Re: Any anti-abortion atheists?

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:34:28 -0500, "Osprey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"robpar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:33:38 -0600, Erica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (robpar) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1 Dec 2003 15:10:08 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erica) wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >The fact that I did so through excessive sarcasm is my bad. I just got
>> >> >slightly steamed, is all. But robparr's tone didn't warrent it, so I'm
>> >> >sorry.
>> >> >
>> >>   I tend to be very sarcastic when flaming a so called Pro-Lifer.
>Which you
>> >> appeared to be with the religious bigots. In using their lies about a
>near
>> >> full
>> >> term abortion. Which is only used when there is no hope of saving the
>baby,
>> >> and
>> >> the mothers life is at stake.
>> >
>> >I'm personally pro-life for my own choice, but pro-choice otherwise, if
>> >that makes sense.
>>
>> Makes perfect sense, I share that position, and it is the most widely
>accepted
>> position among the Pro-Choice.
>>
>> > I am also woefully underinformed on the subject and
>> >reacting on pure emotion (not that this ever stopped anyone on usenet
>> >from jumping right into a discussion, mind you). No lies, just reacting
>> >very subjectively on less than adequate data.
>> >
>> >Thank you for your first hand information. You are indeed operating from
>> >a position that is better informed than mine. I will therefore bow out
>> >of the discussion and toddle over to google to do a bit of research.
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >
>> >Erica
>> Hang around, but try to avoid making anything personal. These
>> pro-lofe/pro-choice debates can become very heated.
>>  However the current Pro-lifers posting here are rather lame.Maybe some of
>the
>> sharper ones will join in.
>
>Hmm, lets talk about this for a moment.
>
>First off, I would like to point out that robpar has completely ignored my
>postings where I provided rebuttals, with sources.
>
  Oh really,  I suppose that I missed them. of course a christian that ignores
the Bible as a source has no idea what a source is.
>Second
>
>Robpar says "These pro-lofe/pro-choice debates can become very heated."
>
>And in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE  Robpar says,
>
>"However the current Pro-lifers posting here are rather lame."
>
>Could that be one of the reasons they become heated?
>
  Actually they become heated when the pro-slavery  faction comes up with fresh
lies, instead of the same old lame shit you and Dorothy comes up with.
>
>
>
>>   As always study both sides of a question and make your own decision. Go
>to
>> Center for disease control  and check out their info on abortions. Better
>than
>> google.
>>    More back ground on my self, we raised 2 really good children have 5
>grand
>> kids. Came close to being great grand parents last year, unfortunately the
>> pregnancy went sour and had to be terminated.
>>   My sister in law is head surgical nurse in a local hospital, that does
>all the
>> abortions for Family Planning. My cousin runs the family planning center,
>> another cousin is leader for the local operation rescue.  He is trying to
>get me
>> to return to the church. So I am inside on all fronts on the question.
>Best way
>> to describe my position is Pro-choice with having the child the best
>choice.
>> It`s the womans choice,  if she chooses wrong she pays.
>>   The cruelest thing that can happen to a child is to be unwanted.
>
>The cruelest thing that can happen to a child is for the mother to act
>irresponsible, bring the unwanted child into this world, only to butcher it.
>
  That`s correct bringing a UNWANTED child into the world. Rather than
terminating the pregnancy early.Giving birth to a unwanted child is cruel.