Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> 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.

>

That's too bad.

May 21, 2007

In article <1179711821.821571.302230@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 12:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > The president of Iran is a nut.

>

> as is the President of the US.

>

> Martin

He has been a terrible president.

May 21, 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?

> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a

> war as a fundamentalist theist?

>

No, a fundamentalist theist is more likely to start wars because he or

she would be more inclined to do it in the name of whatever deities they

happened to worship.

>

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> 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?

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?

>

> 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.

You take a rational approach. Just get rid of the fanatics who are

polluting your mental processes and you may be on the road to

intellectual freedom.

>>>

>>>>>> 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.

You would allow abortion at any time to save the mother's life?

>

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> 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.

You moved from a small town with a homogeneous population and not much

migration to the most heterogeneous state in the union, where all ethnic

groups live side by side. There will be differences. Everyone was the

whitebread same where you came from, but everyone is different where you

are. I live in San Francisco and raised two children here. I know about

the differences and the ethnic issues. Religion has nothing to do with

it. You have an unreasonable bias against atheists. If you are going to

live in a pluralistic state you had better get rid of any biases you have.

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <3W44i.1201$u56.1181@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> I don't let any organization tell me how to think. I am not a member of

> any pro-life organization.

>

Yet you are swayed by preachers who have been shown to be liars. Are

they from your church? If so, you are a member of a "pro-life"

organization.

May 21, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <bna7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:25:43 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>

>>> It was conceived 7 months ago and it's dead and lying on the table--is it

>>> a fetus or a baby?

>> Neither; it's a corpse.

>

> Thanks--I agree that it's a human corpse. Do you agree that it is also a

> dead baby?

>>>> 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

>> Cuz you say so? You'll have to come up with something more compelling

>> than that.

>>

>>> 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.

>> Yes, we know. What the pro-lifers fail to grasp is that in so doing, they

>> remove rights from the mothers; they reduce women from being people to

>> being brood mares.

>>

>> We - the choicers - don't see that as a good thing. You can look at it,

>> if you like, in terms of comparison: whose rights matter more; those of an

>> actual, real, established person, or those of something which, if

>> everything goes absolutely perfectly, may at some point become a person?

>>

>> Keep in mind that a lot of fetuses are spontaneously aborted, that

>> accidents happen, that diseases picked up by the host could cause

>> termination and on and on and on; pregnancy is not a guarantee of delivery.

>>

>> So, a woman is pregnant. She is a person. She has a life. She has

>> rights. Her fetus, on the other hand, may turn into a person, if the

>> host can avoid accident, injury, disease, undue stress, etc, etc, etc.

>> Why then do its rights, despite the uphill battle it faces to ever

>> become a person in the best of cases, outweigh the rights of someone who

>> actually is a person, with the rights of a person?

>>

>> It goes even further. You see, those cases can be applied to both women

>> who don't want to bear children and those who do. Let's take it one step

>> further: why does this thing which may, if all goes perfectly, get to not

>> merely void the woman's rights, but do so in a manner which is completely

>> contrary to her desires and involves it being able to suck energy,

>> nutrition, the very essence of life out of a host that does not want it in

>> the first place, while also placing significant limitations on the host's

>> ability to work, exercise and otherwise continue life as normal?

>>

>> Let's put that in more directly personal terms. You are a person. So am

>> I. We each have certain rights. Under what circumstances do you think

>> I should be allowed to jack a feeding tube into you, suck out your

>> nutrients, severely impair your ability to go about your daily life, and

>> do all this without your consent, against your personal wishes and

>> rights to control your own body?

>>

>> I rather expect you're going to say never, but if I - as a full person,

>> with actual rights as a person, have no right to force you into this, on

>> what basis do you argue that something which isn't a person, has no

>> such rights, should be allowed to do this to another?

>>

>> Fine, you don't want abortions. Sounds good to me, I have no quarrel with

>> that part of the equation. The issue isn't about abortion, though; it's

>> about the rights of the mother, the rights your side wants to rip away

>> from her as if she wasn't a person at all, simply a chamber for growing

>> fetuses.

>>

>> If you really want to avoid abortion, my take is this: stop trying to turn

>> women into breeding slaves. Instead, work on raising money for research.

>> Develop better incubators. Develop means to transplant a fetus to another

>> host.

>>

>> That would be particularly interesting, IMO. Consider the situation where

>> a fetus can be removed from one uterus and implanted into another. Now

>> the pro-lifers will really have to show where their convictions lie. What

>> would the implications be?

>>

>> The pro-life women, of course, would now be in the position of either

>> lining up for implantation or being shown to be hypocrites - they're

>> willing to inconvenience others for their beliefs, but when it comes to

>> actually inconveniencing themselves, will they?

>>

>> And what of the pro-life men? They're already trying to turn women into

>> breeding machines; will they turn that around and tell their wives and

>> sisters and daughters that they must now become hosts for unwanted

>> fetuses? Will they be as willing to strip away a woman's rights if that

>> woman is one of their own?

>>

>> Of course, last I checked, we're not there yet. Still, it's an

>> interesting thing to ponder - exactly how far is a pro-lifer willing to go

>> to show their beliefs are real, not just beliefs of convenience. Would

>> you tell your daughter she has no choice, she must become a host because

>> some woman is having an abortion?

>>

>>> 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.

>> No, you wouldn't force her... but you're perfectly happy to sustain and

>> promote an environment where simply making that choice, she faces all

>> sorts of unnecessary emotional turmoil, not because she is having the

>> procedure, but because you don't think she should. You're happy to

>> inflict your views on her , with complete disregard for her as a

>> person, as long as she can be compelled to bear the fetus she does not

>> want to bear.

>

> Thanks for your post. You are looking at this issue from the pregnant's

> woman's point of view. The truth is that pregnant woman have legal rights.

> The members of Pro-Choice groups represent them. On the other hand, the

> unwanted unborn babies of pregnant women presently have NO legal rights.

> Someone has to fight for them.

Not at all. They have no rights until birth.

The constitution says that everyone in

> America has the right to life. However, unborn babies do NOT have the

> right to life. The members of pro-life organizations are fighting for

> those unwanted unborn babies and are trying to influence people to help

> them understand that unwanted unborn babies should have the right to life.

If they did it in a moral way it might make a difference. These people

place the fetus ahead of the mother and her family. They often favor

capital punishment, which leads me to believe that their approach to

preserving people's lives is inconsistent.

> We are not there yet. In the mean time, the best that we can hope for is

> to convince as many women as possible to use the morning after pill or get

> abortions during the first trimester. The only exception is if the

> mother's life was in danger. Can you understand my point?

>

May 21, 2007

In article <1179712989.318333.42430@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 12:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > 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.

>

> The killer would, in much the same way that a pro-lifer does, have

> prevented the woman from exercising her right to choose whether to

> have the baby or not.

>

> > 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?

>

> Only 1.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks so after abortions

> after 7 months (or 30 weeks) would be so rare that they could

> rightfully be described as a "pro-life" myth.

This baby was part of that 1.4%. Is it a dead baby or a dead fetus?

my answer: a dead baby--what is 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.

>

> I think you meant to say "only". There are valid reasons why a woman

> may need an abortion after three months (or 14 weeks).

Yes--I just thought of at least one other reason--the doctor determines

that the fetus is dead.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

>

> "In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from

> 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have

> abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.

> These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they

> had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The

> results were as follows:[3]

>

> "71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

> 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

> 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

> 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

> 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change

> 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

> 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant

> 6% Woman didn't know timing is important

> 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

> 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

> 11% Other"

>

> Note that 48% of women had abortions in the second trimester at least

> partly because they lacked access to abortion. If women had better

> access to abortion then the question of late term abortions for non-

> medical reasons would be almost a non-issue.

>

> Laws in the United States do currently, in most states, already place

> restrictions on late term abortions.

>

> "The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe

> v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability

> abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

>

> "As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were

> not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined

> by court order.[17] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of

> Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term

> abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

>

> "Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to

> be unconstituational.[18] [19]The Supreme Court has held that bans

> must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical

> health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions

> only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the

> woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of

> health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.

> [17] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed,

> then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be

> struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always

> necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render

> narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[20]

>

> "Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks'

> gestation (usually 24 weeks).[17] The U.S. Supreme Court held in

> Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a

> presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which

> case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the

> presumption by performing tests.[21] Therefore, those 13 states must

> provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly

> written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in

> Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is

> unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-

> viability abortions".[18]

>

> "Ten states require a second physician to approve.[17] The U.S.

> Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other

> physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by

> co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and

> unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[22] Pro-choice

> organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret

> some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and

> other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state

> laws require approval of a second or third physician.[17]

>

> "Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present

> during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born

> alive.[17] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not

> infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions

> performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the

> fetus.[23]"

>

> It sounds to me then that you wish the laws to stay exactly as they

> are now. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

You stated that 10% of abortions are NOT done in the first trimester.

>

> > > >> 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.

>

> This would only be an issue if killing a mother killing her fetus

> constituted murder. It doesn't. By the same token, somebody can

> refuse treatment for a family member who is dying and unable to speak

> for himself. I personally wouldn't want to be refused treatment but I

> can't speak for everybody.

Most women that have had abortions know that a killing took place. The

exception might be the morning after pill because the woman may not know

for sure whether or not she was pregnant.

>

> Martin

May 21, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:39:27 -0700, Jason wrote:

>> Neither; it's a corpse.

>

> Thanks--I agree that it's a human corpse. Do you agree that it is also a

> dead baby?

It's a corpse. That's all we can say. If it was delivered - hence a baby

- and is now dead, then yes, it's a dead baby. Was it? It's not stated

in the problem.

> Thanks for your post. You are looking at this issue from the pregnant's

> woman's point of view.

No, I'm looking at it from the point of view of a person capable of

thinking, with compassion, with the ability to analyze and consider all

aspects of the situation; how that requires that I be a pregnant woman

isn't clear.

> The truth is that pregnant woman have legal

> rights.

Rights you're trying to strip them of. Yes, we know this; that was, in

fact, the gist of what I was saying.

> The members of Pro-Choice groups represent them.

Among other things, but yes...

> On the other

> hand, the unwanted unborn babies of pregnant women presently have NO

> legal rights.

Things that don't exist don't have rights, you are correct. Maybe you

should speak of things which do exist. Fetuses, for example.

> Someone has to fight for them.

Fight for the non-existent? Why?

> The constitution says that

> everyone in America has the right to life.

Where "everyone" means "every person", not "every living thing"; if it

meant the latter, beef would be illegal. So again, the question comes down

to this: is a fetus a person? (Note I'm giving you a break here and

examining this in terms of fetuses, rather than in terms of things that

don't exist, as you persist in trying to do.)

> However, unborn babies do NOT

> have the right to life.

Correct; things which don't exist don't have rights. On the other hand,

fetuses do exist, but they don't have the rights of a person, as they are

not deemed to be persons.

> The members of pro-life organizations are

> fighting for those unwanted unborn babies

Yeah, we know what you're doing. We don't even disagree with it. What we

disagree with is the effects of what you do, and you folks persist in

completely ignoring that for some reason.

> exception is if the mother's life was in danger. Can you understand my

> point?

We know your point. That's not the issue, never has been. Now how about

answering some of the questions I asked, since I note you completely

failed to. I can only assume that's because you refuse to accept the

implications of your views and actions and thus can't stomach dealing with

what you're faced with.

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 7:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179693431.955600.57...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

> gudl...@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?

He answered your question but you never answered his.

Martin

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 7:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> 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.

The question is "Why not?" At the point where you can't refute

anybody's argument, doesn't it fall upon you to at least consider that

they may be right? What is the sense of saying "Good point... but I

know you are wrong anyway. I just do."?

Martin

May 21, 2007

In article <5J6dnRyHiqysY83bnZ2dnUVZ_uXinZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan

<danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <4hm153thas8lqc7mjafmc7ha3eu2i3v8nu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> 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.

> >

> > I googled this term: fetus murdering. The following info. came from the

> > first site. Feel free to google that same term:

> >

> > Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

> > By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

> > Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

> > Tags: (all tags)

> >

> > California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

> >

> > The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

> > Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

> > homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

> > 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

> > know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

>

> Check again.

>

> Compare and contrast:

>

> "The woman lives but the unborn baby dies."

>

> "[T]he killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the

> perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant."

If the woman lived and the baby died--it appears from me that it would

count as one one homicide. The case in question involved a pregnant woman

that was murdered. However, the legal principle is the same.

You appear to have missed the MAIN point: The California Supreme Court is

actually saying that the fetus has legal rights. In fact, in this case,

the fetus was treated the same as the mother in terms of legal rights.

My point is that ALL fetuses should have the same rights as the fetus

mentioned in this court case.

Jason

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 8:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4e...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > J...@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?

In addition to assaulting her, he also took away her right to chose

whether or not to have her baby.

Martin

May 21, 2007

In article <ojv153dkqlaup8r40inpk2nnk69ft0cr6i@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:03:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-2005072003090001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <4hm153thas8lqc7mjafmc7ha3eu2i3v8nu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> 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.

> >

> >I googled this term: fetus murdering. The following info. came from the

> >first site. Feel free to google that same term:

> >

> >Calif. Court Upholds Fetal Murder Law

> >By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions

> >Posted on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:01:25 PM EST

> >Tags: (all tags)

> >

> >California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law:

> >

> > The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law

> >Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two

> >homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The

> >6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must

> >know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

> >

>

> Yes, a law that is new and takes into account the fact that fetuses are

> not humans under the law.

The man was charged with two homicides instead of one homicide. The fetus

was viewed as fully human in this court ruling. The judges made the right

decision. Fetuses are fully human.

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 7:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > 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?

As atheism is the lack of a belief, it doesn't make sense to be a

"fundamentalist atheist". It is possible to be atheist and a

fundamentalist communist, however, but then communism is, itself, a

dogmatic belief system not unlike religion.

Martin

May 21, 2007

In article <1179713104.454891.140750@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <f2q0k1$non$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> >

> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > > Jason wrote:

> > > > In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

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

> >

> > > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, J...@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

>

> or biology (including the theory of evolution).

>

> Martin

Yes--except for private Christian schools--they teach evolution and

creation science.

May 21, 2007

In article <n6d7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:46:11 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > It's a POC but is it also a dead baby?

>

> Depends - is it in a baggie?

You know that it's a dead baby but are refusing to admit it. Don't feel

bad--other people also failed to give an answer.

May 21, 2007

On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: