Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:14:48 -0700, Jason wrote: > It was a major victory when a doctor in this city stopped performing > abortions A loss to the ability of women to get proper medical care is, in your books, a major victory? You, sir, are a prick. -- 1st Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence...then quietly disappear. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:44:17 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > So, if you were a doctor, you would not even inform your patients as > to the risk involved in a procedure? Of course I would. what that has to do with arbitrary dividing lines defining what is and isn't moral or acceptable, however, is not clear. > A doctor would tell a woman who > is unsure as to whether or not to have her baby that she should make > up her mind _as soon as possible_ so that she wasn't placed in > unnecessary risk. Sure; it's a minimizing of her risk, which is a good thing. That doesn't make late term abortion immoral or unethical or whatever; it just means they're riskier. You're still not making your point. > It turns out that some premature babies are born after only seven > months. Most doctors would be reluctant to perform an abortion if a > "fetus" is that close to being viable. Bully for them; their pet preferences aren't relevant. We're looking for a proper objective analysis. By your reasoning, the fact some doctors don't want to perform abortions at all argues that any abortion is immoral and should be avoided on that basis. it's a silly argument. > I can easily blame you for being the total moron that you are. It's nice of you to keep telling me that, but it would be nicer if you'd make your actual point. >> > If 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an abortion >> > within the first trimester >> >> And if 100% of restaurants served top-quality steaks, I'd be happier >> dining out. Sorry, could we get back to the real world? > > I am here in the real world. You are welcome to come over. > > As I said "if 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an > abortion And if 100% of restaurants served top-quality steaks, I'd be happier dining out. Sorry, could we get back to the real world? We've been through this; Just-So stories don't accomplish anything. Try this plane of existence. > Why did you feel it was necessary to snip what I wrote? Because Just-So stories are pointless. > I've made my point. Now I'm sure you will snip it out again and claim > that I didn't. If you did, it didn't actually make it into your post. Tell you what, why don't you restate what you point was supposed to be, just so we're all clear on it. -- Annoy Christians: count their gods in front of them. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 20:43:43 -0700, Jason wrote: >> in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this >> intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows >> she cannot support any other way. > > One reason that your friend She's not my friend; my friends are all smarter than that. Hell, my pets are smarter than that. > does that is because many of the advocates > of abortion Would you kindly point out a single advocate of abortion to us? > attempt to depersonalize the fetus. Unnecessary; it is not a person. You're saying, in essence, they try to remove a property from it which it simply doesn't have in the first place; this would be a completely futile process. It also assumes that the fetus is a person; however that is - based on an examination of the laws, if nothing else - demonstrably not true, as killing a fetus is legal in many places, yet killing a person isn't, except in a few rare cases which simply don't apply. > In some abortion > clinics, the fetus is referred to as a POC (product of conception). A perfectly correct description. > That > is depersonalization to the max. You cannot depersonalize something that is not a person. > Your friend Again, she is not my friend; my friends belong to the animal kingdom. > probably uses the term > MURDER in order to personalize the fetus. No, she uses it to further her agenda, one she knows she cannot further with actual supporting arguments. > Members of the military in > World World I and II were trained to depersonalize the enemy The enemy here actually being people, thus having the capacity to be depersonalized... > --they even > used slang terms for them which I will not mention in this post so as > not to offend anyone. Sand ******s, ragheads, gooks, the terms change with the setting, but the mentality is the same - treat the person as a thing and you can discount it as a person. You - and she - are hell bent on going the other way; granting the status of "person" to something which isn't. I'll put it to you this way: you, as a person, have absolutely no right to live off me, to stick a tube into me and drain nutrition and so forth from me. Even in wartime, if a wounded soldier needs blood and none is available, there is a request for volunteers, not a demand for so-and-so to simply lie down and have a needle stuck in his (or her) arm. (At least, it used to be that way for soldiers; I assume it still is.) So, if you - or the soldier - has no right to do this, why then does a fetus? If, as you say, it is a person, its rights are no more than yours or mine, and those rights do not include the right to be a parasite. In essence, the argument that it is a person is an argument for abortion, or at least for choice, as it means the fetus must meet the obligations and duties and limits of a person as well as gain the rights, and those limits include not simply being able to demand to be plugged into the body of someone who doesn't want you plugged into them. > Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. Then stop; it is not a person. > There is a bumper > sticker that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. Right, so, as a pregnant woman, you give up any and all rights over your own body, to become nothing more than a portable nutrition dispenser for the fetus. Funny how your sort always seems to want to personalize the fetus, yet remove the status of personhood from the host. There is another that > says: ABORTION=MURDER Yes, and that one is simply a flat-out lie. Presumably by someone too stupid to grasp the issues. > Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby. Fine, it's a person. As a person, it has no right to expect another person to let it plug itself into their body, so kindly remove it. Yes, well, good job - personalize the fetus and give a compelling argument for allowing it to be aborted. That was your intention, right? > One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I > saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color ultrasound > of a 7 month old fetus. I seem to recall seeing that, or at least, one like it. > It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month > old baby. Also a lot like a chimp fetus. So we should now personalize those and give chimps all the rights of humans, because of a superficial resemblance? Try again. > There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. A fetus, actually. Rip the little sod out and let it stop being a parasite to the host, then it can claim personhood, by whatever name you wish to apply. > In the year 1974, I > heard a lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a > fetus was a "mass of tissue" It is. for that matter, so are you, and I, and the neighbor's cats. > That lady was lying. Telling the truth is lying, is it? How odd. > A fetus is NOT a mass > of tissue. No? What, it's massless? Don't think so. Hmm... and it is, in fact, made of tissue... tissue... with mass... a mass of tissue. But that's a lie, right? > The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from > Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to tell that lie Telling the truth is telling a lie. Of course. And this is supported by repetition. Orwell would have loved you. > members of a highschool class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the > fetus. Unnecessary; it is not a person. > The advocates of abortion Who would those be, pray tell? As far as anyone here has established, not even Planned Parenthood - who they seem to regard as some vast megacorporation intent upon destroying every baby in existence - has actually advocated abortion. > seem to always try to > depersonalize the > fetus--do you do that? I very rarely engage in futile things, except for trying to educate fundies and pro-lifers, but that's more for personal amusement than anything. Why futile? Trying to remove a property from something which doesn't have it is pretty much futile by definition. > In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound of > their fetuses before they can have an abortion. The only reason for this being that some jackass decided to push their personal anti-abortion agenda on others. Hey, if it's your womb, do what you like. If it's someone else's, who the fuck are you to dictate what they're allowed to do with it? > I support that law. Of course you do. > How > to you feel about that law? That if I could find the people responsible, I'd like to castrate them because of the threat they pose to a fair and just society. > It's to force women to personalize their > fetus and see it as a baby. To force your agenda on them, when it's not your womb, your fetus, or any of your fucking business. Yes, we get that you want to dictate what women are and aren't allowed to do with their own bodies. We also see the underhanded sliminess of this approach - having failed to outlaw abortion and enslave women, you seek instead to simply batter them emotionally, when they're already in a fragile state, until they accept your position. Taking advantage of those already in a fragile state and abusing them to further your own agenda is not exactly what I would expect of someone claiming to be "personalizing" anything. -- Creationist: Why yes, Rome _was_ built in a day. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 20 May 2007 00:33:35 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > It is slander to call someone an "advocate of abortion". Even Kelsey, > who admits to not liking kidsm isn't going to walk up to pregnant > women and say "You should get an abortion". It's the woman's choice > either way. Correct. I will, if asked, inform her there are several options, one of which is abortion, but which she takes is her choice, not mine - even if I'm married to her and I'm the sperm donor. It's not my body, not my choice. If she is my wife/partner, I'll certainly make my preferences clear, but the final decision is hers. >> You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end >> result is a dead baby. > > You're lying again. He's a pro-lifer; he can't help it. Even the name involves the intellectually dishonest practice of poisoning the well; by calling themselves "pro-life" anyone who disagrees is, obviously, anti-life or pro-death. It's a lie and a fraud from the name on up. > Depression =/= guilt. You haven't established that a significant number > of women are suffering guilt from abortion, let alone that they should. > I may regret doing something after the fact but that doesn't mean that > what I did was morally wrong. Or that not doing it wouldn't lead to even bigger regrets. -- You don't need 'faith' to believe Richard Dawkins; you need an education. - Don Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:47:32 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > On May 20, 9:30 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:37:40 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: >> > It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel >> > being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you >> > have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of >> > fatherhood? >> >> It's a joy if that is what you want. >> >> I worked with a fellow a few years back and we discussed that very issue. >> He, like me, was not a fan of kids and didn't want any. > > The fact that you don't like kids DOES hurt your argument. Only if one assumes the only people capable of actually thinking about the discussion are those who are panting, drooling, uncontrolled breeders. -- "I'll leave when you stop believing in evolution, and NOT before." - Gatchell Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 20:58:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > Good points. Sarah has never had a baby. My sister had a miscarrage and > suffered severe depression from "a sense of loss". A sense of loss does not equate to guilt, and unless she was planning to abort the fetus anyway, it's not a relevant case, as she presumably wanted to have a kid, where the aborting host obviously doesn't. If I want something and it looks like I'm going to get it then suddenly I lose my chance, I might be depressed. If I don't want it in the first place, well gee, so I lost my chance, big deal, where's the coffee? > Yes, an abortion does > solve problems but it's my opinion that putting an unwanted child up for > adoption is better than choosing abortion as a option. A lot of assumptions in there. You say "better" but don't say better for whom. For the resultant kid? Possibly, but it's also not universally true that, if they find out they were given up for adoption, they're all happy and joyful about it. Of course, being up for adoption doesn't mean _being_ adopted, either; there are thousands of kids on the rolls now who aren't being snapped up - too old, too young, wrong skin color or hair color, dietary requirements, etc, etc, etc. Imagine growing up knowing not only does your birth mother not want you, nobody else does, either. Then of course there's the possible emotional trauma to the mother; one might assume that even if she wants to give it up, we humans generally, and women in particular, seem to have biological wiring that causes feelings of intense attachment to our offspring; despite the desire to give it up, this could well lead to intense emotional trauma to the mother. So, there's lots of ways this can end up being a complete and abject failure for all concerned, and the only one it is "better" for is you, as it fits into your pet agenda. Funny that, the only guaranteed winner in that situation is someone who has no business being involved with it in the first place. > Yes--but as your know--the doctor has to make sure all the body parts of > the baby have been removed. Otherwise, an infection will occur. Answer > this question: While that doctor is counting the fingers and toes, how > can he not realize that it's a baby and not a POC? Because unlike you, he is capable of differentiating. By your reasoning, a chimp fetus is "a baby", with all the rights and privileges of a person, simply because it has the right basic shape. >> Have you considered that some women _don't_ want to have babies? > yes--they should use protection. An if they're raped, or abused, or the protection fails, then what? Fuck you, lady, you have no rights, you're just a brood mare so shut up and drop a fucking litter? >> Few doctors would perform third trimester abortions. > Agreed--and we know the reason. Lots of reasons, actually, most of them due to simple increased risk. Sorry, of the many reasons, which is "the" one and only possible reason any doctor is ever allowed to use to want to avoid performing this procedure? >> If killing is taboo then I won't ever have chicken, pork, beef, eggs or >> fish again. > Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo <quote> Would you prefer that parents NOT teach their children to view murder and killing as taboo? </quote> See the part about killing being taboo? Nothing limiting it to humans. If you're going to eat beef, something's going to be killed. >--just that > killing people is taboo Then why did you say "killing" instead of "killing people"? -- Avoid the Tate's Compass: "He who has a Tate's is lost!" Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:29:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1905072229150001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dcgv435707ncgfmshflfpktvrk2sn8bc2p@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to >> >build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several >> >bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs >> >and nuclear materials? >> >> Use them against Israel. Use them against a US-run Iraq. Keep the US >> from invading Iran and taking it over. A lot of at least >> semi-legitimate uses. >> >> But use one to destroy the US? Even a few hundred megatons wouldn't >> do the job, and they'd have no way to deliver anything of even that >> size to the US. And if you think it's easy to smuggle a few dozen >> bombs large enough to destroy cities into this country, you have a lot >> to learn. Maybe in 50 years, but our technology will have improved by >> then too - if a few more 17th century presidents haven't destroyed our >> scientific and technological communities by then, or forced them to >> move to other countries. > >One nuclear bomb would destroy one huge American city. That could cause >serious harm to our economy. It took the economy several years to recover >from 911. Realistically it took several years to recover from the panic caused by 9/11. The actual damage of 9/11, horrific as it was, was not that significant for the entire country. The real costs came from the fear-driven response. >If a city like New York or Washington was destroyed, it would >probably take at least 20 or more years for our economy to recover. >President Bush wants to make it easy for tractor trailors from Mexico to >deliver products to many different cities. A nuclear bomb could be placed >in one of those trailors and taken to the middle of any large city. Some >of the border guards have been fired for taking pay offs (eg large amounts >of money) from drug dealers that have cars or vans loaded with drugs. They >could hire one of those border guards to let one of the tractor trailors >cross the border at his station. It could also be off loaded from a large >cargo ship. The cargo boxes are huge in size and could hold a nuclear >bomb. I read a fictional book and that was the plot. They parked the >tractor trailor outside an outdoor football stadium that was filled with >fans. I believe it was a play off game or the superbowl. "The Sum of All Fears". Tom Clancy appears to like to make his readers into paranoid reactionaries who are willing to give up their constitutional rights because they are afraid. >> >The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of >> >from the map of the world." >> >> So have a lot of Arab leaders. Arafat really did a good job of >> bringing that off, didn't he? Hussein was going to wipe them off the >> map with nukes too. They took care of Iraq with no help from anyone. >> And without invading Iraq or losing any of their soldiers. Our >> invasion of Iraq, planned by BushCo since at least 1998, only >> accomplished one thing - it made it possible for the government to >> privatize the US Treasury. > >They failed but they did not have a nuclear bomb. Within the next 12 >years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. They could also use dirty bombs. Yes, they may, but, as with every other nuclear power, there is good reason to expect them not to use those bombs. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: .... >> Here's something else that could happen: >> >> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to work in >> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. >> >> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands and start >> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's supplies of >> anchovies. >> >> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South >> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton look-alikes. >> >> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the >> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. > >In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. > >Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi >Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using >box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. > >Couldn't happen? > >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for >people to kill each other. Well said. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <6pe053ds8k1ookctau272dki7j4rd1fjfv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:29:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1905072229150001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <dcgv435707ncgfmshflfpktvrk2sn8bc2p@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to > >> >build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several > >> >bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs > >> >and nuclear materials? > >> > >> Use them against Israel. Use them against a US-run Iraq. Keep the US > >> from invading Iran and taking it over. A lot of at least > >> semi-legitimate uses. > >> > >> But use one to destroy the US? Even a few hundred megatons wouldn't > >> do the job, and they'd have no way to deliver anything of even that > >> size to the US. And if you think it's easy to smuggle a few dozen > >> bombs large enough to destroy cities into this country, you have a lot > >> to learn. Maybe in 50 years, but our technology will have improved by > >> then too - if a few more 17th century presidents haven't destroyed our > >> scientific and technological communities by then, or forced them to > >> move to other countries. > > > >One nuclear bomb would destroy one huge American city. That could cause > >serious harm to our economy. It took the economy several years to recover > >from 911. > > Realistically it took several years to recover from the panic caused by > 9/11. The actual damage of 9/11, horrific as it was, was not that > significant for the entire country. The real costs came from the > fear-driven response. > > >If a city like New York or Washington was destroyed, it would > >probably take at least 20 or more years for our economy to recover. > >President Bush wants to make it easy for tractor trailors from Mexico to > >deliver products to many different cities. A nuclear bomb could be placed > >in one of those trailors and taken to the middle of any large city. Some > >of the border guards have been fired for taking pay offs (eg large amounts > >of money) from drug dealers that have cars or vans loaded with drugs. They > >could hire one of those border guards to let one of the tractor trailors > >cross the border at his station. It could also be off loaded from a large > >cargo ship. The cargo boxes are huge in size and could hold a nuclear > >bomb. I read a fictional book and that was the plot. They parked the > >tractor trailor outside an outdoor football stadium that was filled with > >fans. I believe it was a play off game or the superbowl. > > "The Sum of All Fears". Tom Clancy appears to like to make his readers > into paranoid reactionaries who are willing to give up their > constitutional rights because they are afraid. > > >> >The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of > >> >from the map of the world." > >> > >> So have a lot of Arab leaders. Arafat really did a good job of > >> bringing that off, didn't he? Hussein was going to wipe them off the > >> map with nukes too. They took care of Iraq with no help from anyone. > >> And without invading Iraq or losing any of their soldiers. Our > >> invasion of Iraq, planned by BushCo since at least 1998, only > >> accomplished one thing - it made it possible for the government to > >> privatize the US Treasury. > > > >They failed but they did not have a nuclear bomb. Within the next 12 > >years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. They could also use dirty bombs. > > Yes, they may, but, as with every other nuclear power, there is good > reason to expect them not to use those bombs. The president of Iran is a nut. As you know, some wars have been started for religious reasons. In the Quran, there is a phophecy about some very important Muslim man that will come out of a famous well when the world is in chaos. This great Muslim religious leader (that came out the well) will become a dictator and rule over the world. He will deliver the world from the chaos. I am not an expert on the Quran so may not have the story exactly correct. I don't even remember the name of this famous person that will come out of the well at the time that the world is in chaos. Of course, everyone will have to become a Muslim or lose their lives if they refuse to become a Muslim if all this happens. The president of Iran has stated that he intends to make this all happen by causing the world to be in chaos. I ask you: What better way to create chaos in the world than to explode a nuclear bomb in a large city in England or the United States? We would have to retaliate by dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. The world would be in chaos. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in > <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > ... > >> Here's something else that could happen: > >> > >> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to work in > >> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. > >> > >> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands and start > >> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's supplies of > >> anchovies. > >> > >> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South > >> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton look-alikes. > >> > >> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the > >> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. > > > >In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. > > > >Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi > >Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using > >box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. > > > >Couldn't happen? > > > >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the > >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for > >people to kill each other. > > Well said. Was Hitler an atheist? Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed thousands of people in the Soviet Union. What about Alexander the Great? Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to conquer. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179649052.811419.139470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4U=A4=C82=AE=C924=A4=C0, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> w= > rote: > > It is legitimate to be opposed to > > abortion, but give women the choice. > > I can see how this is not a contradiction but I'm not sure if Jason > can. > > Martin I comply with the law. In America, women can choose to have an abortion. I have NEVER prevented any woman from having an abortion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <PcS3i.1070$u56.1020@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <hbe4i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>>> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > >>>> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > >>> Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are > >>> required to get counseling after they have killed someone. > >> I think you missed the gist of the point I was making; it was, I'll admit, > >> a tad subtle. > >> > >> Here, you use the phrase "killing someone". Above, you simply used the > >> term "killing". See the difference? One is about killing _people_; the > >> other is a more generalized term, which applies also to, say, killing > >> bacteria, fungus, viruses and the like, all things we very much need to do > >> in order to survive. > > > > > >> The point is that, like so much "pro-life" and pro-religion rhetoric, the > >> terminology is sloppy. In many cases this is intentional, such as that of > >> a certain boneheaded woman I've been discussing abortion with who persists > >> in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this > >> intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows > >> she cannot support any other way. > > > > One reason that your friend does that is because many of the advocates of > > abortion attempt to depersonalize the fetus. > > Which is proper. A fetus is not a person, legally or physically. > > In some abortion clinics, the > > fetus is referred to as a POC (product of conception). That is > > depersonalization to the max. > > You may be bothered by this because the anti-abortionists consider a > blastocyst to be a baby. Opposite side of the coin. > > Your friend probably uses the term MURDER in > > order to personalize the fetus. Members of the military in World World I > > and II were trained to depersonalize the enemy--they even used slang terms > > for them which I will not mention in this post so as not to offend anyone. > > That has been done in all wars by all combatants. Read your history. > > > That is like calling a fetus a POC. > >> You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy terminology, such > >> as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use "killing" > >> when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat > >> extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing > >> valued life" or some such. > > > > Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. There is a bumper sticker > > that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. There is another that says: > > ABORTION=MURDER > > Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby. > > When in fact it is not, legally or physically. > > > > > One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I > > saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color ultrasound of > > a 7 month old fetus. It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month old > > baby. There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. In the year 1974, I heard a > > lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a fetus was a > > "mass of tissue". That lady was lying. A fetus is NOT a mass of tissue. > > The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from Planned Parenthood > > will no longer be able to tell that lie to the members of a highschool > > class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the fetus. The advocates of > > abortion seem to always try to depersonalize the fetus--do you do that? > > > > In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound of their > > fetuses before they can have an abortion. I support that law. How to you > > feel about that law? It's to force women to personalize their fetus and > > see it as a baby. > > > >> I'm happy to agree that killing _people_ (or "valued life") can be cause > >> for depression; somewhat less inclined to agree that killing, period, is > >> cause for distress: if it's me or the bacteria, trust me, I'm not going > >> to lose any sleep over wiping them out by the millions. > > > > That is great to know-- > > > >>> night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse > >>> to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize > >>> anyone--including unborn babies. > >> No such thing. A baby, by definition, is born. Well, delivered - by > >> birth, C-section or, in a couple of odd plays and the like, by simply > >> gutting the woman and having the results pour forth. > >> > >> > >>> A fetus is an unborn baby. > >> No, a fetus is a fetus. After birth, it is a baby. > >> > >> You see, a baby is a person, with the rights of a person; a fetus isn't. > >> Your use of "unborn baby" thus confuses the issue; an unfertilized egg is > >> also - by your usage - an unborn baby; do we grant it the full rights of > >> a person? Obviously not. So you must mean this the other way around, > >> that a baby does not have the rights of a person. Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and killed the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with two murders? The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person. If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be considered a person in every case. That's why many people in the pro-life community refer to the fetus as an unborn baby instead of a fetus or a POC. > >> > >> Nope, neither of those positions make much sense, so something has to > >> give. In this case, the obvious solution is to use correct terminology: > >> fetus while inside the womb, baby after delivery. > >> > >> > >>> There are no major differences between a baby > >>> that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a > >>> mother's womb that is also 7 months old. > >> Yes, there is; the one delivered after 7 months has a chance to live; the > >> other is dead. It would suffocate. Of course, a fetus at 7 months has > >> no such risk, as it has oxygen supplied by the host. > >> > >>> Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. > >> Of course. They, however, are not the ones under consideration here. If > >> they want kids, they're not going to be lining up to have abortions, now > >> are they? The subject here is abortions, so women who, pretty much by > >> definition aren't going to have abortions really have no relevance to the > >> discussion. > >> > >>> I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be > >>> done in the first trimester. > >> Yes, but no reasons why they should not be done later; that is, no > >> reason to try to ban second and third trimester abortions. > >> > >>>> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously > >>>> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be > >>>> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary > >>>> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. > >> > >>> Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when > >>> they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. > >> "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who > >> dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be shunned. They > >> are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction; > >> anything else makes them evil. > > > > You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end > > result is a dead baby. > > It's not a baby until it is born after being long enough in utero to be > viable outside it. Until that time it is a fetus. Let's say for the sake of discussion that after an abortion--there is a 7 month old baby lying on the table. Would you call it a dead baby or a dead fetus? > > You care about the woman and that is wonderful. I > > care about the woman and the fetus. > > You don't care about either. You don't care about the woman because you > do not respect her ability to make appropriately informed choices. You > don't respect the fetus because you potentially allow it to be born into > a family that cannot or will not care for it. > > The reason is because after 9 > > months--the fetus becomes a baby. The reason she will feel guilt is > > because it's normal for most people to have guilt feeling related to a > > death. It's my opinion that women that use the morning after pill or get > > abortions during the first trimester will have less depression than if the > > abortion took place during the second or third trimester. > > That is possible; however, only a small percentage of abortions are > performed after the first trimester. If you would allow abortion during > the first trimester, you are permitting abortion. You had better get > your views to be more consistent. > > I'll help you a bit: at what point in the pregnancy do you think that > abortion should be illegal? Under what circumstances should abortions > be allowed after that point? > > I would be interested in your answer. I believe that abortions should be legal during the first trimester. The only exception would be if there was some sort of crisis that puts the mother's life in danger. > > > > > >> And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame involved, where > >> none should be. The shame or guilt is mainly because most women are taught from birth that the murder of a person is taboo. As I have stated in other posts, this is less likely to happen when the morning after pill is used since in most cases the woman does not even know whether or not she was pregnant. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179647581.786717.90710@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4U=A4=C812=AE=C908=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro= > te: > > In article <1179618379.481949.104...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <snip> > > > > The article failed to establish cause and effect. They claimed that > > > "significantly" more women who had abortions were depressed than women > > > who had carried unwanted babies to term but they failed to establish > > > what, if any, were the reasons for this depression. They may, for > > > example, regret the opportunity they missed in not having a baby when > > > they could have without actually believing that what they did was > > > morally wrong. > > > > That's true. However, it's also possible they were depressed since they > > realized that their baby is dead and as a result they have GUILT which led > > to depression. > > Thank you for admitting that the authors only speculated as to what > was causing people's depression. > > > > Women who literally use the morning after pill the morning after > > > having sex would not even have known they were pregnant. > > > > That is true and the primary reason there would be little or no guilt and > > the end result would be no depression or very little depression. It's my > > hope that in the years to come, there will be many less abortion clinics > > in America due to the morning after pill. > > It's irrelvent because you are defining "abortion clinics" as those > places that only offer abortions. If a woman could go to _any_ clinic > and get an abortion if she needed one then there wouldn't be a need > for clinics specializing in abortion. > > Martin That is true--there is such a clinic in a nearby town. It's a women's clinic but they also do abortions in that clinic. I suspect those sorts of clinics will survive even if the morning after pill causes most abortion clinics to close down due to the lack of customers. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179646415.633254.220780@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C943=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro= > te: > > In article <hbe4i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <snip> > > > > You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy terminology, such > > > as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use "killin= > g" > > > when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat > > > extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing > > > valued life" or some such. > > > > Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. There is a bumper sticker > > that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. There is another that says: > > ABORTION=3DMURDER > > Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby. > > > > One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I > > saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color ultrasound of > > a 7 month old fetus. It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month old > > baby. There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. In the year 1974, I heard a > > lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a fetus was a > > "mass of tissue". That lady was lying. A fetus is NOT a mass of tissue. > > At two months it is. You are the one who is lying if you say > otherwise. I disagree. It may look like a mass of tissue on an ultrasound but it is not a mass of tissue. I posted a report that indicated that doctors have to count body parts to make sure no body parts are still in the woman's body. If they miss any parts--it could cause an infection. That led me to conclude (and tell me if I am wrong) that there are body parts at all stages. The only exception would be the first month. > > > The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from Planned Parenthood > > will no longer be able to tell that lie to the members of a highschool > > class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the fetus. The advocates of > > abortion seem to always try to depersonalize the fetus--do you do that? > > It is slander to call someone an "advocate of abortion". Even Kelsey, > who admits to not liking kidsm isn't going to walk up to pregnant > women and say "You should get an abortion". It's the woman's choice > either way. > > > In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound of their > > fetuses before they can have an abortion. I support that law. How to you > > feel about that law? It's to force women to personalize their fetus and > > see it as a baby. > > It's a waste of time in the first trimester, which is when 90% of the > abortions take place anyway. Why are you pretending otherwise? > > <snip> > > > > >> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously > > > >> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be > > > >> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary > > > >> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. > > > > > > Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT wh= > en > > > > they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. > > > > > "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who > > > dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be shunned. Th= > ey > > > are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction; > > > anything else makes them evil. > > > > You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end > > result is a dead baby. > > You're lying again. Are you saying that after an abortion--there is not a dead baby? If it's not a dead baby--what is it? (please don't say--it's a POC) > > > You care about the woman and that is wonderful. I > > care about the woman and the fetus. The reason is because after 9 > > months--the fetus becomes a baby. The reason she will feel guilt is > > because it's normal for most people to have guilt feeling related to a > > death. It's my opinion that women that use the morning after pill or get > > abortions during the first trimester will have less depression than if the > > abortion took place during the second or third trimester. > > Depression =3D/=3D guilt. You haven't established that a significant > number of women are suffering guilt from abortion, let alone that they > should. I may regret doing something after the fact but that doesn't > mean that what I did was morally wrong. Would you concede that many women suffer from severe depression after an abortion? > > Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179647198.327662.45380@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C958=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wro= > te: > > In article <1179621460.614622.219...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel > > > being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you > > > have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of > > > fatherhood? Jason, do you understand how much a woman has to go > > > through just to have a baby, let alone raise it? I think a big reason > > > for depression might not be a feeling of guilt but a feeling of missed > > > opportunity, but that doesn't mean that the woman didn't make the > > > right decision. Even if a woman would have been happier having the > > > baby (and Jason can't prove that this would be the case) it is still > > > HER decision to make and nobody else's. > > > > Good points. Sarah has never had a baby. My sister had a miscarrage and > > suffered severe depression from "a sense of loss". > > Yes. And "sense of loss" is not the same as guilt. Do you tell your > sister that she murdered her child simply because she wasn't able to > bring it to term? > > Perhaps you are angry with women who have abortions because your wife > and sister have not been able to have babies and you somehow think it > is their duty to make up the shortfall. This might be an instinctive > reaction: certainly an instinct to want to force women to have > children would certainly have been an instinct favoured by natural > selection. Thing is, the human race is not facing extinction any time > soon: on the contrary, there are over six billion people on the > planet. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to force women to > have unwanted children. > > > Yes, an abortion does > > solve problems but it's my opinion that putting an unwanted child up for > > adoption is better than choosing abortion as a option. > > > > > I know that doctors that work in abortion clinics use terms like "POC" > > > > (product of conception) instead of "fetus" or "unborn baby". They do = > this > > > > so as to avoid believing that they are actully killing unborn babies.= > It's > > > > easier for them to think: "I'm aborting a POC" than to think: "I'm > > > > murdering an unborn baby". Anyone that has taken Psychology 101 knows > > > > about "depersonalization"--that's the way that abortion doctors are a= > ble > > > > to kill unborn babies and still sleep at night or suffer from severe > > > > depression. That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because th= > ey > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. > > > > > And yet the doctors themselves would have a better perspective than > > > you as to just what is being aborted, wouldn't they? > > > > Yes--but as your know--the doctor has to make sure all the body parts of > > the baby have been removed. Otherwise, an infection will occur. Answer > > this question: While that doctor is counting the fingers and toes, how can > > he not realize that it's a baby and not a POC? > > Kittens, puppies, even mice, they're all going to have fingers and > toes. Doesn't mean that they're the same as newborn babies. > > > Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo--just that killing > > people is taboo. They don't put people in prison for killing animals. > > Exactly. Think about why. > > Martin I buried a dead possum and did not lose any sleep over the possum. It would have been different if I buried a dead baby. I hope that you can see the difference. Most children eat meat. Perhaps you were referring to the children of vegetarians. I could see how they would learn to see the killing of animals as taboo. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3d4m@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> Many rich people have given up on public >>> schools and send their children to expensive college prep private schools. >> Which teach them how to get into prestigious colleges and >> universities. We're still falling behind the rest of the first world >> in education, more every year. What do you expect from a school >> system that thinks it's right to teach that evolution is just the idea >> of some dead guy and some invisible supercreature created the universe >> so that mankind could run everything? >> >> Our "graduates" are laughed at in really advanced nations. > > Yet those nations send their smartest children to American Universities. Two points. We were talking "general education" and that is NOT university. I would go to great lengths to avoid sending my kid to the US. That has in fact nothing to do with the universities. They actually are quite good. Another story. Has something to do with politics. > Many of them major in engineering. I agree that we are falling behind. One > of the reasons is because our high school teachers have to teach courses > like sex education; IBTD. Very important subject. Weeeell. Actually it's the parents job. But to make sure the kids know this stuff, school should teach it. art appreciation; That one I agree with. The rejection of it, that is. If you want to have something like that, do it in your spare time. and sociology. Actually a very important field. So IBTD. They should be > teaching lots more courses in higher math. Agreed. They do that in private college > prep. high schools. Some of the larger high schools have excellent college > prep. classes. However, huge numbers of American students do not take the > college prep. classes since they are harder to pass and involve lots of > study time. Those lazy students could not get away with that if they > attended college prep. private schools. Agreed. But what is the solution? Around here I think it works ok. But what is the solution for the US? Well. I don't know the system in the US that well. It does not concern me that much, but it should concern you. Tokay -- If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:21:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2005070921570001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >> ... >> >> Here's something else that could happen: >> >> >> >> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to work in >> >> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. >> >> >> >> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands and start >> >> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's supplies of >> >> anchovies. >> >> >> >> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South >> >> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton >look-alikes. >> >> >> >> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the >> >> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. >> > >> >In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. >> > >> >Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi >> >Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using >> >box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. >> > >> >Couldn't happen? >> > >> >Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the >> >whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for >> >people to kill each other. >> >> Well said. > >Was Hitler an atheist? He never claimed to be. He certainly encouraged religious symbolism within Germany and the Nazi party. >Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Yes, he had little use for religion both because he saw how religious leaders abused their flocks and because he bought into Marx's analysis. >Stalin killed thousands of people in the Soviet Union. There is no particular reason to claim that any of the millions of deaths that he was responsible for were related to atheistic motivation. His was much more related to a poor understanding of a poorly conceived political hypothesis, held with religious fervor and exercised with paranoid cunning and obsessive desire for control. >What about Alexander the Great? I would expect him to think of you as the atheist since you don't believe in all of the Hellenic gods. >Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to >conquer. Which, of course wasn't true, since he knew of countries that he had not conquered. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:12:21 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2005070912210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <6pe053ds8k1ookctau272dki7j4rd1fjfv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:29:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1905072229150001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <dcgv435707ncgfmshflfpktvrk2sn8bc2p@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to >> >> >build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several >> >> >bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs >> >> >and nuclear materials? >> >> >> >> Use them against Israel. Use them against a US-run Iraq. Keep the US >> >> from invading Iran and taking it over. A lot of at least >> >> semi-legitimate uses. >> >> >> >> But use one to destroy the US? Even a few hundred megatons wouldn't >> >> do the job, and they'd have no way to deliver anything of even that >> >> size to the US. And if you think it's easy to smuggle a few dozen >> >> bombs large enough to destroy cities into this country, you have a lot >> >> to learn. Maybe in 50 years, but our technology will have improved by >> >> then too - if a few more 17th century presidents haven't destroyed our >> >> scientific and technological communities by then, or forced them to >> >> move to other countries. >> > >> >One nuclear bomb would destroy one huge American city. That could cause >> >serious harm to our economy. It took the economy several years to recover >> >from 911. >> >> Realistically it took several years to recover from the panic caused by >> 9/11. The actual damage of 9/11, horrific as it was, was not that >> significant for the entire country. The real costs came from the >> fear-driven response. >> >> >If a city like New York or Washington was destroyed, it would >> >probably take at least 20 or more years for our economy to recover. >> >President Bush wants to make it easy for tractor trailors from Mexico to >> >deliver products to many different cities. A nuclear bomb could be placed >> >in one of those trailors and taken to the middle of any large city. Some >> >of the border guards have been fired for taking pay offs (eg large amounts >> >of money) from drug dealers that have cars or vans loaded with drugs. They >> >could hire one of those border guards to let one of the tractor trailors >> >cross the border at his station. It could also be off loaded from a large >> >cargo ship. The cargo boxes are huge in size and could hold a nuclear >> >bomb. I read a fictional book and that was the plot. They parked the >> >tractor trailor outside an outdoor football stadium that was filled with >> >fans. I believe it was a play off game or the superbowl. >> >> "The Sum of All Fears". Tom Clancy appears to like to make his readers >> into paranoid reactionaries who are willing to give up their >> constitutional rights because they are afraid. >> >> >> >The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of >> >> >from the map of the world." >> >> >> >> So have a lot of Arab leaders. Arafat really did a good job of >> >> bringing that off, didn't he? Hussein was going to wipe them off the >> >> map with nukes too. They took care of Iraq with no help from anyone. >> >> And without invading Iraq or losing any of their soldiers. Our >> >> invasion of Iraq, planned by BushCo since at least 1998, only >> >> accomplished one thing - it made it possible for the government to >> >> privatize the US Treasury. >> > >> >They failed but they did not have a nuclear bomb. Within the next 12 >> >years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. They could also use dirty bombs. >> >> Yes, they may, but, as with every other nuclear power, there is good >> reason to expect them not to use those bombs. > >The president of Iran is a nut. One who was elected, in part, because our president is too arrogant and stupid to know when to keep his mouth shut. Of course the Iranian President needs permission from the religious leaders to do anything. >As you know, some wars have been started >for religious reasons. In the Quran, there is a phophecy about some very >important Muslim man that will come out of a famous well when the world is >in chaos. This great Muslim religious leader (that came out the well) will >become a dictator and rule over the world. He will deliver the world from >the chaos. I am not an expert on the Quran so may not have the story >exactly correct. I don't even remember the name of this famous person that >will come out of the well at the time that the world is in chaos. Of >course, everyone will have to become a Muslim or lose their lives if they >refuse to become a Muslim if all this happens. The president of Iran has >stated that he intends to make this all happen by causing the world to be >in chaos. Feel free to point to a quotation where he said that. >I ask you: What better way to create chaos in the world than to >explode a nuclear bomb in a large city in England or the United States? >We would have to retaliate by dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. The world >would be in chaos. No, there wouldn't be much chaos at all. If the US began using nuclear weapons there would be very many dead people, but that wouldn't necessarily imply chaos as a result. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.