal or moral terms gets so ugly so fast it makes my head spin.

The "it can/can't think" argument, the "it already looks like a baby after a few weeks" argument... These are purely emotional and anecdotal ways of determining whether something is "alive". The truth is, the process of fetal development is so crazy complex and runs along so many convergent and divergent pathways that there are no real "milestones" once it has begun. Thus there are only 2 points of determination that have any solidity from a scientific view: Conception and birth. But from a societal point of view, those don't seem very acceptable: one is way too early (just a few cells) and the other is way too late.

However, after classes in genetics, biochemistry, embryology (human and animal), reproduction, theriogeniology, and vet school in general ... I don't feel comfortable with any other definition other than the first. It's radical, but defining "human" is easy after a person has been born and not so easy before then. Embryos do all kinds of crazy things during development. For a while, all of them look the same whether they will be birds, reptiles, or mammals. At a certain point in development a human fetus develops a series of reptilian features and then later loses them. All cells in all beings, regardless of their ability for cognition, develop entirely out of their own nervous system. That means that your bones, your heart, your stomach, everything in your body - was originally your brain.

Embryos and Fetuses are like ... space aliens or something. So by that argument it's like "yeah, why are we bothering? Mother first, space alien second." Except that there is no denying you were a space alien once too.

So... That's why it scares me. Putting arbitrary definitions that are difficult to even make criteria for, on to a thing that even science, after having studied it exhaustively, still can't do. It's not that you shouldn't think it's okay for the mother to have rights over her unborn child, that's fine - I just think it should be done with open eyes. You think it because that's what you want, and for no other reason.

-e

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:58 pm

Actually, we still know too little about just what a fetus or embryo can do to say for certain that an embryo most definitely cannot think.

Not long ago, it was "common knowledge" that newborn babies were blank slates who knew nothing. Now we know that actually, the learning process begins at some point (we don't know when exactly) in utero. Babies are born not only already knowing their parents' voices, for instance, but capable of distinguishing their parents' language from other languages.

Even more recently, like around when my babies were born, it was assumed that babies did not know how or were incapable of smiling until roughly 2 months after birth. What with 4D sonogram available now, we now know better.

Granted, there is a difference between a 20 week fetus and an embryo, but bear in mind, in some states abortion is legal up to 25 weeks, no questions asked. We are still being surprised with new knowledge on fetal and embryonic development. The scientific data used to justify abortion laws still on the books is obsolete. (The 25 week mark was determined in 1973 as the point of fetal "viability," when a fetus could survive outside the womb and therefore might be considered a living human being under the law. There are babies born before that point that are surviving now.)

As for hinging human worth on the ability to think, are the cognitively impaired less special? I agree with Em. I find this logic scary.

[Edited on 15/10/0606 by Angelique]

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:19 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
I agree with Em.

I just wanted to make it clear that my post does not agree with yours.

I was pointing out that it was, in this case, best not to even use such difficult to define criteria to justify an opinion - that it should be okay to have the opinion all by itself. I then used myself as an example saying that despite a lot of exposure to science that could possibily give me insights into some specific point where "human life begins" - I still didn't have that insight. That I too, simply had to go with "gut feeling" based on my understanding that this was all so hard to define.

Your post quotes a lot of dates and scientific jargon to justify why you hold the opinion you do and condemn those who think differently.

You don't agree with me at all.

-e