The above will conclude you have a mind of your own!

What A mind you must have!

We need to get off this planet, or 6.5 has its gamely, as your bid, not no certainly with the forward minds that makes you think so.

And we go around and around we go. ( very pleased )

SO! Whats the problem that I see?

EVO

Abortion was introduced into medical practice about the 60's to do away with unwanted children, which in my day of large families was rare. This should have meant that today there would be no need of DOCS and Child Welfare agencies. Yet statistically there are more abused and neglected children per head of population than in the large families of the War years.

Another factor has entered the family dynamics. Unnmarried mothers in poverty and on drugs with several neglected children. The selfcentered middle and upper classes who find having children inconvenient, ruining their social life and demanding of their time. These are the ones more likley to abort a pregnancy. They rationalise that the unborn is not human. However there is enough evidence to show that it never evolves into any other species. They do not abort a child because it is deformed or has evolved into another species. They can well afford to raise it. They abort it because it will interfere with their social life.

This indicates they actualy hate what is natural - motherhood. Abortion has become the safe method of having unprotected sex. These women will actually suffer deep down hatred of themselves. In later life they are plagued by depression, guilt, breast cancer etc.

A mother who surgically aborts her child is 15 times more likley to develop breast cancer. Breast cancer in women is a major problem in todays society, and costs far greater than money spent on abortions. When the mammary of the breast are forming following conception if the child is surgically aborted causes malfunction in the breast cells, which does not happen in a natural abortion. Breast feeding reduces the incidents of breast cancer. Many in the Medical profession will not speak of this because it keeps them in work

Dear Webby,

You objected when I wrote: "All who oppose your ideas are not wrong. They merely differ."

You insisted that you had the truth, and it was not a matter of opinion. The truth is that I was trying to be polite, but you wouldn't have it so. The truth is that I consider your beliefs ridiculous nonsense.

Some time back. We were dinner guests at the house of a Muslim. We were guests because my wife was her wife's teacher of English. He was very belligerent about his religion and was all set to argue. He asked my wife, "What is wrong with Islam?"She answered, "What is wrong with Islam is the same thing that is wrong with all religions. You think you have the truth." You have the same sort of aggressive belligerence with your garbage as our Muslim host had with his garbage.

It is not false respect to call your beliefs a matter of opinion. It is true respect. I realise you are a human being, and I really don't like to hurt human beings by criticising their beliefs which they may cherish.

Yabby wrote: "...all information is tentative and I am free to change my mind, if the evidence changes."

I think that's a reasonable attitude. I am free to challenge his beliefs because they are not cherished, and he can change them with new evidence. Normally I don't feel free to challenge outlandish beliefs such as that of the virgin birth. However, you are so belligerent in defending your ridiculous nonsense that I have lost my attitude of respect toward your nonsense. In a civil society we make polite noises of respect to avoid hurting other people. Somehow you don't seem to understand that.

"The truth is that I was trying to be polite, but you wouldn't have it so. The truth is that I consider your beliefs ridiculous nonsense."

Which seems pretty dogmatic to me.

I love how all the comments from the anti-religionists are the *least* rational!

Philo

After refusing to give a straight forward answer to my relevant question concerning a raped and pregnant nine year old child. You dig further into your lack of credibility with a post that is little more than a web of lies.

You claim: A mother who surgically aborts her child is 15 times more likley to develop breast cancer.

Fact:
A woman is no more likely to develop breast cancer after abortion than she is after miscarriage or full term pregnancy or not procreating at all. Breast cancer is caused by genetic predisposition or age or a combination of both.

See: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcArticles.nsf/pages/Cancer_and_heredity?OpenDocument

There is no more evidence for a link betweem abortion and cancer than there is between miscarriage and cancer. Please note that miscarriages are far more frequent than abortions and posit no threat of breast cancer.

Philo claims
Abortion was introduced into medical practice about the 60's to do away with unwanted children.

Fact:

Women have sought abortions for as long as there have been unwanted pregancies. This is not something that started in the 60's, women have been trying to control their fertility – hence their bodies since prehistory.

“The practice of abortion dates back to ancient times. Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.”

“The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC. A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Cont'd