XPost: ca.politics, alt.california, sac.politics   
   From: info@sent.klubram.com   
      
   In article    
   Voter  wrote:   
   >   
   > Aborting a fetus in the first three months is not only 100% moral, but it is   
   > immoral not to abort.  There is no brain in the fetus for the first three   
   months,   
   > and no ghost either.  If you read people's stories of memories of being in   
   the   
   > womb, they have real memories of being babies alive in the womb.  These same   
   > people yet have memories of reincarnation - of being a Ghost and then being   
   in the   
   > womb for less than 9 months.  Of being in the womb probably no more than five   
   > months at most.  Read their stories.  _IF_ there is no brain, and no ghost,   
   in the   
   > fetus, then not aborting is making a decision to get pregnant.  While   
   obviously   
   > the day before the baby is born, it is just two people attached, but you   
   have a   
   > right to detach your body, vs. an ethical requirement to throw someone a   
   rope.   
   > Carrying a baby who eats your body for 6 months is more onerous than throwing   
   > someone a rope.  It is perhaps closer to jumping into an icy cold river to   
   save   
   > someone.  Someone you don't want or know.  If you were on a 6 month trek   
   through   
   > the wilderness, with only 2,000 calories per day to feed you, and you met a   
   > starving person, would you starve _with_ them, eating 1,000 calories for the   
   rest   
   > of your 6 month trek through the wilderness, to emerge skinny and weak, but   
   alive?   
   > Would it be a crime not to feed them?  Carrying a baby is letting a baby eat   
   your   
   > body.  What if the woman could just pull the fetus out of her?  Would that   
   be a   
   > crime? You weren't born Siamese twins.  Your body is not theirs.  If you went   
   > through the Star Trek transporter and came out attached to someone, and they   
   were   
   > using your kidney, and their kidney didn't make the transport, and there was   
   6   
   > months to wait for a kidney, would you stay attached to this stranger for 6   
   months   
   > to let them live?  What if you both had guns, and you were like, we're going   
   to go   
   > get detached, and they were like, no, we're not, and you were like, if you   
   kill   
   > me, you'll die, but if I kill you, I'll live.  What if it was more than 6   
   months   
   > to wait for a kidney, like 9 years?  What if you were in excruciating pain   
   that   
   > could only be relieved by separation, but they would die?  What if you could   
   just   
   > pull yourself off of them, and they would die, and you would live?  Would it   
   be a   
   > crime to do so?  What if the woman could just pull the fetus out of her?    
   What if   
   > they could be detached from you, and re-attached to someone else to live?    
   Would   
   > those people be like paid surrogates, and does a fetus thus get free health   
   care,   
   > to bring all babies to life?   
   >   
   > What if aliens land and lay eggs, which crawl in our feet, or we ingest   
   > accidentally through fruit, and 3 foot by 8 inch caterpillars gestate in our   
   > stomachs, accidentally for over 3 years, until they finally crawl out our   
   mouths,   
   > and eventually turn into beautiful harmonic, human-sized butterflies who   
   teach the   
   > nations?   And these butterflies are more intelligent than humans, and wholly   
   > benevolent and helpful.  What if this accidental insemination happens   
   frequently.   
   >   
   > What if aliens land, and just generally infect everyone's legs with their   
   young.   
   >   
   > You can't abort a rapist's insemination any more than you can kill a 30 year   
   old   
   > product of rape, if you can't kill a normal fetus.  A rapist's insemination   
   is as   
   > much a living person as a normal fetus is.  And yet you have a right to   
   separate   
   > your body so far as I've suggested.   
   >   
   > What if a Siamese twin kills?  Do they both go to prison?  Has this ever   
   happened?   
   >   Is the law not bunk, and is not self defense the solution?  Should we not   
   be   
   > letting the chips fall where they may, and doing away with the law, to   
   replace it   
   > with an benevolent and helpful advocate which recognizes and promotes the   
   humanity   
   > in all humankind?   
   >   
   > _IF_ there is no brain, and no ghost, in the fetus, then not aborting is   
   making a   
   > decision to get pregnant.  There's no person living in you for at least the   
   first   
   > three months.  If you don't abort, it's just like you decided to get   
   pregnant.  If   
   > a sperm and an egg were sitting next to each other in a petri dish, and then   
   the   
   > sperm impregnated the egg, would you believe, that was a human with a brain   
   and a   
   > ghost?  Do you believe that you came out of a zygote?  Are you a materialist,   
   > atheist, deathist who believes only in the material world?  There is life   
   after   
   > death.  There is life before life.  The ghost enters the fetus at various   
   times in   
   > its development.  This begs the question, could a baby be born without a   
   ghost;   
   > especially in Africa, where there are tons and tons of babies, and no one   
   would   
   > want to be born in Africa.  But I imagine it would be born stillborn.   
   >   
   > Unplanned childbirth is the scourge of nations.  Unplanned childbirth is the   
   cause   
   > of overpopulation.  There are too many people for the property.  There is not   
   > enough capital for the labor.  Rather than a Holocaust as was caused by the   
   Great   
   > Depression, the solution is to stop unplanned pregnancies.  The human race   
   is an   
   > animal like any other, that can kill off its habitat and resultingly die en   
   masse.   
   >   Like a Kuala Bear group that needs to be culled, but the solution is to   
   stop   
   > unplanned pregnancy.   37% of American society is unplanned.  Babies born to   
   > mother's who didn't plan them certainly face a life of likely greater   
   poverty and   
   > hardship.  Drug abusers certainly don't practice abstinence if they are   
   reckless   
   > enough to abuse drugs.  People using needles, and injecting Heroin, get   
   pregnant   
   > at 19.  The last thing they need is a baby.  The first thing they need is an   
   > abortion.  This is not theoretical.  This is solid fact.  Only 40% of all   
   > unplanned pregnancies, or nearly 1 million are happily terminated in   
   abortion.   
   > Sadly, 60% of all unplanned pregnancies or 1.5 million, are not.  1.5   
   million out   
   > of 4 million babies born per year are unplanned.  This is 37%.  This is   
   > outrageous.  This is certainly going to have a negative socio-economic   
   effect on   
   > our so-called civilization.  Half the unplanned pregnancies and childbirths,   
   > occurred in people who used 1 type of birth control, but were not responsible   
   > enough to just use 2 or 3 types of birth control concurrently. The other half   
   > occurred in people who used no protection.  A sexually active couple will be   
   > pregnant in 10 years on the pill, in 5-6 years using only condoms, and in 1   
   year   
   > using only the pull-out method.  Using two types of birth control is greatly   
   > safer, as the yearly risk x the yearly risk x the double factored 80-100 sex   
   acts   
   > = 1/12 x 1/6 x 1/80 = 1 in 5760 typical use pill and condoms, and 1/300 x   
   1/50 x   
   > 1/100 = 1 in 1,500,000 perfect use pill and condoms.  The risk could be   
   worse than   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)