[JMJ333]

I did lose my temper last night. My apologies. It enrages me when people are so careless and indifferent about abortificants. The callous views against the human condition set me off.

Post #57 only mentions one date Aug 15, 1930. What is the time frame of for comparison of how human life was valued BEFORE contraception was widely accepted vs. how human life is valued AFTER contraception was widely accepted.

Lori--I am not going to do your work for you. Go to the article, find the paragraph and read from there. That said, I have no confidence that you will comprehend it. This is like pounding sand. The bottom line is that you are pro-contraception and will not accept the truth that it has led to abortion--if you can't understand that is a specific devaluing of life, nothing more I could ever say will convince you.

Regards.

[Lorianne]

Lori--I am not going to do your work for you. Go to the article, find the paragraph and read from there. That said, I have no confidence that you will comprehend it. This is like pounding sand. The bottom line is that you are pro-contraception and will not accept the truth that it has led to abortion--if you can't understand that is a specific devaluing of life, nothing more I could ever say will convince you

First off I was referring specifically to your statement, not the entire article (which I have read and found equally vague on the time frame on comparison between before and after and comparison to other cultures which do not embrace contraception).

So, why won't you define what you mean by "devalueing human life"? Above you seem to admit the phrase means specifically abortion. If so, why wouldn't you just state that contraception has lead to abortion? Why use code language?

Lastly, you have no authority to speak for me and state what I believe and what I don't believe.