From: whome@yahoo.com   
      
   "ChimChimery ChimChimery"  wrote in message   
   news:624-421BF632-244@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...   
   > 'Firstly, Life is about freedom of choice. If we dont have it then we   
   > dont have control of our lives.'   
   >   
   > Reply:  No..firstly , life is about treating anothers life with the   
   > utmost of dignity, respect, and infinite worth since that other person   
   > is also made in the image of the Creator, and thus, has the same equal   
   > rights as everyone else.  This is what the Bill of Rights says , and its   
   > for every human being....whos life being scientifically proven,  starts   
   > at conception. 'Freedom of Choice'  is youre preference for a chocholate   
   > donut and mine is for  a jelly-filled one at the same Donut Shop , when   
   > we walk in together.   
      
   To respect others as you say, we must first make a "choice to". That choice   
   involves freedom to choose HOW we treat others.   
   One cannot respect others truly if they are simply forced into doing the   
   will of state or others through fear of punishment.   
   >   
   > 'When does a human have a right to decide their own life? '   
   >   
   > Reply :  The mother is a Trustee of her developing child , and thus has   
   > no right to terminate its development . If i were the Trustee to your   
   > house...would i have the right to terminate your house by making it   
   > unlivable ???  Neither does a mother have the right to make her   
   > independent life thats growing , unlivable .   
      
   The mother has to firstly ACCEPT that she WANTS to be the trustee of her   
   unborn child. And if she doesnt want to do that then the father has the   
   right to undertake this responsibility. And if they both choose to terminate   
   this child or adopt out they have that option too.   
   >   
   > 'Well I say if nature/God allows children as young as 14-15yo to create   
   > life , then that is the age at which decisions can be made regarding   
   > ones own body, people! I know many of you are in shock at this assertion   
   > but tell that to God/nature.'   
   >   
   > Reply :  A 10 year old can create a pipe bomb given the choice ;  so, is   
   > he justified in choosing to terminate/destroy something ?   Your 14-15   
   > year old teenager has the right to decide what pants or shirt to put on   
   > his/her body on any given day....but does not have the right to   
   > horrifically brutilize to death the most innocent form of defenseless   
   > human life. Even if its within her. No need for me to tell it to God...   
   > God has already told us that life is precious, that he knew us before we   
   > were formed in the womb (Psalm 139) , and, that we have infinite worth   
   > and dignity being made in his image ; now its up to Mothers to give that   
   > infinite worth and dignity to themselves, and, their developing   
   > offspring.   
      
   Unless society is prepared to accept total responsibility for the upbringing   
   of the unborn child that is not wanted, it has no right to impose on an   
   individual the birth process. Put up or shut up is it basically. Talk is   
   cheap, child maintenance isnt.   
   >   
   > 'Secondly, Free contraception must be available to all possible   
   > child-creating people to allow them the choice of recreation or   
   > recreation, if you know what I mean..'   
   >   
   > Reply:  The more contraception thats handed out, the greater the   
   > pregnancy/abortion rate will be due to illicit sex occuring more often   
   > (condoms break , rip, and come off...and they dont stop all STD's) ;   
   > there is no 100 percent foolproof contraception...unless a woman has had   
   > a hysterectomy.   
   >   
   Oh yes and if we simply stop making contraception available, your argument   
   states that all those hormone raging teens will simply stop having sex??? GO   
   check the statistics on that one. the USA has failed miserably in denying   
   contraception to young people.   
      
   > 'Thirdly, If a couple conceive a child, regardless of age, then that   
   > couple alone should decide what to do next. Either they keep the child   
   > and the state will help care for that child until the couple can support   
   > themselves, or the couple together can decide to terminate that child, '   
   >   
   > Reply:  This wouldnt even be a concern if people would follow the   
   > Creators plan for sex, instead of the current cultures plan of   
   > prematurely killing 4400 developing human beings, per DAY in the   
   > USA...of which approx. 95% are to hide the shame of an illicit fling   
   > gone wrong.   
      
   Well why dont we stop the influencing factors that affect our teens today to   
   HAVE sex?   
   Movies, music, magazines and advertizing that have as their main source of   
   influence...SEX.   
   Give me the creators email addy or let him reply to me here personally on   
   that one.   
      
   >   
   > 'In the case of rape or danger to the woman's life, then because the   
   > woman had no free choice in the creation of that child, or her life is   
   > in danger if birth proceeds, she can choose to abort the child. ''   
   >   
   > Reply: Why should an innocent life pay the price for a heinous moral   
   > crime like rape ?   There are many couples who cant have children that   
   > would be even willing to  care for a child from a rape. The infinite   
   > worth and dignity of the child still hasnt changed.   
      
   Because the woman who was raped did not ask to bear a child is why. She has   
   no moral responsibility to proceed with childbirth following rape.   
   >   
   > 'If gay couples wish to adopt a child thats fine too. But as God/nature   
   > intended children to have both sexes to raise them, it is in the best   
   > interest of the child for a heterosexual childless couple to have first   
   > preference over a gay couple. If God/nature had wanted gays to bring up   
   > children he/she would have allowed them to also reproduce.'   
   >   
   > Reply:  God condemns the homosexual lifestyle in no uncertain terms in   
   > the Bible. He would not want them to be raising children in a perverted   
   > lifestyle for which they cannot enter heaven (unless they ask for   
   > forgiveness and change). Gods idea , is for children to have a mom and a   
   > dad for the maximum emotional development of the child in a good loving   
   > environment to which that ethic/value can be passed along to future   
   > generations-- which is why he expects the developing child to make it   
   > thru the birth canal -- not butchered and sucked into a sink while the   
   > mother waits patiently within 3 feet.   
      
   I agree that heterosexual couples are God's/natures preferred parents,   
   otherwise he/she would have allowed gays to reproduce. Bottom line again   
   is..freedom of choice for the individual to either abort, keep or adopt out   
   the consequence of their sex.   
   >   
   > 'This is the New Millenium people. We have to start afresh with how we   
   > think. We need to look at this issue with consideration of all parties   
   > concerned and with due respect to priorities once a child is conceived   
   > and with regard to what nature/God has allowed us as humans to do.'   
   >   
   > Reply:  Yes...the new millenium of Americas Halocaust.  God has not   
   > allowed humans to have a free will choice in terminating other human   
   > life ... especially ones own flesh and blood.  The philosophy youve   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)