Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) .... >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? Which states or countries? >The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person. Which states or countries? >If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be >considered a person in every case. Why? >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. Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 'the baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get people to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correct in a legal sense. -- "... There's glory for you." "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all." Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <f2q0k1$non$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of engineering, math, computers and science. > > 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. The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like chemistry and algebra. Some students graduate from American high schools and don't even know anything about chemistry, biology or algebra. I doubt that happens in other countries. > > 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. It concerns me but there is not much that can be done about it. The rich people have found a solution which is to send their children to private schools. The poor people and middle class people send their children to public schools. Many parents demand that their children take the college prep courses even if the children would prefer not to take the college prep courses. Jason > > > Tokay Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Not really. One could just as easily take the other side: that the fetus was not a person, so only one count of murder would apply. However, there is justice in considering the fetus in this case to be a potential person. The reason is that late term abortions are quite rare, so it can reasonably inferred that the fetus would have been carried to term had the mother not been murdered. > > >>>> 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? Be careful of your language - your question is ambiguous. Had it been born 7 months ago, a baby. Had it been conceived 7 months ago and not yet born, a 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. OK, that is a thoughtful and reasonable position, not particularly different from that of many thoughtful people. But you don't approve of any abortions, regardless of when performed, right? > > >>> >>>> 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. > The morning after pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus, so it's not really an abortifact, it's a contraceptive, even if a late one. If I understand you correctly, you condone the morning after pill and abortions in the first trimester because you believe their impact on the mother will be less that abortions performed later. You seem to oppose late-term abortions unequivocally. Is that a correct statement of your position? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2q0k1$non$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our > universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of > engineering, math, computers and science. > >> 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. > > The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching > courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like > chemistry and algebra. Some students graduate from American high schools > and don't even know anything about chemistry, biology or algebra. I doubt > that happens in other countries. I had a course in sex education once. Well. Not a course as such. One or two hours in biology. You know that stuff about the condom and the banana? It just is to show the basic facts. I.e. If you have sex, you can get pregnant or get someone pregnant. If you want to avoid that and also avoid diseases that are transmitted that way, a condom is a nice idea. A condom is used this way.... (then the part with the banana). (add to that some other facts and you probably end up with one or two hours. Not much more) Actually not that much time has to be spent that way. IF you want to make it really easy, you hand out free condoms as well. I, for one, will let my son know that if he needs them, there will always be a stack of condoms if he wants them. They will not be counted, there will be no questions asked, all questions will be answered to the best of my abilities. Whether I have a use for them or not is not the question. I will make it perfectly clear that there is a stack of them that he can get at without the usual embarrassment teenagers are so frightened of (never understood that myself. Go in the store, buy them, that's it). Maybe I am wrong, but in my case that lesson taught me nothing I did not know before. But for others, that might have been different. It should not take that much time. Basic, simple facts. >> Well. I don't know the system in the US that well. It does not concern >> me that much, but it should concern you. > > It concerns me but there is not much that can be done about it. The rich > people have found a solution which is to send their children to private > schools. The poor people and middle class people send their children to > public schools. Many parents demand that their children take the college > prep courses even if the children would prefer not to take the college > prep courses. > I rather hope my son will someday go to university. But if he doesn't want to and rather do carpentry, thats his business. All I can do I will do. But I can not do it for him. That he will have to do on his own. I can support him and that I will do. Gladly, willingly, anyway I can. If carpentry is what he wants to do, he can be assured that I will support him. (Not born yet.... So rather theoretical. If you are interested, so far they say august) Tokay -- If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > thousands of people in the Soviet Union. Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. What about Alexander the Great? > Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > conquer. No idea. The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion related ideologies. The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the name of religion. See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be fundamentalist idiots. The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there was no religion. Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And quite often, that is the driving force behind it. That does not mean that without religion there will be no more terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. Tokay -- If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 21:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179510375.780869.111...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Maj, 09:54, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 18, 4:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1179473352.119729.116...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On 18 Maj, 06:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <4h3q43h64tgggeh816im12husij76kg...@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > > > > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:56:47 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > >Do you believe that members of pro-life organizations should NOT= > > be > > > > > > > >allowed to carry signs outside abortion clinics and the offices = > > of doc=3D > > > > > tors > > > > > > > >that perform abortions? > > > > > > > > Do you believe that people should be allowed to follow men around > > > > > > > outside drug stores carrying anti-condom signs? > > > > > > > > > I heard about one pro-life group that carried > > > > > > > >signs on the city steet outside the home of a doctor that perfor= > > med > > > > > > > >abortions. Do you think that those pro-life protestors should ha= > > ve been > > > > > > > >arrested? > > > > > > > > How would they have felt if people picketed their homes with "D= > > octor > > > > > > > Murderer" signs? > > > > > > > You failed to answer my questions. > > > > > Actually he did. > > > > > I wish that you had been one of my professors. When I was in college, I > > > > would not have passed any classes if I had answered all exam questions > > > > with a question. I was hoping for yes or no answers. > > > > Times have changed. Professors nowadays expect you to think about a > > > question and not simply answer with a "yes" or a "no". > > > Think about a question? How cruel! > > Things have sure changed. When I was in college, we had to take notes in > class and read the chapters. The tests only had one correct answer for > each question.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179510218.722129.104...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, snip > > > > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. > > > Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal. > > The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin > Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that > Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. He did not have to lie. You do. >We are succeeding in some > of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get > the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have > the right to life. Meaning you want to force women to not have abortions. >People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY > KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making > people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want > to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide > not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have > babies. See above. >In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is > the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that > requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn > babies--prior to abortions. > jason And you want to make abortion illegal - i.e. force women to not have an abortion. > > > > > > > > > >However, I see nothing > > > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion clinics > > > and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you > > > think that pro-life protestors should be arrested? > > > Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they > > picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal. Did you forget to answer the above? > > >In one of the southern > > > states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, we > > > are winning the battle.- > > > Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for > > themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not > > lie about it again. > > Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America. > I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from > having an abortion. You want to make it illegal. You want to use force. >If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have > the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would > advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I > would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If > there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions > illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 21:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179511172.336016.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Maj, 18:43, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <978r43hiof5vpgts2td1d96scjie9lm...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:19:17 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >In article <mg4q435t6fji1qvqkhfj4o29fjssdnl...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:07:11 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >> >In article <fuap43loh53g9d20rt0h3bno3ehovi0...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > >> ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:56 -0700, J...@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. > > > > > >> >I no longer have a copy of the book or even remember the title. Upon > > > > >> >request, I could probably find out the name of the author but > the book is > > > > >> >out of print. > > > > > >> IOW: you made it up. > > > > > >I found it: > > > > > >Sue Hertz, author of Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front > > > > >Line, documents what she saw in and at one busy abortion clinic: > > > > > But she didn't "manage" it. She was doing research for her > > > > book. > > > > > At least you took some time to find the book, though. That's > > > > more than most other anti-woman whackos do. > > > > > As for the quote: I wonder if you think that matters at all to > > > > whether or not abortion is moral. > > > > > Don > > > > Don, > > > Thanks. Yes, I spent over an hour trying to find the name of the author. > > > I did learn from that book that abortion also does harm to the people > > > (including doctors) that work in abortion clinics. The doctors develop a > > > lack of respect for life and learn to see the unborn babies as objects > > > instead of unborn babies. Many of the staff members "burn out" after a > > > couple of years. The people that work in the front office learn by > > > experience to never go in the back portion of the clinic. > > > I see, she did a scientific study and had it published in a peer- > > reviewed publication did she? If not, she is, at best, expressing a > > personal opinion. > > > That's one of > > > the reasons that I hope the morning after pill means that lots of abortion > > > clinics to close down due to the lack of customers. > > > I see. What is the reason that you ignore actual, objective data and > > accept subjective expressions? Why do you only accept what ever > > confirms what you already believe? > > Believe it or not--millions of people do it that way. Oh, I believe it. That is not a very defense. >Other people, seem > to believe any survey or research study that supports their points of > view. They discount any survey or research study that does NOT support > their points of view. Is that the way you do it. We know that that is the way you do it. You have already indicated as much. You have even defended the method by saying millions do it that way. No, I do not do what you do. > > One person told me that he would reject any survey or reasearch study that > was funded or done by a pro-life group. Gosh, you mean he would suspect the results of a study done by an organisation that exists to outlaw abortions? What possible reason would he have to do that? Surely any pro-life group would gladly publish data that hurt their cause, right? > See my point? That person would have rejected it since the results would > not have fit his point of view. Of course, he probably would have stated > that the study had no credibility.- How silly of him! I bet he is so perverse that he would have more confidence in a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal of science over a non-reviewed article written by an advocacy group. Some people! Seriously Jason one can only hope that you are pretending to be so incredibly obtuse. Jason you are unbelievable - and I mean that literally. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 21:36, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179511437.662520.225...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Maj, 18:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f2k7uu$gb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions > > > > > suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were > > > > > performed during the second or third trimesters. > > > > > Any source for this belief other than your ass? > > > > You are being disrespectful. My evidence is the women that I have seen > > > interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that > > > have told their stories in Church services. Even if I posted the survey > > > results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the > > > survey has no credibility.- > > > Of course it would, if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. > > Otherwise it amounts to propaganda. As far as the radio and > > television shows are concerned, has it ever occurred to you that they > > are not going to invite women who think they did the right thing > > getting an abortion and who suffered no long-term problems physical or > > mental? > > good point- In that case you are admitting that the post you posted one minute before was utter nonsense, but we all know by now that your "good point" is pure hypocrisy. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179511569.230981.15...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Maj, 19:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <5b5vjlF2okt3...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote > > > > > in message > > > >news:Jason-1805070140390001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <1179471115.012608.35...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > >> On 17 Maj, 22:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> > <snip> > > > > snip > > > > > I don't change my beliefs based on one study. For example, if I poste= > > d a > > > > > study that done by a pro-life organization that showed that 50 percen= > > t of > > > > > the women that had abortions suffered from severe depression--would y= > > ou > > > > > believe the survey results? > > > > > Maybe - Maybe not. > > > > > I also wouldn't care. > > > > > I'm sure some women do feel depressed after having an abortion. So what? > > > > That's they're problem. > > > > Someone told me that I don't care about women. It appears that you don't > > > have much sympathy for women that suffer from severe depression as a > > > result of having abortions. I do have sympathy for those women.- Skjul te= > > kst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > How about the greater number of women who completed their pregnancies > > and experienced depression, do you have sympathy for them; or is it > > only fantasy women you feel sorry for? > > Yes, I have sympathy for them. Those women that I mentioned were not > fantasy women. They were real women that suffered severe depression.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 18 Maj, 23:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f2ksf4$6j...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > L. Raymond wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > >> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin > > >> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that > > >> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some > > >> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get > > >> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have > > >> the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY > > >> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making > > >> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want > > >> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide > > >> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have > > >> babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is > > >> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that > > >> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn > > >> babies--prior to abortions. > > > > Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about > > > gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening > > > conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be > > > informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising > > > a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry > > > the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years? > > > Of course not. What do you think he is, a logical person?????? > > Several people requested that I had no real proof that lots of women > suffer severe depression as a result of abortions. They were correct. I > goggled "abortion depression" and was shocked at the number of sites that > appeared. I picked the one that was from a medical journal: > Here it is: No, you got it from a pro-life site. You are seeing their analysis of the report. Since the British Medical Journal has printed articles that say exactly the opposite of what is being implied, there is a strong suspicion of distortion. > > For Release 1/18/02 > > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > unintended first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides > with anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973 > Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. > > Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to > conduct the research. In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed about > depression, intendedness of pregnancy, and pregnancy outcome. A total of > 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery > between 1980 and 1992. > > An average of eight years after their abortions, married women were 138 > percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to > similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term. > Among women who were unmarried in 1992, rates of high risk depression were > not significantly different. The authors suggest that the lack of > significance in unmarried women may be explained by the higher rate of > nonreporting of abortions among unmarried women. Compared with national > averages, unmarried women in this study report only 30 percent of the > expected abortions compared with married women, who report 74 percent of > the expected abortions. This may make the results for married women more > reliable, say the authors. Another explanation is that unmarried women who > are raising a child without the support of a husband experience > significantly more depression than their married counterparts. > > Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are > all associated with greater post-abortion depression, anxiety, and > hostility, the authors conclude that the high rate of concealing past > abortions in this population (60 percent overall) would tend to suppress > the full effect of abortion on subsequent depression. Unreported abortions > would result in women who experience depression following an abortion > being misclassified as delivering women. > > "Given the very high rate of concealment of past abortions "the fact that > significant differences still emerged suggests that we are just catching > the tip of the iceberg," said David C. Reardon, Ph.D., the study's lead > author. > > Reardon, the director of the Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois, > says the study's findings are consistent with other recent research that > has shown a four to six fold increased risk of suicide and substance abuse > associated with prior abortion. He says the findings are also important > because this is the first national representative study to examine rates > of rates of depression many years after an abortion, on average > approximately eight years later in this sample. > > The data set used was the same as that used by feminist psychologist Nancy > Russo of Arizona State University, whose examination of a self-esteem > scale revealed no significant difference between aborting women and women > who carried to term. Russo concluded that the absence of difference in > self-esteem scores in this large national data set proved that abortion > has no "substantial and important impact on women's well-being." (see > critique of Russo study here.) > > According to Reardon, Russo's much publicized study has frequently been > used to support the claim that, on average, abortion has no significant > effect on women's mental health. The Elliot Institute's new analysis of > the same data set reveals that significant differences do exist. > > "The most serious flaw of the Russo study is that the authors did not even > comment on the extraordinarily high rate of concealment of past abortions > in the sample," Reardon said. "Women who do not want to mention a past > abortion are most likely the ones who will have unresolved feelings of > shame, guilt, or grief." > > Reardon says that another problem with the prior analysis was that Russo's > team relied solely on a measure of self-esteem that is not sensitive to > post-abortion stress. He says the examination of depression scores is more > relevant to the known negative reactions to abortion. > > "Russo's previous analysis of this data set was methodologically weak and > was frankly a poor basis on which to build the claim that abortion has no > measurable effect on women's well- being," he said. "The results of our > reexamination of this data set‹especially in combination with other > studies showing higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and other mental > health disorders associated with prior abortion‹shows that the Œno effect' > hypothesis should be rejected. Something is going on here. Where there is > this much smoke, despite the problem of high concealment rates, there is > likely to be a fire beneath the haze." > > Another important aspect of this study, says Reardon, is that is one of > only a few studies to use any pre-pregnancy psychological score as a > control variable. The most commonly used control variable used in > regarding emotional reactions is "pre-abortion" evaluation on the day of > the abortion when the woman is in the crux of emotional distress. This is > why a pre-pregnancy score is much more useful than a pre-abortion score > for evaluating the independent effect of abortion on long term emotional > reactions. > > Asked what the practical implications of this study are for physicians, > Reardon said: "We recommend that physicians should routinely inquire about > the outcome of all the patient's pregnancies. The simple question, ŒHave > you experienced any pregnancy losses such as miscarriage, abortion, > adoption, or stillbirth?' may be sufficient to give women permission to > discuss unresolved issues related to prior pregnancy losses. Physician's > should remember that there are few social contexts in which women feel it > is appropriate to discuss unresolved feelings about prior pregnancy loss. > Many patients will appreciate the opportunity to discuss their pregnancy > losses with an empathetic person and may welcome referrals for additional > counseling." > > The new study was funded by the Elliot Institute, a non-profit > organization that is involved in research and education regarding > post-abortion complications and also promotes outreach and counseling > programs for women. Reardon is the author of numerous books on > post-abortion issues, including The Jericho Plan: Breaking Down the Walls > Which Prevent Post-Abortion Healing and Making Abortion Rare: A Healing > Strategy for a Divided Nation. His newest book, Forbidden Grief: The > Unspoken Pain of Abortion, co-authored with Theresa Burke, will be > published in March of 2002. Information on these titles and other research > conducted by Dr. Reardon and the Elliot Institute can be found atwww.afterabortion.org. > > KEY POINTS: > > The association between abortion and subsequent depression persists over > at least eight years. > > Screening patients for a history of abortion may help physicians to > identify women who would benefit by a referral to counseling. > > The null hypothesis (the conjecture that there are no differences on > average between having an abortion and carrying an unintended pregnancy to > term) is rejected. > > # # # # > > Referenced Studies: > > Reardon DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National > Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study British Medical Journal, 324: > 151-152. Full text available atwww.bmj.com. > > Russo NF, Zierk K. Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being. > Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992; 23: 269-280. > > A sample of references to studies finding abortion to be associated with > subsequent substance abuse and suicide attempts. > > Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: > 1987-94: register linkage study. British Medical Journal, 1996; 313: > 1431-1434. > > Tischler C. Adolescent suicide attempts following elective abortion. > Pediatrics, 1981; 68(5): 670- 671. > > Morgan CM, Evans M, Peter JR, Currie C. Mental ... > > læs mere »- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn - > > - Vis tekst i anførselstegn - Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On 19 Maj, 01:50, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On 18 May 2007 10:46:16 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > >On 18 Maj, 09:54, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 18, 4:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1179473352.119729.116...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > On 18 Maj, 06:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <4h3q43h64tgggeh816im12husij76kg...@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > >> > > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > > On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:56:47 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > > >Do you believe that members of pro-life organizations should NOT be > >> > > > > >allowed to carry signs outside abortion clinics and the offices of doc= > >> > > tors > >> > > > > >that perform abortions? > > >> > > > > Do you believe that people should be allowed to follow men around > >> > > > > outside drug stores carrying anti-condom signs? > > >> > > > > > I heard about one pro-life group that carried > >> > > > > >signs on the city steet outside the home of a doctor that performed > >> > > > > >abortions. Do you think that those pro-life protestors should have been > >> > > > > >arrested? > > >> > > > > How would they have felt if people picketed their homes with "Doctor > >> > > > > Murderer" signs? > > >> > > > You failed to answer my questions. > >> > > Actually he did. > > >> > I wish that you had been one of my professors. When I was in college, I > >> > would not have passed any classes if I had answered all exam questions > >> > with a question. I was hoping for yes or no answers. > > >> Times have changed. Professors nowadays expect you to think about a > >> question and not simply answer with a "yes" or a "no". > > >Think about a question? How cruel! > > It's called "learning" - something an entire generation didn't have to > know about.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <f2qa0u$qjt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f2q0k1$non$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our > > universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of > > engineering, math, computers and science. > > > >> 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. > > > > The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching > > courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like > > chemistry and algebra. Some students graduate from American high schools > > and don't even know anything about chemistry, biology or algebra. I doubt > > that happens in other countries. > > I had a course in sex education once. Well. Not a course as such. One or > two hours in biology. You know that stuff about the condom and the > banana? It just is to show the basic facts. I.e. If you have sex, you > can get pregnant or get someone pregnant. If you want to avoid that and > also avoid diseases that are transmitted that way, a condom is a nice > idea. A condom is used this way.... (then the part with the banana). > (add to that some other facts and you probably end up with one or two > hours. Not much more) > > Actually not that much time has to be spent that way. IF you want to > make it really easy, you hand out free condoms as well. I, for one, will > let my son know that if he needs them, there will always be a stack of > condoms if he wants them. They will not be counted, there will be no > questions asked, all questions will be answered to the best of my > abilities. > Whether I have a use for them or not is not the question. > I will make it perfectly clear that there is a stack of them that he can > get at without the usual embarrassment teenagers are so frightened of > (never understood that myself. Go in the store, buy them, that's it). > > Maybe I am wrong, but in my case that lesson taught me nothing I did not > know before. > But for others, that might have been different. > It should not take that much time. Basic, simple facts. > > >> Well. I don't know the system in the US that well. It does not concern > >> me that much, but it should concern you. > > > > It concerns me but there is not much that can be done about it. The rich > > people have found a solution which is to send their children to private > > schools. The poor people and middle class people send their children to > > public schools. Many parents demand that their children take the college > > prep courses even if the children would prefer not to take the college > > prep courses. > > > > I rather hope my son will someday go to university. But if he doesn't > want to and rather do carpentry, thats his business. All I can do I will > do. But I can not do it for him. That he will have to do on his own. I > can support him and that I will do. Gladly, willingly, anyway I can. If > carpentry is what he wants to do, he can be assured that I will support him. > > (Not born yet.... So rather theoretical. If you are interested, so far > they say august) > > > > Tokay Tokay, We have both read articles indicating that American students are far behind students from other countries in terms of their knowledge of math and science. The only solution to that problem is to require all students to take at least one or more courses in algebra; a course in (college prep biology; and a course in college prep chemistry. That would help. When I was in high school, they had college prep biology course and a general biology course. The same teacher taught both classes. I took the college prep. biology class. It was very hard work but I learned a lot. I had a friend that took the general biology class. He let me take a look at his text book. You would have been amazed at the differences between our biology text books. His textbook appeared that it was written for 4th grade biology students. Is it any wonder why so many of the students that graduate from high school (that did not take the college prep courses) know almost nothing about algebra, biology or chemistry? I hope that you encourage your child to take the courses that will help him or her to become productive members of society. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2qa0u$qjt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f2q0k1$non$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our >>> universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of >>> engineering, math, computers and science. >>> >>>> 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. >>> The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching >>> courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like >>> chemistry and algebra. Some students graduate from American high schools >>> and don't even know anything about chemistry, biology or algebra. I doubt >>> that happens in other countries. >> I had a course in sex education once. Well. Not a course as such. One or >> two hours in biology. You know that stuff about the condom and the >> banana? It just is to show the basic facts. I.e. If you have sex, you >> can get pregnant or get someone pregnant. If you want to avoid that and >> also avoid diseases that are transmitted that way, a condom is a nice >> idea. A condom is used this way.... (then the part with the banana). >> (add to that some other facts and you probably end up with one or two >> hours. Not much more) >> >> Actually not that much time has to be spent that way. IF you want to >> make it really easy, you hand out free condoms as well. I, for one, will >> let my son know that if he needs them, there will always be a stack of >> condoms if he wants them. They will not be counted, there will be no >> questions asked, all questions will be answered to the best of my >> abilities. >> Whether I have a use for them or not is not the question. >> I will make it perfectly clear that there is a stack of them that he can >> get at without the usual embarrassment teenagers are so frightened of >> (never understood that myself. Go in the store, buy them, that's it). >> >> Maybe I am wrong, but in my case that lesson taught me nothing I did not >> know before. >> But for others, that might have been different. >> It should not take that much time. Basic, simple facts. >> >>>> Well. I don't know the system in the US that well. It does not concern >>>> me that much, but it should concern you. >>> It concerns me but there is not much that can be done about it. The rich >>> people have found a solution which is to send their children to private >>> schools. The poor people and middle class people send their children to >>> public schools. Many parents demand that their children take the college >>> prep courses even if the children would prefer not to take the college >>> prep courses. >>> >> I rather hope my son will someday go to university. But if he doesn't >> want to and rather do carpentry, thats his business. All I can do I will >> do. But I can not do it for him. That he will have to do on his own. I >> can support him and that I will do. Gladly, willingly, anyway I can. If >> carpentry is what he wants to do, he can be assured that I will support him. >> >> (Not born yet.... So rather theoretical. If you are interested, so far >> they say august) >> >> >> >> Tokay > > Tokay, > We have both read articles indicating that American students are far > behind students from other countries in terms of their knowledge of math > and science. The only solution to that problem is to require all students > to take at least one or more courses in algebra; a course in (college prep > biology; and a course in college prep chemistry. That would help. When I > was in high school, they had college prep biology course and a general > biology course. The same teacher taught both classes. I took the college > prep. biology class. It was very hard work but I learned a lot. I had a > friend that took the general biology class. He let me take a look at his > text book. You would have been amazed at the differences between our > biology text books. His textbook appeared that it was written for 4th > grade biology students. Is it any wonder why so many of the students that > graduate from high school (that did not take the college prep courses) > know almost nothing about algebra, biology or chemistry? I hope that you > encourage your child to take the courses that will help him or her to > become productive members of society. > > I will do all I can to teach him how to think. If he knows that, all else will fall into place. (I hope) Tokay -- If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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? >> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the >> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. >> >> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed >>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. >> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a >> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. >> >> What about Alexander the Great? >>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to >>> conquer. >> No idea. >> >> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. >> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion >> related ideologies. >> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the >> name of religion. >> >> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They >> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist >> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they >> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. >> >> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be >> fundamentalist idiots. >> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there >> was no religion. >> >> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And >> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. >> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more >> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the >> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. >> >> >> Tokay > > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But because he was a fundamentalist. > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > war as a fundamentalist theist? In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is no "holy land". So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like. Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide bombers. Tokay -- If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179693431.955600.57530@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 18 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179510218.722129.104...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > snip > > > > > > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. > > > > > Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal. > > > > The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin > > Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that > > Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. > > He did not have to lie. You do. > > > >We are succeeding in some > > of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get > > the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have > > the right to life. > > Meaning you want to force women to not have abortions. > > >People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY > > KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making > > people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want > > to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide > > not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have > > babies. > > See above. > > >In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is > > the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that > > requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn > > babies--prior to abortions. > > jason > > > And you want to make abortion illegal - i.e. force women to not have > an abortion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >However, I see nothing > > > > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion cl= > inics > > > > and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you > > > > think that pro-life protestors should be arrested? Did you forget to answer the above question with a yes or no answer? > > > > > Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they > > > picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal. > Did you forget to answer the above? They now have rules about where pro-life protestors can carry their signs. In most cases, it's on the public side walk out and NOT on the property of the abortion clinic or doctor's office. If Rev. Phelp's people followed the law, they should not be arrested. If they failed to follow the law, they should have been arrested. Do you believe that environmentalists that stand in the road and not allow huge trucks carrying logs to pass should be arrested? > > > >In one of the southern > > > > states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, = > we > > > > are winning the battle.- > > > > > Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for > > > themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not > > > lie about it again. > > > > Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America. > > I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from > > having an abortion. > > You want to make it illegal. You want to use force. > > >If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have > > the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would > > advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I > > would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If > > there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions > > illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > You still want to make it illegal. You keep evading that; are you > ashamed of it? The end goal of the pro-life movement is to influence the hearts and minds of American people to understand that unborn babies have the right to life. That's the reason it's called the pro-life movement. However, since abortion is now legal, we try to do what we can to encourage women to place their unwanted babies up for adoption. There is a bumper sticker that says ADOPTION--NOT ABORTION. If women come into pro-life counseling centers, many of the counselors arrange for the women to have 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies. The reason is to cause them to realize that they have a baby and not a mass of tissue or a POC (product of conception). If a woman still wanted to have an abortion, I would encourage them to take the morning after pill or have the abortion during the first trimester. There are other people in the pro-life community that would NEVER advise women that are seeking abortions to take the morning after pill or to have a first trimester abortion. We are not all of the same page related to these issues. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2005071712410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4emlu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) >> >> ... >> >> >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? >> >> Which states or countries? >> >> >The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person. >> >> Which states or countries? >> >> >If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be >> >considered a person in every case. >> >> Why? >> >> >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. >> >> Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 'the >> baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perfectly >> reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. >> >> Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get people >> to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correct in >> a legal sense. > >You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. However, >most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal >profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY ON >BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FETUS ON >BOARD". > >Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any >person that murders a fetus? For example, a boy friend has a pregnant >girlfriend that refuses to have an abortion. After the girlfriend reaches >the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kill the >fetus. The woman lives but the unborn baby dies. Do you think the cops >should charge that boyfriend with murder and assault or just assault and >battery? You made an assertion about the law. I've asked you to back it up with references and the dates that any such laws were passed. Traditionally this has never been murder in Common Law countries. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179693431.955600.57530@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 18 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179510218.722129.104...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> snip >>>>> I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. >>>> Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal. >>> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin >>> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that >>> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. >> He did not have to lie. You do. >> >> >>> We are succeeding in some >>> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get >>> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have >>> the right to life. >> Meaning you want to force women to not have abortions. >> >>> People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY >>> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making >>> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want >>> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide >>> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have >>> babies. >> See above. >> >>> In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is >>> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that >>> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn >>> babies--prior to abortions. >>> jason >> >> And you want to make abortion illegal - i.e. force women to not have >> an abortion. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> However, I see nothing >>>>> wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion cl= >> inics >>>>> and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you >>>>> think that pro-life protestors should be arrested? > > Did you forget to answer the above question with a yes or no answer? > >>>> Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they >>>> picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal. >> Did you forget to answer the above? > > They now have rules about where pro-life protestors can carry their signs. > In most cases, it's on the public side walk out and NOT on the property of > the abortion clinic or doctor's office. If Rev. Phelp's people followed > the law, they should not be arrested. If they failed to follow the law, > they should have been arrested. Do you believe that environmentalists that > stand in the road and not allow huge trucks carrying logs to pass should > be arrested? > >>>>> In one of the southern >>>>> states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, = >> we >>>>> are winning the battle.- >>>> Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for >>>> themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not >>>> lie about it again. >>> Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America. >>> I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from >>> having an abortion. >> You want to make it illegal. You want to use force. >> >>> If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have >>> the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would >>> advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I >>> would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If >>> there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions >>> illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> You still want to make it illegal. You keep evading that; are you >> ashamed of it? > > The end goal of the pro-life movement is to influence the hearts and minds > of American people to understand that unborn babies have the right to > life. That's the reason it's called the pro-life movement. They are miserable failures. They come across as shrill, unfeeling, and intolerant. They do not show any respect for the needs of women, and have been active in closing clinics that provide services to the community just because of the the occasional abortion. They get their jollies and make themselves feel virtuous by forcing themselves into the lives of others where they have no place. Your position would be far more moral if you stuck to your views of abortion without endorsing the anti-abortion, reproduction fascists who call themselves "prolife" the same way the Leninist minority called itself "Bolsheviks," meaning the majority party. > > However, since abortion is now legal, we try to do what we can to > encourage women to place their unwanted babies up for adoption. There is a > bumper sticker that says ADOPTION--NOT ABORTION. If women come into > pro-life counseling centers, many of the counselors arrange for the women > to have 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies. They use scare tactics and intimidation rather than actual counseling. That's the problem with these people. They sadistically intimidate rather than advising and support. They are morally vacuous. The reason is to > cause them to realize that they have a baby and not a mass of tissue or a > POC (product of conception). Whatever you want to call the fetus, it might be the result of rape. It may be that the woman cannot care for it, and may be otherwise facing some very difficult personal choices. How do you think it makes her feel if all these folks do is call her a murderer? And you wonder about post-abortion depression. Have there been studies of how much depression occurs in women who visit these so-called "pro-life counseling centers?" > > If a woman still wanted to have an abortion, I would encourage them to > take the morning after pill or have the abortion during the first > trimester. This puts you at odds with the reproduction fascists. Have you thought about what will happen to you if they find out? > There are other people in the pro-life community that would NEVER advise > women that are seeking abortions to take the morning after pill or to have > a first trimester abortion. We are not all of the same page related to > these issues. > As far as they are concerned, you might as well join Planned Parenthood and start donating time and money. Watch your back. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <1179694664.712177.299700@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 18 Maj, 21:36, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179511437.662520.225...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 18 Maj, 18:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <f2k7uu$gb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions > > > > > > suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were > > > > > > performed during the second or third trimesters. > > > > > > > Any source for this belief other than your ass? > > > > > > You are being disrespectful. My evidence is the women that I have seen > > > > interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that > > > > have told their stories in Church services. Even if I posted the survey > > > > results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the > > > > survey has no credibility.- > > > > > Of course it would, if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. > > > Otherwise it amounts to propaganda. As far as the radio and > > > television shows are concerned, has it ever occurred to you that they > > > are not going to invite women who think they did the right thing > > > getting an abortion and who suffered no long-term problems physical or > > > mental? > > > > good point- > > In that case you are admitting that the post you posted one minute > before was utter nonsense, but we all know by now that your "good > point" is pure hypocrisy. Just because some one makes a good point, it does not mean that I changed my point of view. For example, I am an advocate of Creation Science. Several people have made excellent points related to evolution. That did not mean that I was no longer an advocate Creation Science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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? > > Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the > fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. > > Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > > thousands of people in the Soviet Union. > > Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a > fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. > > What about Alexander the Great? > > Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > > conquer. > > No idea. > > The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. > Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion > related ideologies. > The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the > name of religion. > > See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They > both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist > or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they > did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. > > So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be > fundamentalist idiots. > The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there > was no religion. > > Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And > quite often, that is the driving force behind it. > That does not mean that without religion there will be no more > terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the > mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. > > > Tokay I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a war as a fundamentalist theist? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:05:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2005071805480001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... > >Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in >California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in >California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in >my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina >obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. >They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the >local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I >live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY >different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any >gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang >members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have >lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There >have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in >California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are >more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very >seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. >Jason > It's nice of you to admit your bias when you make your bigoted comments. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4emlu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) > > ... > > >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? > > Which states or countries? > > >The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person. > > Which states or countries? > > >If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be > >considered a person in every case. > > Why? > > >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. > > Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 'the > baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perfectly > reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. > > Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get people > to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correct in > a legal sense. You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. However, most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BABY ON BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FETUS ON BOARD". Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any person that murders a fetus? For example, a boy friend has a pregnant girlfriend that refuses to have an abortion. After the girlfriend reaches the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kill the fetus. The woman lives but the unborn baby dies. Do you think the cops should charge that boyfriend with murder and assault or just assault and battery? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <zz14i.8761$2v1.2033@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <PcS3i.1070$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. > > Not really. One could just as easily take the other side: that the > fetus was not a person, so only one count of murder would apply. > However, there is justice in considering the fetus in this case to be a > potential person. The reason is that late term abortions are quite rare, > so it can reasonably inferred that the fetus would have been carried to > term had the mother not been murdered. > > > > > > > >>>> 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? > > Be careful of your language - your question is ambiguous. Had it been > born 7 months ago, a baby. Had it been conceived 7 months ago and not > yet born, a fetus. It was conceived 7 months ago and it's dead and lying on the table--is it a fetus or a baby? > > > > >> 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. > > OK, that is a thoughtful and reasonable position, not particularly > different from that of many thoughtful people. > > But you don't approve of any abortions, regardless of when performed, right? That's more complicated and harder to answer but I will try: While abortion is still legal, it should be restricted to the first trimester unless the mother's life or health is in danger. The end goal of the pro-life movement is to eventually convince the vast majority of people that unborn babies have the right to life. We are not there yet. It may never happen. In the mean time, I would never force a woman to NOT have an abortion. I comply with the law. > > > > > > >>> > >>>> 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. > > > The morning after pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting itself > in the uterus, so it's not really an abortifact, it's a contraceptive, > even if a late one. > > If I understand you correctly, you condone the morning after pill and > abortions in the first trimester because you believe their impact on the > mother will be less that abortions performed later. You seem to oppose > late-term abortions unequivocally. > > Is that a correct statement of your position? Yes--the only exception would be if the mother's life or health was in danger. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <f2ql5q$g6n$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> 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? > >> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the > >> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. > >> > >> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > >>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. > >> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a > >> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. > >> > >> What about Alexander the Great? > >>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > >>> conquer. > >> No idea. > >> > >> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. > >> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion > >> related ideologies. > >> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the > >> name of religion. > >> > >> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They > >> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist > >> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they > >> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. > >> > >> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be > >> fundamentalist idiots. > >> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there > >> was no religion. > >> > >> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And > >> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. > >> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more > >> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the > >> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have > > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? > > I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But > because he was a fundamentalist. > > > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > > war as a fundamentalist theist? > > In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes > because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other > ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules > you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is > no "holy land". > > So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as > long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do > whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like. > > Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide > bombers. > > Tokay Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. Jason 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.