|
|
Johnny wrote:
> "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1122492031.075260.74090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[=2E..]
[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Which shows the futility of abortion by force.
Huh?
futile (fy=C2=A1t=CB=9Dl, fy=C2=A1=CB=9Dt=C3=ACl=C2=B4) adjective
1=2E Having no useful result.
2=2E Trifling and frivolous
The women who have abortions consider the result very
useful. Even you should know this, so maybe you mean
#2: and you are saying that abortion "by force" (as opposed
to birth "by force" I guess) is trifling and frivolous?
So I don't know what the above means.
>
> Because there is no outside party performing those spontaneuo s abortions.
So it is not the "loss" of life you are concerned about then.
You are only concerned that someone would choose to
induce what happens 70%+ of the time anyway. So even
if only one induced abortion in the US occurred, you would
be more concerned with that than with the millions of unborn
children who die before reaching term? Is that right?
>
> You like to accuse non-entities of crimes?
Yes, as you would describe heart disease as the # 1 killer
in the US.
>
>
> Not in the slightest.
This might be wishful thinking. I'll bet that you have not, before
this, considered this issue.
> There is no person performing the spontaneous abortions you mention.
So you think it makes a great deal of difference to the 8 fold
greater number of "dead babies"--that it wasn't a person who
killed them? That's what you think the important thing is?
> There is no entity to accuse or wrongdoing or to investigate for suspected
> wrongdoing.
Well, if your agenda is to accuse individuals of wrong-
doing or investigate suspected wrong-doing, you might
consider blaming "God." If he existed, he certainly could
have prevented this 70+ percent of unborn-fertilized-egg-
children who die from being ensouled, at least.
Or better yet, he could have designed a better system that
didn't have such wastage.
But that is beside the point. The point is that when you
show no concern for this 8 fold greater number of deaths,
you have no grounds to call abortion wrong doing. If their
deaths are no big deal then why should a much smaller
number of deaths be a big deal to you?
>
> Your misdiagnosis does nothing to belittle my sincerity.
No, I said your "selective outrage." And I hardly misdiagnosed. You
would treat the same result--the deaths of unborn babies--in wildly
different ways, depending on the cause.
|
|