Hello, I am Carlos Fernandez Greetings, and welcome to Insanecrazy.com
!

I am the webmaster here, and I welcome you to take a look at my web
site, any comments are appreciated.

This is my first post on this bulletin board, and I would like to
start off by posting the "Miners' Argument."
I have gone to different places on the Internet, telling people
that I was going to start a web site which speaks against the true
nature of abortion.

I have previously said, "The Miners' Argument puts a fork in the
road, and whatever path the pro-choice person takes, ends up in
a dead end."

I have also stated, "The Miners' Argument cannot be argued against
without reverting to illogical or emotional rantings and ravings."

So, if you wish to tackle it, please avoid this reaction. My
purpose is to inform you of the true nature of abortion, and not
to invoke mindless passionate replies in a feeble attempt to
disprove it.

Abortion, in its accepted status and frequent use, has become
genocide, which has surpassed the casualties produced by any war,
sickness, or accident since the beginning of time.

It is genocide, whose evil is not particular to race, creed, or
religion.

It is probably the most evil and reckless thing that is done
today, and there don't seem to be enough people who care about
it.

This is where the "Miners' Argument" comes in.

There are 4 arguments which attempt to prove philosophically
the existence of God. The cosmological argument, the
teleological argument, the axiological argument, and the
ontological argument.

I will not go into detail of the arguments for the existence of
God, but I will get into the "Miners' Argument," which attemps
to prove that the fetus, regardless of whether it is considered
life or not, should be considered a life anyway.

Thus, the "Miners' Argument" might be considered the first argument
for the existence of life in the fetus, without attempting to prove
it.

When we hear of miners working in a mine, we think of hazardous
conditions. We think of strong men working in a coal mine, or any
mine, gathering as much of the material they are mining for us as
they can.

From afar, we may pity them because of the hazardous conditions
they go through every day. They toil and toil and our impression
is that the miners were treated unfairly at the beginning of
the mining of coal before labor unions were formed.

When the mine caves in, and the workers are trapped, our pity
and compassion for them reaches its zenith.

We will do whatever we possibly can to go inside the mine to
save them without much regard for our own safety.

We see images of them suffocating from lack of oxygen, and of them
dying inside the mine, cold and deprived of their families, their
children, and their dignity.

We think that to die inside a coal mine which has caved in is one
of the worst ways to die.

The reason these images and feelings of death and ruin which
may come upon them if we refuse to act, is based on the supposition
that there is still time left to save them and that by the time we
get there, there may be some miners who may still be alive, gasping
for air, possibly unconscious. Perhaps they have been trapped there
for days without food or water to sustain them, and we still go
there, digging with our shovels and axes and picks, risking our
lives and safety, sacrificing ourselves so that we might possibly
save just one miner, just one.

But the fetus, is the only miner whose life we are unwilling to
save.

Pro-choice people have no regard for the fetus because they say
that the fetus is not a life.

They say that since the fetus is not a life, it does not deserve
our compassion and for any reason should not be treated as such.

But what about the miners trapped in the mine?

They might be alive and they might not be.

They could have been crushed by the impact of the mine caving in;
they could have died of shock; they could have died for any number
of reasons.

And for miners, we would do anything to save them; and yet for the
fetus, no such compassion exists for pro-choice believers.

Why is it that we automatically assume that miners trapped inside
a coal mine are possibly alive and a fetus is not?

The truth of the matter is that we just don't know, do we?

We have no proof what so ever that a fetus is a life.

There is no scientific proof that explains what constitutes a life,
from beginning to ending.

We just don't know about the fetus, but we do know about the miners.

We know that miners trapped inside a coal mine might posibly be
alive.

The whole purpose of the "Miners' Argument" is the fact that we
just don't know.

So, supposing that everyone is pro-choice, when miners are trapped
in a mine, we should not even lift a finger to save them.

Assuming that everyone is pro-choice, we should leave those miners
there in the mine, not caring about them because we've already
decided that they are not alive and have already died.

This is the point. Since we just don't know whether or not a fetus
is a life, we should not automatically assume that it is not.

We should think of the fetus as a life, not because of the
possibility that it is or is not, but because we just don't know.

If we assume that it is not, and it turns out to be, we would have
killed millions without regard for them, and we would never have
known.

For miners, we assume that they are alive and try to
save them because of the possibility that they are alive; and we
won't know until we take a look.

For a fetus in a womb, we should assume that it is alive and try
to not kill it in cold blood because of the possibility that
it is alive; and we won't know until we take a look.

This is the "Miners' Argument."

I appeciate your reading all of this material and hope that you
will reconsider your position on abortion.

I hope that your reading of the Miners' Argument opens your eyes to
the most innocent miners that should be saved.

My name is Carlos Fernandez, webmaster of Insanecrazy.com.

I welcome all replies to this message.

My E-Mail adress is insanitor@yahoo.com.