Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 17, 2007

Martin Phipps wrote:

> On May 17, 9:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> In article <1179357540.570843.290...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>> You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and

>>>> unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to

>>>> women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their

>>>> stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their

>>>> stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against

>>>> abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope

>>>> that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called

>>>> abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy.

>>>> Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as

>>>> a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of

>>>> abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of

>> business. ...

>>

>>> Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how

>>> you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down?

>> Please re-read my post. The ABORTION clinics would close down because they

>> would not have any customers. The reason they would have no customers is

>> because of the abortion pill (morning after pill). As you know, the

>> morning after pills means that abortions inside ABORTION clinics would not

>> be needed. Of course, some clinics would probably remain open. I have read

>> articles indicating that the number of clinical abortions is already

>> starting to drop as a result of the abortion pill. I am against abortion

>> but know that it's legal. Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

>> believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

>> you agree or disagree?

>

> And if the crime rate continues to drop then we won't need as many

> homocide cops. So what? It's not like we won't have police stations

> or doctor's clinics in the future. I don't understand why you think

> it is a good thing for clinics to shut down. Correct me if I'm wrong

> but I would imagine most (if not all)clinics where abortions are

> performed also perform other services too. The big problem here is

> that where you see "big business" the rest of us see "medical

> procedure". Doctors who perform abortions are not _just_ "abortion

> doctors": they are qualified practicianers with medical degrees. I

> therefore still think it is patently evil of you to gleefully

> anticipate the shutting down of their clinics.

>

> Martin

>

I think his view is that the women without access to medical services

will die in a virtuous state, just as they did during the Middle Ages.

May 17, 2007

Martin Phipps wrote:

> On May 17, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> In article <1179357905.306076.271...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>>

>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On May 17, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>> Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

>>>> during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

>>>> was in danger.

>>> Then you shouldn't be trying to get abortion clinics closed down. In

>>> fact, it would be the last thing you should want.

>

>> None of the local "abortion" doctors in my small city operate abortion

>> clinics. Instead, they have regular patients and only do several abortions

>> per week. Even if all abortion clinics closed down as a direct result of

>> the morning after pill, doctors would still do abortions in their offices.

>> I doubt if ALL abortion clinics will close down as a result of the morning

>> after pill. It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

>> city several will remain open for business. It is true that Planned

>> Parenthood tells women that are seeking abortion about the morning after

>> pill?

>

> Yes.

>

>> If not, I hope so.

>

> Did you ever bother to check out their website?

>

> http://www.plannedparenthood.org

>

> Martin

>

It's useless to confuse him with facts: his mind is made up. Catch him

in a contradiction or a lie and he will acknowledge it and then repeat

it in the next post.

He's not a chatterbot, or a driveby poster, but more of a parrot,

repeating the same things whether they are true or not.

May 17, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <87jn43lkl3i3vjasj89539j4gq7alv1ld2@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

>>> city several will remain open for business.

>> There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

>> some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

>> abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

>> and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

>> they can obtain an abortion.

>>

>> And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

>> sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

>> pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

>

> Good points. People in some of the southern states (Bible Belt) already

> have these sorts of problems. I read about one city that only had one

> abortion clinic and it was almost always surrounded (during business

> hours) with pro-life protesters.

>

And yet you consider it a "triumph" when clinics are shut down. You

can't have it both ways - you are acting hypocritical.

Be honest: just come out and say that you do not oppose early abortions.

We'll help where we can if you get in trouble with your lying preachers.

May 17, 2007

In our last episode,

<Jason-1505071239420001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

the lovely and talented Jason

broadcast on alt.atheism:

> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of

> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more

> likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to

> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize that they

> have a living a baby in their womb.

If they "realized that they have a living baby in their womb" they would

be insane, since it is impossible for a baby to live in a womb.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 613 days to go.

Why "War Czar"? That sounds like Imperial Russia!

Call it by the American term: "Fall Guy."

May 17, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1179369893.911685.259180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 17, 5:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Hatter

>>> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

>>>> later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

>>>> of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

>>>> the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

>>>> Most of them not Jahweh related.

>>>> Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

>>>> not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

>>> Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

>>> took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

>>> was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

>>> religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

>>> role.

>> Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions

>> are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one?

>>

>> Martin

>

> Martin,

> If you have ever studied the history of Indians and various isolated

> groups of people in Africa, you would know that they believed in a God or

> Gods. The reason is because they knew (without ever being told) that when

> they died --that is was the beginning of a new life in heaven.

Of course they were told! They passed their mythos from generation to

generation the same way we do, by talking to each other. Did you think

that every child figured things out exactly the same way as did their

parents? That's ridiculous.

That led

> them to believe that God or Gods were watching over them. My parents were

> Christians and most all of my friends were Christians. I was raised in the

> mountains of Virginia which is part of the Bible Belt.

It seems to have limited your perspectives. You are about the same as

the Africans you are patronizing.

Just like the

> Indians and Africans that lived in the 1600's, I feel the same way they

> felt--That God is watching over me and that I will have a better life in

> heaven. Back to your question: No--it has never occurred to me that none

> of the religions are true.

You should think about that, even as an academic exercise. It will

broaden your horizons and deepen your own sprituality.

I picked the best one that I could find and I

> do not regret my decision.

You did not pick it, it was chosen for you when you were very young.

I don't worry about dying. It's my guess that

> many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

> them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future.

Not one of the atheists in my family who has passed on had that

attitude. Not one of them suddenly became deathbed theists. They died as

they lived, good people who never compromised their spiritual values for

anyone, including their own families.

There are no

> atheist in fox holes.

> Jason

Another platitude. Did you ever serve in the military? I know of at

least one decorated atheist who remained exactly that.

Believe as you wish, but don't impose your internal reality on external

reality. Reality is bigger than you, bigger than I, bigger than all of us.

May 17, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

snip

It's my guess that

> many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

> them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future. There are no

> atheist in fox holes.

Why are you such a liar?

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

May 17, 2007

Robibnikoff wrote:

> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>

> snip

> It's my guess that

>> many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

>> them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future. There are no

>> atheist in fox holes.

>

> Why are you such a liar?

I'm starting to think that the lies he puts out are not really his. He

appears to be a parrot of liars. Doesn't make it any better, however.

May 17, 2007

In our last episode,

<Jason-1705071201410001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

the lovely and talented Jason

broadcast on alt.atheism:

> In article <slrnf4p02i.fol.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com>, Lars Eighner

><usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

>> In our last episode,

>> <Jason-1505071239420001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

>> the lovely and talented Jason

>> broadcast on alt.atheism:

>>

>> > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of

>> > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more

>> > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to

>> > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize that they

>> > have a living a baby in their womb.

>>

>> If they "realized that they have a living baby in their womb" they would

>> be insane, since it is impossible for a baby to live in a womb.

> I disagree. A doctor can easily determine whether an unborn baby

No, he cannot. There is no such thing as an unborn baby --- unless you

mean those delivered by caesarian.

> is alive or dead by listening for a heart beat. That's usually the first

> thing that doctors do when they examine a woman that is pregnant.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 613 days to go.

Why "War Czar"? That sounds like Imperial Russia!

Call it by the American term: "Fall Guy."

May 17, 2007

In article <slrnf4p02i.fol.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com>, Lars Eighner

<usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

> In our last episode,

> <Jason-1505071239420001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

> the lovely and talented Jason

> broadcast on alt.atheism:

>

> > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of

> > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make it more

> > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to

> > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize that they

> > have a living a baby in their womb.

>

> If they "realized that they have a living baby in their womb" they would

> be insane, since it is impossible for a baby to live in a womb.

I disagree. A doctor can easily determine whether an unborn baby is alive

or dead by listening for a heart beat. That's usually the first thing that

doctors do when they examine a woman that is pregnant.

May 17, 2007

In article <5y_2i.637$C96.205@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <87jn43lkl3i3vjasj89539j4gq7alv1ld2@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>

> >>> It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

> >>> city several will remain open for business.

> >> There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

> >> some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

> >> abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

> >> and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

> >> they can obtain an abortion.

> >>

> >> And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

> >> sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

> >> pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

> >

> > Good points. People in some of the southern states (Bible Belt) already

> > have these sorts of problems. I read about one city that only had one

> > abortion clinic and it was almost always surrounded (during business

> > hours) with pro-life protesters.

> >

> And yet you consider it a "triumph" when clinics are shut down. You

> can't have it both ways - you are acting hypocritical.

>

> Be honest: just come out and say that you do not oppose early abortions.

> We'll help where we can if you get in trouble with your lying preachers.

I am against all abortions except to save the life of the mother. I fully

realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I believe the best time

to do abortions is in the first trimester. That's the reason I hope that

the morning after pill becomes the primary method of abortion. That should

reduce the numbers of women that suffer severe depression as a result of

abortions. In most cities, there will still be abortion clinics for those

women failed to take the morning after pill. In other cities, there will

always be some doctors that perform abortions in their offices or the

local hospitals.

May 17, 2007

In our last episode,

<Jason-1705071227570001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, the lovely and

talented Jason broadcast on alt.atheism:

> Several years ago, I read a book that was written by a lady that "managed"

> an abortion clinic. The only procedures that were performed in that

> abortion clinic were abortions. When I use the term "abortion

> clinic"--that's the type of clinic that I have in mind. If the clinic is a

> "full service facility" where abortions are only one of the many

> procedures that are performed--I don't refer to such a clinic as an

> "abortion clinic". There is a "Woman's Clinic" in a nearby town that

> performs abortions as one of many services. I don't call that clinic an

> abortion clinic. I should note that the lady that wrote that book is now

> an advocate for pro-life. She exposed (in her book) the truth about what

> goes on inside abortion clinics. For example, I learned what abortion

> doctors do when a baby survives an abortion. They place the baby in a room

> and the baby dies as a result of dehydration and starvation.

> jason

She is a liar and you are fool if you believe her.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 613 days to go.

Why "War Czar"? That sounds like Imperial Russia!

Call it by the American term: "Fall Guy."

May 17, 2007

In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>Several years ago, I read a book that was written by a lady that "managed"

>an abortion clinic. The only procedures that were performed in that

>abortion clinic were abortions. When I use the term "abortion

>clinic"--that's the type of clinic that I have in mind. If the clinic is a

>"full service facility" where abortions are only one of the many

>procedures that are performed--I don't refer to such a clinic as an

>"abortion clinic". There is a "Woman's Clinic" in a nearby town that

>performs abortions as one of many services. I don't call that clinic an

>abortion clinic. I should note that the lady that wrote that book is now

>an advocate for pro-life. She exposed (in her book) the truth about what

>goes on inside abortion clinics. For example, I learned what abortion

>doctors do when a baby survives an abortion. They place the baby in a room

>and the baby dies as a result of dehydration and starvation.

>jason

>

Notice how you never name names. Or cite book titles.

There's a reason for that: you either make it all up, or you

heard if from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from

someone's brother's cousin's former roommate.

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

May 17, 2007

In our last episode,

<Jason-1705071301230001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, the lovely and

talented Jason broadcast on alt.atheism:

> You are welcome. Yes--the professor was a Christian. Believe it or not, in

> those days (1972) we were taught that the Muslim Religion was based on

> peace and love.

I have heard people make the same claim for xtianity: Once upon a time

it was about love and peace. But of course, being surrounded by xtians,

I knew that was a lie.

> That has all changed. That religion has been corrupted by

> people that want to take over the world.

All religions are run by people who want to take over the world. And it has

always been thus.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 613 days to go.

Why "War Czar"? That sounds like Imperial Russia!

Call it by the American term: "Fall Guy."

May 17, 2007

In article <Nl_2i.631$C96.597@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Martin Phipps wrote:

> > On May 17, 9:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> In article <1179357540.570843.290...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>> On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>> You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and

> >>>> unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to

> >>>> women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women

tell their

> >>>> stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their

> >>>> stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against

> >>>> abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope

> >>>> that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called

> >>>> abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy.

> >>>> Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe

depression as

> >>>> a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of

> >>>> abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of

> >> business. ...

> >>

> >>> Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how

> >>> you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down?

> >> Please re-read my post. The ABORTION clinics would close down because they

> >> would not have any customers. The reason they would have no customers is

> >> because of the abortion pill (morning after pill). As you know, the

> >> morning after pills means that abortions inside ABORTION clinics would not

> >> be needed. Of course, some clinics would probably remain open. I have read

> >> articles indicating that the number of clinical abortions is already

> >> starting to drop as a result of the abortion pill. I am against abortion

> >> but know that it's legal. Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

> >> believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

> >> you agree or disagree?

> >

> > And if the crime rate continues to drop then we won't need as many

> > homocide cops. So what? It's not like we won't have police stations

> > or doctor's clinics in the future. I don't understand why you think

> > it is a good thing for clinics to shut down. Correct me if I'm wrong

> > but I would imagine most (if not all)clinics where abortions are

> > performed also perform other services too. The big problem here is

> > that where you see "big business" the rest of us see "medical

> > procedure". Doctors who perform abortions are not _just_ "abortion

> > doctors": they are qualified practicianers with medical degrees. I

> > therefore still think it is patently evil of you to gleefully

> > anticipate the shutting down of their clinics.

> >

> > Martin

> >

> I think his view is that the women without access to medical services

> will die in a virtuous state, just as they did during the Middle Ages.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several years ago, I read a book that was written by a lady that "managed"

an abortion clinic. The only procedures that were performed in that

abortion clinic were abortions. When I use the term "abortion

clinic"--that's the type of clinic that I have in mind. If the clinic is a

"full service facility" where abortions are only one of the many

procedures that are performed--I don't refer to such a clinic as an

"abortion clinic". There is a "Woman's Clinic" in a nearby town that

performs abortions as one of many services. I don't call that clinic an

abortion clinic. I should note that the lady that wrote that book is now

an advocate for pro-life. She exposed (in her book) the truth about what

goes on inside abortion clinics. For example, I learned what abortion

doctors do when a baby survives an abortion. They place the baby in a room

and the baby dies as a result of dehydration and starvation.

jason

May 17, 2007

On 17 Maj, 22:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179392300.841908.294...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

snip

> > > Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > > during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> > > was in danger.

>

> > Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

> > yourself.

>

> I have thought about that subject. The mother is alive and in most cases

> has a husband and in many cases has other children. Her death would cause

> great harm to that family if that woman died in childbirth. The death of

> the child would also cause harm to that family but not as much harm as the

> death of the woman would cause. She may even be able to have another baby.

> I realize that it's a contradiction.

Ah well then, that makes it okay.

>Some people in the pro-life movement

> believe the mother should be forced to have a baby even if it puts her

> life in danger.

But you feel that you are able to choose which life should be

preserved, even though, according to your beliefs, killing the foetus

is murder.

May 17, 2007

On 17 Maj, 22:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179392300.841908.294...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article

>

> <1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article

>

> > > <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > And yet during the first three months (when 90% of abortions take

> > > > > > > > place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would

> take place

> > > > > > > > during the first three months if women were able to get easy

> access to

> > > > > > > > abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not

> choose to

> > > > > > > > have abortions after three months and I would approve of any

> law that

> > > > > > > > discouraged women from having abortions after three months: it so

> > > > > > > > happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36

> states.

> > > > > > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion) Here "late

> > > > > > > > term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five

> months into

> > > > > > > > the pregnancy. (See

>

> > > alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion

>

> > > > > > > > )

>

> > > > > > > I agree that abortions should only be legal during the first three

> > > months.

> > > > > > > The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

>

> > > > > > That's not what I said.

>

> > > > > > 90% of abortions take place during the first three months anyway, I

> > > > > > would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an abortion after

> > > > > > three months but that's not the same thing as making it illegal after

> > > > > > three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that discouraged

> > > > > > women from having abortions after three months" I am not talking about

> > > > > > an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter between a

> > > > > > woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that the baby

> > > > > > is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an unwanted

> > > > > > pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or

> > > > > > study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house clean, do her

> > > > > > own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not

> > > > > > personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you

> > > > > > can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own personal

> > > > > > opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after the three

> > > > > > month period and before the baby is born and that a woman should give

> > > > > > serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term

> > > > > > abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering a _late_

> > > > > > term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be unreasonable:

> > > > > > for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly thing for

> > > > > > a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of

> > > > > > cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby at two

> > > > > > months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing.

>

> > > > > No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have seen 3D

> > > > > ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed

> drawings

> > > > > in books about babies at every stage of development. It's really tiny

> > > > > during the first month.

>

> > > > My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four months. A

> > > > month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and legs and a

> > > > head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor

> > > > printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was because,

> > > > frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot during the

> > > > third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound at two

> > > > months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of

> > > > determining whether or not a woman is pregnant.

>

> > > > This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were

> > > > married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three

> > > > months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands. I have no

> > > > doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering

> > > > what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can understand

> > > > very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to depression

> > > > after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them

> > > > murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy and not

> > > > murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical

> > > > emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be

> > > > irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they could be a

> > > > danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised to either

> > > > have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else consider

> > > > having the baby and then putting it up for adoption.

>

> > > > Martin

>

> > > Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > > during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> > > was in danger.

>

> > Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

> > yourself.

>

> Yes, it is a contradiction. Some people in the pro-life movement believe

> that pregnant women should be forced to have babies even if it places

> their lives in danger. I can imagine what it must be like for those women.

> If they decide to terminate their pregnancies in those situations--I would

> never condemn them or criticize them for their decisions.-

It must be wonderful to be able to decide life and death for other

people.

May 17, 2007

On 17 Maj, 21:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5y_2i.637$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <87jn43lkl3i3vjasj89539j4gq7alv1...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > >>> It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

> > >>> city several will remain open for business.

> > >> There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

> > >> some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

> > >> abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

> > >> and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

> > >> they can obtain an abortion.

>

> > >> And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

> > >> sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

> > >> pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

>

> > > Good points. People in some of the southern states (Bible Belt) already

> > > have these sorts of problems. I read about one city that only had one

> > > abortion clinic and it was almost always surrounded (during business

> > > hours) with pro-life protesters.

>

> > And yet you consider it a "triumph" when clinics are shut down. You

> > can't have it both ways - you are acting hypocritical.

>

> > Be honest: just come out and say that you do not oppose early abortions.

> > We'll help where we can if you get in trouble with your lying preachers.

>

> I am against all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

Why should that be an exception? Don't you believe the foetus is a

baby?

I fully

> realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I believe the best time

> to do abortions is in the first trimester. That's the reason I hope that

> the morning after pill becomes the primary method of abortion. That should

> reduce the numbers of women that suffer severe depression as a result of

> abortions.

Complications resulting from giving birth are much more common than

depressions caused by abortions.

In most cities, there will still be abortion clinics for those

> women failed to take the morning after pill. In other cities, there will

> always be some doctors that perform abortions in their offices or the

> local hospitals.-

At least as long as the anti-choice people are not successful in

outlawing abortion. Your position is totally incoherent.

May 17, 2007

In article <1179412199.475323.148670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Hatter23@gmail.com wrote:

> On May 17, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179369893.911685.259...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 17, 5:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Hatter

> >

> > > > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

> > > > > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

> > > > > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

> > > > > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

> > > > > Most of them not Jahweh related.

> >

> > > > > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

> > > > > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

> >

> > > > Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

> > > > took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

> > > > was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of

those other

> > > > religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have

played a

> > > > role.

> >

> > > Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions

> > > are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one?

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Martin,

> > If you have ever studied the history of Indians and various isolated

> > groups of people in Africa, you would know that they believed in a God or

> > Gods. The reason is because they knew (without ever being told) that when

> > they died --that is was the beginning of a new life in heaven. That led

> > them to believe that God or Gods were watching over them. My parents were

> > Christians and most all of my friends were Christians. I was raised in the

> > mountains of Virginia which is part of the Bible Belt. Just like the

> > Indians and Africans that lived in the 1600's, I feel the same way they

> > felt--That God is watching over me and that I will have a better life in

> > heaven. Back to your question: No--it has never occurred to me that none

> > of the religions are true. I picked the best one that I could find and I

> > do not regret my decision. I don't worry about dying. It's my guess that

> > many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

> > them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future. There are no

> > atheist in fox holes.

> > Jason- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> That the fear of death is universal, and people wish to deny that very

> VERY uncomfortable fact does not mean there is a god. Furthermore the

> numberous and varied nature of deities very much implies Yahweh is the

> same as the other models: a myth.

>

> In fact I believe it is the strongest case against belief in Yahweh.

> If all cultures across the globe had the exact same diety(similar

> characteristics) and sets of moral laws, regardless of contact....that

> would be strong evidence for God.

>

> Hatter

Hatter,

I disagree. I believe that God has spoken to people in all parts of the

World. That's the reason that most religions have established laws that in

many cases are very similar to the laws in the 10 commandments. Of course,

dictators and religious leaders may have corrupted the messages that were

sent by God--usually hundreds of years after the people died that heard

the original messages from God. Jesus spent lots of time trying to correct

various errors that were made--esp. in regard to praying, tithing and

fasting. The religious leaders were praying, tithing and fasting to

impress people instead of pleasing God. Jesus told the people to pray,

fast and tithe in such a way that no person would even know about it and

only God would know about it. Many religions have been corrupted by

people. Even some Christian church leaders are corrupt and are no longer

teaching or encouraging people to believe in what the Bible states in

relation to many issues. Paul predicted that would happen. He stated the

following in 2 Tim. 4:2 "For the time will come when they [the church]

will not edure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled,

they will accumlulate for themselves teachers [and preachers since they

are also teachers] in accordance to their own desires."

jason

May 17, 2007

In article <1179404162.486466.159780@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

Hatter23@gmail.com wrote:

> On May 16, 5:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Hatter

> >

> > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 12:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179282445.318098.21...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > > > Hatte...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > In article

<1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter

> >

> > > > > > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > > > On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > >>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let

you tell me

> > > > > > whether or

> > > > > > > > > >>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's

compared to the

> > > > > > 1990's and

> > > > > > > > > >>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the

1950's but saw

> > > > > > lots of 8s

> > > > > > > > > >>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's

> > > > > > > > > >> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's.

> > > > But you also

> > > > > > > > > >> haven't shown what the prison population was in the

> > 1950's so those

> > > > > > > > > >> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off

talking about

> > > > what the

> > > > > > > > > >> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to

use the

> > > > SAME year

> > > > > > > > > >> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate

> > > > numbers from

> > > > > > > > > >> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations.

> >

> > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> >

> > > > > > > > > > Someone else made some good points about statistics

related to

> > > > prison

> > > > > > > > > > populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence

laws; three

> > > > strikes

> > > > > > > > > > laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors

effect prison

> > > > > > > > > > populations. I concentrated on murder in my google

search since

> > > > > > MURDER is

> > > > > > > > > > one of those crimes that has always been against the law.

> > > > > > > > > > Jason

> >

> > > > > > > > > And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what

> > crime you

> > > > > > > > > focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > ranges of years.

> >

> > > > > > > > Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF

GOD.- Hide

> > > > > > quoted text -

> >

> > > > > > > Which god?

> >

> > > > > > Jehovah

> >

> > > > > Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other

> > > > > God-Creators?

> > > > > They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and

> > > > > Jehovahs claims.

> >

> > > > >Hatter

> >

> > > >Hatter,

> > > > Because Jehovah is the one true God. Many of the prophesies mentioned by

> > > > Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example:

> > > > Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced through for our transgressions.

> > > > As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even

> > > > pierced with a sword.- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> >

> > > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

> > > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

> > > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

> > > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

> > > Most of them not Jahweh related.

> >

> > > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

> > > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

> >

> > >Hatter

> >

> > Hatter,

> > Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

> > took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

> > was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

> > religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

> > role.

> > Jason- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> Retroactive intrpretation of poetic language is an easy way out. You

> can take a fictional universe...such as the one from the X-men comic

> books/movies and show how the passages of Nostradomas or the Bible

> predict those purely fictional elements.

>

> I'm guessing the course was run by a Christian, so the information you

> were given was already biased.

>

> I think it is the last thing you mentioned that is the biggest

> influence.

>

> Your parents were Christian, Your culture is predominently Christian,

> The course on major religions was probably taught by a Christian.

> These three things do not equal it being correct or superior to

> anything else, other than in a subjective manner.

>

> However, I want to thank you for remaining honest, thoughtful, and

> calm.

>

> Hatter

Hatter,

You are welcome. Yes--the professor was a Christian. Believe it or not, in

those days (1972) we were taught that the Muslim Religion was based on

peace and love. That has all changed. That religion has been corrupted by

people that want to take over the world.

jason

May 17, 2007

In article <1179392300.841908.294420@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article

<1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > In article

> >

> > <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > And yet during the first three months (when 90% of abortions take

> > > > > > > place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would

take place

> > > > > > > during the first three months if women were able to get easy

access to

> > > > > > > abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not

choose to

> > > > > > > have abortions after three months and I would approve of any

law that

> > > > > > > discouraged women from having abortions after three months: it so

> > > > > > > happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36

states.

> > > > > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion) Here "late

> > > > > > > term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five

months into

> > > > > > > the pregnancy. (See

> >

> > alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion

> >

> > > > > > > )

> >

> > > > > > I agree that abortions should only be legal during the first three

> > months.

> > > > > > The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

> >

> > > > > That's not what I said.

> >

> > > > > 90% of abortions take place during the first three months anyway, I

> > > > > would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an abortion after

> > > > > three months but that's not the same thing as making it illegal after

> > > > > three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that discouraged

> > > > > women from having abortions after three months" I am not talking about

> > > > > an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter between a

> > > > > woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that the baby

> > > > > is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an unwanted

> > > > > pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or

> > > > > study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house clean, do her

> > > > > own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not

> > > > > personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you

> > > > > can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own personal

> > > > > opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after the three

> > > > > month period and before the baby is born and that a woman should give

> > > > > serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term

> > > > > abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering a _late_

> > > > > term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be unreasonable:

> > > > > for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly thing for

> > > > > a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of

> > > > > cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby at two

> > > > > months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing.

> >

> > > > No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have seen 3D

> > > > ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed

drawings

> > > > in books about babies at every stage of development. It's really tiny

> > > > during the first month.

> >

> > > My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four months. A

> > > month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and legs and a

> > > head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor

> > > printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was because,

> > > frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot during the

> > > third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound at two

> > > months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of

> > > determining whether or not a woman is pregnant.

> >

> > > This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were

> > > married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three

> > > months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands. I have no

> > > doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering

> > > what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can understand

> > > very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to depression

> > > after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them

> > > murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy and not

> > > murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical

> > > emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be

> > > irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they could be a

> > > danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised to either

> > > have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else consider

> > > having the baby and then putting it up for adoption.

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> > was in danger.

>

> Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

> yourself.

I have thought about that subject. The mother is alive and in most cases

has a husband and in many cases has other children. Her death would cause

great harm to that family if that woman died in childbirth. The death of

the child would also cause harm to that family but not as much harm as the

death of the woman would cause. She may even be able to have another baby.

I realize that it's a contradiction. Some people in the pro-life movement

believe the mother should be forced to have a baby even if it puts her

life in danger.

Jason

May 17, 2007