Abortion results in ptsd, and is worse for those with a history of trauma.

[9thIDdoc]

"The truth is, the abortion = infanticide argument is only valid if unborn babies are infants, and are being killed. Since both ARE, in fact, scientifically AND grammatically true..."

Wrong. A fetus may become an infant or a baby after it is born. "Unborn baby" is a highly emotional oxymoron.

"I realize that it's very important to you to somehow convince people that "real" human beings are, by definition, ADULT human beings, but you'll excuse me if I decide to go with biological science, which does not include "sentient and conscious" or "self-aware" - especially not the way YOU mean it - in its classification of "human".

So you would define any living growing mass of human issue as a "baby"? If so removing a cancer must be considered an abortion.

 

[The Gadfly]

May I ask what "looks like" has to do with "real facts"? Sounds to me like YOU are trying to avoid the real facts, ie. that a fetus is a human being, by saying, "Oh, but it looks like . . ." I thought humanity had matured and become more intelligent than to dismiss someone's true nature on the basis of appearance.

But I'm glad that the Denial Party has managed to convince women that they aren't killing a human being as long as he looks a certain way.

And while we're on the subject of things you're being disingenuous about, it's less than honest to say, "At the stage most abortions take place, the fetus looks like a blood clot", and "most abortions take place too early for arms and legs". The stage at which most abortions take place is 6-12 weeks (or 4-10 weeks after conception, in other words), which is a rather large range, and one which includes an enormous amount of rapid growth, including the development of arms and legs. So unless a woman got INCREDIBLY lucky and found out she was pregnant more or less IMMEDIATELY after she conceived, her fetus does, indeed, have arms and legs. Also, by about week 9, that'd have to be a mighty big freaking blood clot to compare in size. He is certainly recognizable to the naked eye as more than just a blood clot, since the two methods of abortion used during this time period do include the step of the doctor visually ascertaining that all parts have been removed.

You also left out vestigial gills and a tail. It is still somewhere between a simple mass of cells, and a fully sentient, conscious human being; though it potentially would become the latter at some later point, IT ISN'T, not yet, any more than a fertilized embryo is. What you really can't get around, is that it lacks a developed, functioning cerebral cortex, and therefore is not self-aware. So much for the "abortion is murder" argument, which is an appeal to emotion rather than reason in the first place. In fact, any fully gestated baby primate has a higher degree of cerebral development and function than a human fetus at that stage, but we don't insist that those are "human life", now do we? The truth is, that argument (abortion=infanticide) is only valid if one concedes the "accuracy" (it is nothing of the sort) of the false, emotionally-driven first premise.

They have neither vestigial gills nor a tail. These are misnomers, also originally created and now perpetuated by the desire of the ignorant to base things solely on appearance.

I realize that it's very important to you to somehow convince people that "real" human beings are, by definition, ADULT human beings, but you'll excuse me if I decide to go with biological science, which does not include "sentient and conscious" or "self-aware" - especially not the way YOU mean it - in its classification of "human".

If you wish to discuss the "abortion is murder" argument, I suggest you do it with someone who has actually MADE that argument, rather than trying to put words in my mouth so that you can project your favorite "abortion debate" script onto me. If you wish an actual debate, you might try confining yourself to rebutting things I'VE ACTUALLY SAID.

Furthermore, YOU are the one who barged in here, insisting that the definition of "human" involved cerebral cortexes and higher reasoning, so may I ask why the fuck you then turn around and demand that I answer for the fact that "we" don't classify other primates as human? When did I become responsible for explaining the ramifications of YOUR bullshit argument? MY arguments on the subject of abortion and human life require no explaining away of other primates whatsoever, which ought to tell you something.

The truth is, the abortion = infanticide argument is only valid if unborn babies are infants, and are being killed. Since both ARE, in fact, scientifically AND grammatically true (and in no way "emotional", the way you're "but they aren't like adults" nonsense is), the argument is valid. Call me when you have the cojones to debate my actual arguments, rather than blathering on at me about what you WISH I had said.

Well, I see that after having her last offering (and my, what a hanging curveball that was!) swatted into the cheap seats, KG has headed for the shower and called you in from the bull pen in relief. That first pitch was low and away, in the dirt; arm a little sore from wielding the whip last evening, dear? Now, let's see if you can get the next one over the plate, or at least close enough where I might take a swing at it...or not....

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The truth is, the abortion = infanticide argument is only valid if unborn babies are infants, and are being killed. Since both ARE, in fact, scientifically AND grammatically true..."

Wrong. A fetus may become an infant or a baby after it is born. "Unborn baby" is a highly emotional oxymoron.

"I realize that it's very important to you to somehow convince people that "real" human beings are, by definition, ADULT human beings, but you'll excuse me if I decide to go with biological science, which does not include "sentient and conscious" or "self-aware" - especially not the way YOU mean it - in its classification of "human".

So you would define any living growing mass of human issue as a "baby"? If so removing a cancer must be considered an abortion.

Sorry, but no. The fact that the truth elicits emotions hostile to the way you would like the world to be in no way makes it any less the truth. A fetus does not "become" a baby after he is born (and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?) By definition, both medically and grammatically, a fetus is a baby from the get-go.

As for your lame attempt to try to force your equally lame argument of "so any mass is a baby" into my mouth, you may see my previous response to the LAST dipshit poltroon who wanted to project his straw man onto me: sack up and debate MY arguments instead of being a chickenshit who tries to control BOTH sides of the debate because that's the only hope in Hell he has of winning.

If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby", you may at that point proudly trot out your "Aha!" moment of "then removing tumors is an abortion". Until then, all you've proven is that 1) you are piss-stupid enough to think a fetus and a tumor are comparable, and 2) because you're that piss-stupid, YOU are the abortion here.

I guess that, looking at you, we now know what that other option was that a baby "may become after birth", huh?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Real facts requested of others...

"God decided" defense position...

okey dokey

 

[koshergrl]

At this point, I think it's fairly obvious the pro-abortionists have given up any pretense of actually debating.

No offense, KG, but that was obvious to me fifteen years ago.

there isnt anything to debate. Mind your own business and live your life.
Its not your body, not your choice, not your business. It would seem people like you dont understand having respect for other peoples privacy.

It's true. I have zero respect for scum who promote the butchery of women and children, and who tell those women it's because they care so much about them.

I have much more respect for the women who are victimized by the abortion industry and the eugenecist progressives than I do for scum like you, who go around spouting platitudes about women having the *right* to kill their offspring.

 

[koshergrl]

"The truth is, the abortion = infanticide argument is only valid if unborn babies are infants, and are being killed. Since both ARE, in fact, scientifically AND grammatically true..."

Wrong. A fetus may become an infant or a baby after it is born. "Unborn baby" is a highly emotional oxymoron.

"I realize that it's very important to you to somehow convince people that "real" human beings are, by definition, ADULT human beings, but you'll excuse me if I decide to go with biological science, which does not include "sentient and conscious" or "self-aware" - especially not the way YOU mean it - in its classification of "human".

So you would define any living growing mass of human issue as a "baby"? If so removing a cancer must be considered an abortion.

Sorry, but no. The fact that the truth elicits emotions hostile to the way you would like the world to be in no way makes it any less the truth. A fetus does not "become" a baby after he is born (and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?) By definition, both medically and grammatically, a fetus is a baby from the get-go.

As for your lame attempt to try to force your equally lame argument of "so any mass is a baby" into my mouth, you may see my previous response to the LAST dipshit poltroon who wanted to project his straw man onto me: sack up and debate MY arguments instead of being a chickenshit who tries to control BOTH sides of the debate because that's the only hope in Hell he has of winning.

If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby", you may at that point proudly trot out your "Aha!" moment of "then removing tumors is an abortion". Until then, all you've proven is that 1) you are piss-stupid enough to think a fetus and a tumor are comparable, and 2) because you're that piss-stupid, YOU are the abortion here.

I guess that, looking at you, we now know what that other option was that a baby "may become after birth", huh?

Fetus and baby are just two terms that describe the development stage of a human being.

No matter how the baby killers try to pretend otherwise.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" ...(and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?)..."

Obviously, not every fetus survives to be born.

'If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby"...
" ...a fetus is a baby from the get-go."

At the "get go" a fetus is something other than a mass of living growing human tissue? Please enlighten us poor bumbling mortals as to what exactly it is according to the Book of Cecilie. Also you might explain how you think an early stage fetus is diferent from tumor. If you're going to be shy about stating what you mean to say, don't be surprised if you are misunderstood.

 

[Cecilie1200]

" ...(and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?)..."

Obviously, not every fetus survives to be born.

'If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby"...
" ...a fetus is a baby from the get-go."

At the "get go" a fetus is something other than a mass of living growing human tissue? Please enlighten us poor bumbling mortals as to what exactly it is according to the Book of Cecilie. Also you might explain how you think an early stage fetus is diferent from tumor. If you're going to be shy about stating what you mean to say, don't be surprised if you are misunderstood.

YOU are a mass of living, growing human tissue, you moron. That doesn't mean EVERY mass of living human tissue is a human being, fetus or otherwise. Jesus Christ, did ANY of you abortionist freaks bother to pay attention in biology class? This shit is as basic as it gets:

Cell
Tissue
Organ
Organism

Learn the difference.

An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue.

By the way, this isn't "according to the Book of Cecilie", shitforbrains. It's according to any biology textbook you'd like to read, and I DEFINITELY suggest you read one.

 

[Katzndogz]

All children are a blessing and a gift. It's a shame some people think they must be PLANNED to be so, and even more of a shame that there are a lot of people who think certain children have no value at all.

This is 100% correct. The way to fight abortion is for THIS to become the prevailing view instead of abortion.

When women who choose abortion as an option are seen as the faillures that they are, there will be fewer of them. Abortion will never be eliminated. That's a fact. There will always be women desperate enough to have them. The alternative isn't a live baby, it is often a dead baby and a dead mother. Abortion should be forced to be seen as distasteful. As long as women who have them are some kind of heroes of the left, they will continue to serve this choice instead of the alternative.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But i bet you anything you whine when seatbelt laws come up, smoking laws,or Even Food laws you hate.

Correct.

The issue of abortion will forever be the right’s monument to hypocrisy.

Conservatives are as much advocates of the ‘nanny-state’ as they accuse liberals of being.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" ...(and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?)..."

Obviously, not every fetus survives to be born.

'If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby"...
" ...a fetus is a baby from the get-go."

At the "get go" a fetus is something other than a mass of living growing human tissue? Please enlighten us poor bumbling mortals as to what exactly it is according to the Book of Cecilie. Also you might explain how you think an early stage fetus is diferent from tumor. If you're going to be shy about stating what you mean to say, don't be surprised if you are misunderstood.

YOU are a mass of living, growing human tissue, you moron. That doesn't mean EVERY mass of living human tissue is a human being, fetus or otherwise. Jesus Christ, did ANY of you abortionist freaks bother to pay attention in biology class? This shit is as basic as it gets:

Cell
Tissue
Organ
Organism

Learn the difference.

An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue.

By the way, this isn't "according to the Book of Cecilie", shitforbrains. It's according to any biology textbook you'd like to read, and I DEFINITELY suggest you read one.

Best check your own book. The earlist fetus is a single cell without organs or the ability to live except as part of it's host. It is not an individual organism. And I am still waiting to find out a diferene between it and a tumor. Neither tumors or fetuses have organs from the "get go".

 

[Sunshine]

But i bet you anything you whine when seatbelt laws come up, smoking laws,or Even Food laws you hate.

Correct.

The issue of abortion will forever be the right’s monument to hypocrisy.

Conservatives are as much advocates of the ‘nanny-state’ as they accuse liberals of being.

Abortion laws are monuments to MEN getting into the business of birthing babies. Women used to handle these things. THEN men got into the act, coined the word 'hysterical', ripped out our uteruses to make us more emotionally appealing to them, and pressured young women who still had uteruses to have more and more hildren. My OB/GYN pressured me for years to conceive. That was ALWAYS his question on my yearly female exam: 'When are you going to conceive?' My answer: 'When I'm damned good and ready!'

MEN make money off of women having babies. They even make money off the ones who have no insurance and can't afford to pay because the STATE pays the bill. It was MEN who invented abortion as a moral issue. So they could make money of the more expensive live births. When women were in charge, they took care of business.

 

[Katzndogz]

But i bet you anything you whine when seatbelt laws come up, smoking laws,or Even Food laws you hate.

Correct.

The issue of abortion will forever be the right’s monument to hypocrisy.

Conservatives are as much advocates of the ‘nanny-state’ as they accuse liberals of being.

Abortion laws are monuments to MEN getting into the business of birthing babies. Women used to handle these things. THEN men got into the act, coined the word l'hysterical', ripped out our uteruses to make us more emotionally appealing to them, and pressured young women who still had uteruses to have more cand more hildren. My OB/GYN pressured me for years to conceive. That was ALWAYS his question on my yearly female exam: 'When are you going to conceive?' My answer: 'When I'm damned good and ready!'

MEN make money off of women having babies. They even make money off the ones who have no insurance and can't afford to pay because the STATE pays the bill. It was MEN who invented abortion as a moral issue.

Doctors are always mindful of a woman's age. Wait too long and the window of opportunity closes. It closes slowly. It isn't true that the day before menopause you can conceive and the day after you can't.

 

[Sunshine]

Correct.

The issue of abortion will forever be the right’s monument to hypocrisy.

Conservatives are as much advocates of the ‘nanny-state’ as they accuse liberals of being.

Abortion laws are monuments to MEN getting into the business of birthing babies. Women used to handle these things. THEN men got into the act, coined the word l'hysterical', ripped out our uteruses to make us more emotionally appealing to them, and pressured young women who still had uteruses to have more cand more hildren. My OB/GYN pressured me for years to conceive. That was ALWAYS his question on my yearly female exam: 'When are you going to conceive?' My answer: 'When I'm damned good and ready!'

MEN make money off of women having babies. They even make money off the ones who have no insurance and can't afford to pay because the STATE pays the bill. It was MEN who invented abortion as a moral issue.

Doctors are always mindful of a woman's age. Wait too long and the window of opportunity closes. It closes slowly. It isn't true that the day before menopause you can conceive and the day after you can't.

Get over yourself. We ALL know the ages of our patients. But we don't pressure our patients to have procedures just so we can make money. When I was young an OB/GYN would refuse to do a tubal on a woman until she had at least two children. They are greedy bastards who use women to feather their own nests. That's what the abortion flap is about. And that's ALL its about.

 

[Katzndogz]

Abortion laws are monuments to MEN getting into the business of birthing babies. Women used to handle these things. THEN men got into the act, coined the word l'hysterical', ripped out our uteruses to make us more emotionally appealing to them, and pressured young women who still had uteruses to have more cand more hildren. My OB/GYN pressured me for years to conceive. That was ALWAYS his question on my yearly female exam: 'When are you going to conceive?' My answer: 'When I'm damned good and ready!'

MEN make money off of women having babies. They even make money off the ones who have no insurance and can't afford to pay because the STATE pays the bill. It was MEN who invented abortion as a moral issue.

Doctors are always mindful of a woman's age. Wait too long and the window of opportunity closes. It closes slowly. It isn't true that the day before menopause you can conceive and the day after you can't.

Get over yourself. We ALL know the ages of our patients. But we don't pressure our patients to have procedures just so we can make money. When I was young an OB/GYN would refuse to do a tubal on a woman until she had at least two children. They are greedy bastards who use women to feather their own nests. That's what the abortion flap is about. And that's ALL its about.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that your doctor may have had more than one reason for asking you when you were going to conceive.

If you are really interested in doctors who use women to make a lot of money, then look into how many doctors who specialize in abortions ALSO have significant interests in fertility clinics. Abortion can reduce a woman's ability to conceive. The more she's had the more likely it is that there will be a problem later on. Yet abortion doctors seldom tell patients this. Right up to the point they make a referral to a fertility clinic THEY own.

 

[Sunshine]

Doctors are always mindful of a woman's age. Wait too long and the window of opportunity closes. It closes slowly. It isn't true that the day before menopause you can conceive and the day after you can't.

Get over yourself. We ALL know the ages of our patients. But we don't pressure our patients to have procedures just so we can make money. When I was young an OB/GYN would refuse to do a tubal on a woman until she had at least two children. They are greedy bastards who use women to feather their own nests. That's what the abortion flap is about. And that's ALL its about.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that your doctor may have had more than one reason for asking you when you were going to conceive.

If you are really interested in doctors who use women to make a lot of money, then look into how many doctors who specialize in abortions ALSO have significant interests in fertility clinics. Abortion can reduce a woman's ability to conceive. The more she's had the more likely it is that there will be a problem later on. Yet abortion doctors seldom tell patients this. Right up to the point they make a referral to a fertility clinic THEY own.

There are far more doctors who birth babies than who do abortions. I know who my doctor was. All he cared about was money. And the others in my town at that time to the present were/are no different. He was so into making money that's all he did. He didn't even go home the day his wife shot herself dead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

" ...(and what is this "may" become a baby after he's born? What other options after birth ARE there?)..."

Obviously, not every fetus survives to be born.

'If and when you can point to ANY time that I ever said anything even VAGUELY resembling "any mass is a baby"...
" ...a fetus is a baby from the get-go."

At the "get go" a fetus is something other than a mass of living growing human tissue? Please enlighten us poor bumbling mortals as to what exactly it is according to the Book of Cecilie. Also you might explain how you think an early stage fetus is diferent from tumor. If you're going to be shy about stating what you mean to say, don't be surprised if you are misunderstood.

YOU are a mass of living, growing human tissue, you moron. That doesn't mean EVERY mass of living human tissue is a human being, fetus or otherwise. Jesus Christ, did ANY of you abortionist freaks bother to pay attention in biology class? This shit is as basic as it gets:

Cell
Tissue
Organ
Organism

Learn the difference.

An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue.

By the way, this isn't "according to the Book of Cecilie", shitforbrains. It's according to any biology textbook you'd like to read, and I DEFINITELY suggest you read one.

Best check your own book. The earlist fetus is a single cell without organs or the ability to live except as part of it's host. It is not an individual organism. And I am still waiting to find out a diferene between it and a tumor. Neither tumors or fetuses have organs from the "get go".

No, dipshit, you're STILL the one who'd "best check your books", because you STILL haven't learned the organizational heirarchy. Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host". There are a number of organisms in the world which do not meet one, or even both, of those standards.

Once again, you are ignorantly associating the term "human being" with "adult human being".

And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did, or for that matter, was brain-damaged enough to say that having organs was a requirement for ANYTHING. Until I actually have a lobotomy and descend to your IQ level, though, I'll thank you not to bother me with such wastes of space and time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion laws are monuments to MEN getting into the business of birthing babies. Women used to handle these things. THEN men got into the act, coined the word l'hysterical', ripped out our uteruses to make us more emotionally appealing to them, and pressured young women who still had uteruses to have more cand more hildren. My OB/GYN pressured me for years to conceive. That was ALWAYS his question on my yearly female exam: 'When are you going to conceive?' My answer: 'When I'm damned good and ready!'

MEN make money off of women having babies. They even make money off the ones who have no insurance and can't afford to pay because the STATE pays the bill. It was MEN who invented abortion as a moral issue.

Doctors are always mindful of a woman's age. Wait too long and the window of opportunity closes. It closes slowly. It isn't true that the day before menopause you can conceive and the day after you can't.

Get over yourself. We ALL know the ages of our patients. But we don't pressure our patients to have procedures just so we can make money. When I was young an OB/GYN would refuse to do a tubal on a woman until she had at least two children. They are greedy bastards who use women to feather their own nests. That's what the abortion flap is about. And that's ALL its about.

Yeah, THAT'S gotta be it, as opposed to a desire not to deal with hostile patients who made bad decisions and now want to blame the doctor, or even sue him.

Most Ob/Gyns still won't do a tubal ligation on a very young woman until she's had at least two children, unless she has a really compelling reason, for the simple reason that the odds are greatly in favor of her regretting it and wanting it reversed down the road. I frankly don't blame them, because I wouldn't want to take on the responsibility for that much hassle and potential liability, either.

Now, you want to talk about some laws concerning women that are made by men who don't get it, let's talk about rape laws, shall we?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Get over yourself. We ALL know the ages of our patients. But we don't pressure our patients to have procedures just so we can make money. When I was young an OB/GYN would refuse to do a tubal on a woman until she had at least two children. They are greedy bastards who use women to feather their own nests. That's what the abortion flap is about. And that's ALL its about.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that your doctor may have had more than one reason for asking you when you were going to conceive.

If you are really interested in doctors who use women to make a lot of money, then look into how many doctors who specialize in abortions ALSO have significant interests in fertility clinics. Abortion can reduce a woman's ability to conceive. The more she's had the more likely it is that there will be a problem later on. Yet abortion doctors seldom tell patients this. Right up to the point they make a referral to a fertility clinic THEY own.

There are far more doctors who birth babies than who do abortions. I know who my doctor was. All he cared about was money. And the others in my town at that time to the present were/are no different. He was so into making money that's all he did. He didn't even go home the day his wife shot herself dead.

Sucks to be you and live where you do, but you do realize that the anecdotal evidence of a handful of doctors in a crappy little town are hardly universal to the entire United States obstetrical and gynecological profession, right?

 

[The Gadfly]

YOU are a mass of living, growing human tissue, you moron. That doesn't mean EVERY mass of living human tissue is a human being, fetus or otherwise. Jesus Christ, did ANY of you abortionist freaks bother to pay attention in biology class? This shit is as basic as it gets:

Cell
Tissue
Organ
Organism

Learn the difference.

An early stage fetus - or any stage fetus - is different from a tumor by virtue of BEING AN ORGANISM. A tumor, on the other hand, is just tissue.

By the way, this isn't "according to the Book of Cecilie", shitforbrains. It's according to any biology textbook you'd like to read, and I DEFINITELY suggest you read one.

Best check your own book. The earlist fetus is a single cell without organs or the ability to live except as part of it's host. It is not an individual organism. And I am still waiting to find out a diferene between it and a tumor. Neither tumors or fetuses have organs from the "get go".

No, dipshit, you're STILL the one who'd "best check your books", because you STILL haven't learned the organizational heirarchy. Please tell me where, in the definition of "organism", you find the requirements of "has organs" and "can live without a host". There are a number of organisms in the world which do not meet one, or even both, of those standards.

Once again, you are ignorantly associating the term "human being" with "adult human being".

And by the way, shitforbrains, back to the subject of not projecting your halfwitted arguments onto me so that you can have debate you WISH you had, rather than the one I'm giving you: you can argue with me that fetuses and tumors don't have organs "from the get-go" just as soon as you can show me any place where I was as brain-damaged as you are and said that either of them did, or for that matter, was brain-damaged enough to say that having organs was a requirement for ANYTHING. Until I actually have a lobotomy and descend to your IQ level, though, I'll thank you not to bother me with such wastes of space and time.

Alright Cecilie, answer me this; what is it, exactly that distinguishes a "human being" from the higher primates, or any of the rest of the order Mammalia ? I don't want the biological descriptor, in terms or chromosomes; or the anthropological criteria; what I want, is what gives a human life a greater value than that of, say, a monkey. As a matter of fact, since a lot of this dispute is one of "values" if not outright theology, a theological or quasi-theological definition will suffice quite nicely for the purpose here. I eagerly await your response.