Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:37:31 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >No, there wouldn't be much chaos at all. If the US began using nuclear >weapons there would be very many dead people, but that wouldn't >necessarily imply chaos as a result. If we really started dropping nukes there wouldn't be any chaos at all .... after a few short weeks. That's about how long it would take for the last person to die of radiation poisoning. BushCo would get its wish - total annihilation. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 11:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179712989.318333.42...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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'm saying this might not be a real life situation. I've never heard of a woman in America having an abortion after 30 weeks. > > > 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. That would be rare. > >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. As I tried to explain to Kelsey and will now explain to you, women who never wanted to be pregnant will have their abortions in the first trimester if they have easy access to abortion. Making late term abortions (ie abortions in the third trimester) illegal would be irrelevent at that point. > > > > >> 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. Unsupported assertion. > The > exception might be the morning after pill because the woman may not know > for sure whether or not she was pregnant. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 12:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179713104.454891.140...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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). > > Yes--except for private Christian schools--they teach evolution and > creation science. If they take "creation science" seriously then they are not providing a proper education. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:44:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (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. Those children are educated - to the university level - in good schools, and driven (not forced) to study by parents to whom a good education is important. Ours are "educated" in religious-indoctrination camps, laughingly called schools. Once our kids - semi-literate, and religiously indoctrinated - get to the university level, all they're really qualified for is "schools" like Liberty University - for more religious indoctrination. Remember also - there are a few billion kids who aren't sent to universities in the US - only the very brightest small fraction of one percent are. (They're only noticeable because 75 years ago there were none at all.) A higher percentage of our kids get there. >Many of them major in engineering. Very few of them can major in any science that requires a thorough understanding of evolution. That means just about ALL of the biological sciences. It's why we have superbugs - doctors who weren't thinking "evolution", because God made all bacteria and viruses the way they are, he gave man dominion over all things, and that won't change. >I agree that we are falling behind. One >of the reasons is because our high school teachers have to teach courses >like sex education; art appreciation; and sociology. Sex education is good - we all have something to do with it. Sociology is an elective, but there's nothing wrong with knowing how society - of which we're all a part - works. Art appreciation is an elective. (I'm talking about real schools, here, not baby-sitting services for teens.) >They should be teaching lots more courses in higher math. They should be teaching math. Most secondary schools don't teach much. >They do that in private college prep. high schools. They teach "getting into a good college" math. That's not learning math, that's learning how to have a good, Republican, Christian resume. >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. And their parents don't think that being a "grind" is good for kids. Uneducated kids aren't the fault of defective schools, they're the fault of defective parents. The parents don't want to hear about that - they want to blame the school and the teacher if Johnny fails - but he wouldn't have failed if education had been important to his parents. >Those lazy students could not get away with that if they >attended college prep. private schools. Which they can't get into if they're lazy. You're confusing the cause and the effect. Heart attacks do not cause cholesterol plaque build-up in coronary arteries. If the kids aren't lazy they can get into the good schools, where - surprise - they won't be lazy. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 1:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Gs-dnWmCbctIjszbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdn...@comcast.com>, DanielSan > > <danielsan...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <5J6dnRyHiqysY83bnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>, DanielSan > > > <danielsan...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <4hm153thas8lqc7mjafmc7ha3eu2i3v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:12:41 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >>>> <Jason-2005071712410...@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >>>>> 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? > > >>>> 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. > > > Cite relevant case law. > > I don't know about case law related to this court decision. It's my > opinion that ALL fetuses should have the same rights as the fetus in this > court decision. In the months and years to come, it's possible this court > decision could be used to expand the rights of fetuses--based upon the > results of future cases and court decisions. Only time will tell. The law is described in the link provided. California: Keeler v. Superior Court Supreme Court of California, 1970. "The majority reasons that the defendant may only be indicted for murder if the fetus was a "human being" under the definition used in the California murder statute. The words "human being" were chosen at the time the statute was written, which was in 1850. The court argues that in 1850, an infant could only be murdered if it had been born alive. Therefore, the words did not mean to include fetuses." http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/criminallaw/keelervsuperiorcourt.html Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:24:56 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >Agreed. But what is the solution? Around here I think it works ok. The last time I was there, in 1978, the kids in their mid to late teens (high school, in the US) seemed to be pretty well educated. At least, those I spoke with could carry on a pretty intelligent conversation. And that was in a little back-woods village (Unterkochen - in Schwaben, I believe). Even the 6-year-old son of a colleague sounded well-educated for his age. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:52:06 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. But not those educated UP TO the university point here. You can't make sweet whipped cream with sour milk. >The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching >courses like that Your opinion. What with religious nutters pretty much forcing school districts to stay away from subjects they consider not fit to teach, most kids graduate high school today with no knowledge of birth control, STD control, how (aside from penile-vaginal insertion) pregnancy can occur, etc. ALL those things should be known by the time a child thinks about becoming sexually active (which is about the time the child ENTERS puberty). >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. You can't teach actual biology by teaching that evolution is just a theory that isn't going to me talked about. >It concerns me but there is not much that can be done about it. There's plenty that CAN be done about it, there's just nothing that WILL be done about it, because of the general feeling that freedom to practice one's religion means that one can restrict what children of another religion can learn. Teach real biology and, if certain parents want to have their kids excused from taking the courses, give those kids diplomas that don't require biology. Or require that in order to receive a HS diploma, or equivalent, a child must have a complete secular education. If the parents want to "teach" their child that the school is wrong about evolution, that's their business, but the child is still required to learn that 2 + 2 DOES NOT equal 5, and that stopping your medication as soon as you feel better WILL cause the bacteria to evolve to drug-resistant strains. Religion and scientific advancement are mutually exclusive. We can be a Christian nation or we can be a modern nation, but we can't be both. The Dark Ages are proof enough of that. >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. Around here, the middle class demands that the school provides an education. It also demands that the kids get that education. Maybe that's counter-intuitive to some, but it works. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:25 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >(Not born yet.... So rather theoretical. If you are interested, so far >they say august) Congratulations and best wishes. And tell your wife that she has my sympathy - 9 months pregnant in the hottest part of the year. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 01:09:52 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >I will do all I can to teach him how to think. If he knows that, all >else will fall into place. >(I hope) It usually does. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 20 May 2007 14:16:11 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >On 19 Maj, 01:50, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> It's called "learning" - something an entire generation didn't have to >> know about. >The good old days. I skipped an entire generation. Mine was required to think. My daughter's was required to think. There seems to have been one in between that wasn't, and they're passing that on to their kids. We used to lose points for spelling errors in math class, and for math errors in history class. Today the teachers don't tell the kids that they're wrong - that would hurt their feelings. They're right, but in a different way. In my day, we called that way "wrong" and you lost points for it. I was in 4th grade [about 9 years old] with a 12 year old. He failed, he was left back - 3 times. He spent his life as a laborer. Not a genius, but an honest man who fathered 3 pretty great kids - all college graduates. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <Gs-dnWmCbctIjszbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > Cite relevant case law. I don't know about case law related to this court decision. It's my opinion that ALL fetuses should have the same rights as the fetus in this court decision. In the months and years to come, it's possible this court decision could be used to expand the rights of fetuses--based upon the results of future cases and court decisions. Only time will tell. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <ruj7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:21:56 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Yes, I do believe that a human fetus is more important than any animal. > > And more important than people, too. > > > I believe that people are more important than animals. > > Granted. However, you also argue a point that requires, as its conclusion, > that people are less important than fetuses. You elevate it to an > Uberbeing, something which has the privilege to override the rights of > others. > > > I don't place the unborn child ahead of the mother. > > Yes, you do. I know you don't think so, but the only way you can convince > yourself of this is to completely ignore the implications of your > position. > > > The mother clearly > > has legal rights. > > Rights you want to summarily strip away for the purposes of preserving > something which is not even deemed to be a person. You don't merely > want to grant it equality, but to elevate it above the status of person, > so its rights can override those of a person. > > > Unborn babies have no legal rights. > > Non-existent things rarely do. You see the fetus as NON-EXISTENT. That is our main source of disagreement. I see the fetus as EXISTENT. In fact, a third trimester fetus can clearly be seen on a 3D color ultrasound. The California Supreme Court even stated in at least one court decision that a fetus and the mother were equal. When a man murdered a pregnant woman, the murderer was convicted of TWO murders. I also see a fetus and the mother of that unborn baby as equal. > > > The only people > > that are fighting for unwanted unborn babies are the members of pro-life > > groups > > So you're saying the pro-lifers are a pack of clueless idiots, campaigning > for the rights of things that don't exist? They do exist. The California Supreme Court agrees with me on this issue--at least in relation to one of their court rulings. > > > and other people like myself. It's my opinion that the staff > > members of Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics are major enemies of > > unwanted unborn babies. > > I'm probably an enemy of God and Ra and Odin as well. I can't tell you > how much it concerns me to be the enemy of something which just doesn't > seem to exist. > > > I'm surprised that you are not also fighting for > > the rights of unwanted unborn babies since at one time--you and I were > > both unwanted children. > > No, you were both at one time unborn fetuses. After delivery, of course, > you were children. Nice try, though. > > Now, how about actually answering the questions I've put to you twice, the > ones which you seem to be avoiding in their entirety? Please re-write your questions Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <bgj7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:18:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > 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. > > <quote> > Are you saying that after an abortion--there is not a dead baby? > </quote> > > An abortion, pretty much by definition, is an act of killing something. > There is, under consideration, a dead thing, presumably as a result of the > operation. Thus the question is, is it a dead baby or a dead fetus? > > A baby, at least as most people use the term, is a person. Yes, there can > be baby elephants, but that's not what we're discussing here; we're > discussing baby humans - small, immature, undeveloped persons. > > Now, the supposition is that this thing - which may or may not be a person > - was killed during the abortion. Thus, we have two basic possibilities: > > 1) It is - or rather, was - a person, who was killed by the doctor. Since > there are very few situations where you can kill a person without penalty > - war, defense of self or loved ones, etc - and none of those apply here, > this would, in fact, be a murder and the doctor would now be facing a > murder charge - possibly many, if he's done this before. > > 2) It is not a person, in which case its killing, however we may feel > about it, is not a murder, and the doctor is not going to be prosecuted as > a result of his actions. > > Of course, laws change, so we cannot very well use the fact you haven't > reported him for murder as indicative of anything other than the fact that > even you don't believe this is - or was - a person. We'll need to look > elsewhere. > > We'll need to look, for example, at the implications of treating it as a > person, versus treating it as a non-person, to determine which is the most > viable, the most defensible, in terms of what we consider a person and > what rights we grant a person. > > I note you completely failed, in another post, to deal with those > questions, so I will raise them again. I am a person, so are you. Thus we > are dealing with an indisputable case, not a case where the status is in > doubt. > > Under what conditions do I, as a person, have the right to override your > rights, to plug my body into yours so as to gain sustenance, over your > wishes? > > There must be such a case; there must be conditions under which you agree > I have the right to force you, via legal means, to have this done to you > against your own wishes. > > You see, if there is no such case, then you are in fact agreeing that one > person does not have the right to do this to another... yet you maintain > that a fetus does have the right to do this to a person - the mother - > against her wishes. > > Thus you are not simply trying to elevate a fetus _to_ the status of a > person, you are trying to elevate it _above_ that status, to a new level, > where its rights can override the rights of a person, force them to let an > unwanted thing to actually feed off them. > > So again I ask, under what conditions do you agree that I should have the > rights to do this to you, even against your wishes? When do I gain the > right to parasitize your body for my benefit and demand you simply accept > this, regardless of your feelings? > > If I, as a person, have no right to do this to you, on what basis do you > argue that something else, something which isn't even established to be a > person, should have that right? And how do you justify not merely > treating this thing as a person, but elevating it above the status of a > person, so that its rights take precedence over those of another? > > I see why you failed to answer this; I'm quite certain you cannot in good > conscience - i.e. honestly - state there are any conditions under which I > should be allowed to parasitize you against your wishes, in denial of your > rights... yet that is exactly what you're demanding others subject > themselves to. Why is it okay for them to be subject to this, and not you? > > Oh, right, because like all pro-lifers, it's about someone else . It is > never about you doing what you think is right, it's about making someone > else do what you think is right. Put you back in the picture, subject > you to the same treatment and you have no answer; you're certainly not > shouting from the rooftops that I should be able to do this to you, now > are you? > > Nor is this purely hypothetical. A simple example might be if I was in > liver failure and needed a new liver. If one doesn't become available > really fast - days at the outside - I'm going to die. Of course, you > have a working liver... why am I not allowed to jack myself into your > system, use your liver to filter out the toxins? You don't even have to > agree; that's kind of the point - by the position you defend, I should > have the right to do this to you even if you don't want me to. > > So... is this post-abortion thing a "baby"? I say no, as the case has not > been made for that yet. You _also_ say no, though you don't realize it; > your position is that it is not a baby - a person - but something more, > something so special it has the right to override the rights of other > people, against their wishes, which is not something we generally grant to > those who are, like the rest of us, just "people". Persons. > > Feel free to make a case that it is a baby - a person. Do not, however, > at any point in doing so, attempt to convince us that it has rights which > are not granted to all persons equally, or you are not arguing that it is > a baby, but a special case - you are engaging in special pleading at that > point, committing a fallacy, and if we grant your request, we also grant > that it is so important that we, as mere people, are subject to and to be > subjugated to its needs over our own rights, will and choices. > > So, you were saying? You made many excellent points in your post. It appears that you have had some legal training. I ask you to read this court decision: 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. < SF Pot Guru Wins Civil Suit | Freedom Fighters Needed in LA > The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news Since you have an understanding of legal issues, you should understand that six out of seven members of the California Supreme Court took a close look at this issue. I have stated in at least a dozen posts that a fetus is equal to the mother of that fetus. It appears to me that six out of seven members of the California Court agrees with me at least in regard to this court decision. I have NEVER stated in any post that a fetus should have more rights than the mother of that fetus. Several people claimed that I believe that--but I know more about what I believe or think than anyone else. Yes, your point that if pro-lifers or myself forcing a woman to carry a baby to term would be over-riding the mother's right is a good point. My answer: Pro-lifers or myself would never do that. We follow the law. If a woman wants to have an abortion, pro-lifers or myself will not prevent it. If it ever does happen, it will because the laws were changed and I doubt that will happen for many years to come. Even if it did happen, the experts claim that abortion would still be legal in at least 20 or more so called liberal states. Women would have to travel to those states to get abortions. That will not happen during our life times. If I failed to answer any of your questions, repeat them in your next post. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179720512.091220.293150@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, You are 100 percent correct. That is probably the major reason that the liberals on the court voted with the majority. My memory is not perfect but seem to recall that Planned Parenthood was hoping that the decision would be different in this case since they are concerned that this court decision could be used to uphold the rights of fetuses in other court cases. Is the word for this precedent? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <OA84i.21437$YL5.18045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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? > > > > > YES Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:35:08 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > The following is an example of moral relativism. As Kelsey seems to > think that it is alright to snip a person's comments and claim he > didn't make his point, I shall do likewise rather than argue that he > is being immoral. > > <snip everything he wrote> > > I see Kelsey failed to make any point whatsoever and thus the debate > is over and I have won by default. > > Incidentally, if we were living in a world in which people regarded > slavery as perfectly acceptable (as they did in Biblical times) then, > yes, it would not be considered morally wrong to own a slave. It is > actually a good thing that the majority of people DO NOT see slavery > as acceptable and thus it is considered immoral. That is, quite > simply, how the real world works. > > Martin I note that, in your whiny little snit, you again failed to make your point. Very well, we can conclude this; you have no point to make and are simply whining because you can. A very compelling argument, that, screaming "Is too, is too" like a spoiled child. It's amazing everyone isn't just overwhelmed by the logic of the position. <snicker> Another twit self immolates while trying to blame it on the rest of us. It's kinda cute, actually. I'm sure, of course, if you ever do actually find a point to make, you'll be sure to actually make it, right? -- I am telepathic. I am greatly feared by many who I have demonstrated the ability to. They run like hell and stay as far away from me as they can. - Pat Parrinello Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >In article <53b2531jpnbbcqquntn4tskm1lu0du8pbf@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: [...] >> Around here, the middle class demands that the school provides an >> education. It also demands that the kids get that education. Maybe >> that's counter-intuitive to some, but it works. >The worst schools seem to be the public schools located in huge cities. >That's one of the reasons parents move out of the city. ....which is pretty funny, coming from you - since you're knee-deep in a community of around 25 million people, from Santa Barbara to San Diego. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <lsh7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. We are in agreement--it's a dead baby. The end result of every abortion is a dead baby. > > > 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 fetus is existent--it can even be seen on a 3D color ultrasound. > > 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.) 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. Now--you tell me--is the fetus a person? If not, it means a man was convicted of murdering what you call a non-existent. > > > 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. See the above court decision. A murderer was convicted of murdering a fetus. He is now in prison. > > > 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. Ask any questions that I failed to answer in your next post. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179720230.600019.50170@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 No--I have reasons and answers--I just don't like to have to repeat the answers dozens of times. You already know my answers. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <oy84i.21436$YL5.12746@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com 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? > > 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. I hate to state it but based upon my understanding of history--you are correct. The next war will probably be started by a religious nutcase--the president of Iran. He actully stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world." Once he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel--we will have to retaliate--probably with our own Nukes. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:34:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > You made many excellent points in your post. It appears that you have had > some legal training. None whatsoever. I assume you are, in fact, going to dodge those questions I asked, right? After all, dealing with them would pretty much force you into conclusions you don't want to deal with, right? > 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. Again, as I posted elsewhere, this is not the law, it is a sound bite. Show us the law, in all its gory details, preferably with the rationale leading up to it, that we might see the reality of it, not the Reader's Digest condensed version. > Since you have an understanding of legal issues Only insofar as any thinking person has _some_ grasp of them. I am well aware that, as another long before me put it, "The law is an ass" - it frequently involves things which are best described as completely insane. >, you should understand > that six out of seven members of the California Supreme Court took a > close look at this issue. Perhaps, but we have not seen their reasoning or their decision, therefore we have no actual "meat" of the matter, nothing to actually examine. > I have stated in at least a dozen posts that a > fetus is equal to the mother of that fetus. Sort of. You say that, but you don't actually show that; what you show is that the fetus is superior, and that the mother can be reduced, on a whim, from person to brood mare. > It appears to me that six > out of seven members of the California Court agrees with me at least in > regard to this court decision. Err... no. At most what you've shown is that in some undefined set of circumstances, it is possible to regard the killing of a fetus as murder. Even if we agree with this, we have no basis - from what's at hand - on which to determine what those conditions are. Simple example; it could read "If the fetus is within two weeks of expected date of delivery", in which case equivocating "fetus" as a general term with "fetus under those conditions" is just that - equivocating. So again, post the discussion and the actual ruling; sound bites tell us nothing of any actual use. > I have NEVER stated in any post that a > fetus should have more rights than the mother of that fetus. Really? So you are perfectly okay with second and third term abortions, not to save the mother's life, but simply because she wants one. Got it. That's not what you keep saying, but okay. > Several > people claimed that I believe that Because you keep demonstrating that belief. >--but I know more about what I believe > or think than anyone else. Obviously; otherwise I wouldn't have posed those questions I did, I would simply have told you what you believed. > Yes, your point that if pro-lifers or myself > forcing a woman to carry a baby to term would be over-riding the > mother's right is a good point. No, that wasn't quite the point. Try actually answering the questions posed. > My answer: Pro-lifers or myself would > never do that. Ah, so you're perfectly fine with the concept of late-term abortions, have no issues with it, would never even make a post suggesting these were a bad idea, right? I mean hell, if you'd never force a woman to do that, this also includes supporting and fostering an environment where she may feel forced by social stigma, unnecessary guilt and the like, any of which might cause her to do the very thing you say you would never force her to. Force need not be physical, you realize. For example, the threat of shunning was quite sufficient, in some societies, to compel almost any behavior. It is a way of forcing people to do things (or not), but it requires establishing an environment in which those things are seen as great goods or great evils. So, obviously, since you would as you say never force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus, you would never, ever, under any circumstances, discuss the matter in a manner which might actually foster and promote that sort of an environment, right? Oh, wait. You already have. Kinda takes the impetus out of your supposed good and helpful "not force her". > We follow the law. Err... so what? The law is not the final arbiter of anything other than what the law says. Laws change. In some places, for example, it was within the law to "correct" your wife with a cane, if she got out of hand. Try that under today's laws, see how far you get. > If a woman wants to have an abortion, > pro-lifers or myself will not prevent it. You'll just make sure she feels like shit for even thinking about it - trying to compel by mental battery rather than physical. Yeah, and? What, we're supposed to see you as a good guy because of this? > years to come. Even if it did happen, the experts claim that abortion > would still be legal in at least 20 or more so called liberal states. So? Now you're discriminating against those too weak, too sick, too poor to travel to those states - you know, the very people who would get the most benefit from an abortion (or, if you prefer to state it this way, those who have the most to lose by remaining pregnant). > Women would have to travel to those states to get abortions. And if they can't, then? Oh yes, if you live in the wrong state, you have no rights, you're a brood mare. Funny thing that, I was under the impression that those rights were meant to apply to all, not just those in a hatful of states. Did the US have a civil war when I wasn't looking? > That will > not happen during our life times. If I failed to answer any of your > questions, repeat them in your next post. Jason I've posted them twice now. -- Josh McDowell: evidence of stupidity that demands a verdict Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179722671.118388.327550@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179710639.262640.183...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 12:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > > > > > >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? > > > > > No. > > > > > > Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > > > > thousands of people in the Soviet Union. What about Alexander the Great? > > > > Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > > > > conquer. > > > > > Stalin and Alexander obviously thought _they_ were God and had the > > > right to lord over others. Is that what you think? > > > > No--My point was that theists have killed lots of people but that atheists > > have also killed lots of people. Crazy dictators--regardless of whether > > they are theists or atheists are capable of killing thousands of people. > > The president of Iran recently stated: "Israel must be wiped off the map > > of the world." He is presently trying to build nuclear bombs. > > And he's a theist, specifically a Muslim. Or did you think that > Iranians were atheist? > > Anyway, why would Iranians be interested in attacking the US. All the > Americans have done is call Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" and then > attack countries on either side of it. Objectively this would be seen > ass a problem that George W. Bush created. Why invade Iraq when it > was not Iraq but Iran and North Korea which were developing nuclear > weapons? > > Martin Martin, I am not going to defend Bush. The president of Iran wants to take over the world. He views Israel as "the little Satan" and America as "The Big Satan". He knows that Nukes are the way to do it. Once he places the world in chaos by exploding Nukes in various countries, the President of Iran stated that Muslims will take over the world. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179720533.536011.57690@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 7:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. > > > Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion > > > related ideologies. > > > The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the > > > name of religion. > > > > > See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They > > > both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist > > > or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they > > > did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. > > > > > So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be > > > fundamentalist idiots. > > > The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there > > > was no religion. > > > > > Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And > > > quite often, that is the driving force behind it. > > > That does not mean that without religion there will be no more > > > terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the > > > mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. > > > > > Tokay > > > > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have > > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? > > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > > war as a fundamentalist theist? > > As atheism is the lack of a belief, it doesn't make sense to be a > "fundamentalist atheist". It is possible to be atheist and a > fundamentalist communist, however, but then communism is, itself, a > dogmatic belief system not unlike religion. > > Martin Martin, It is a dogmatic belief system. However, most communists are outspoken atheists. They claim that religion is the opiate of the masses. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <jF84i.21438$YL5.20251@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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. I have learned to do it. I rarely ever discussed my opinions while I was still working. I retired last year. I took some classes at a the state university and kept my opinions to myself. Some of my professors were atheists. I respected most of them except for one lady professor that humiliated Christians in her class. I respect atheists as long as they are respectful to me. Most atheists that I have met were wonderful people. Believe it or not, almost everyone has biases--they just don't discuss them except with their closest friends. For example, you probably know people in San Francisco that have a bias against homosexuals but they would never state that bias with anyone except their closest friends. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:56:15 -0700, Martin wrote: > On May 21, 10:00 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Still, the point remains. Is my case weakened by my not liking kids? >> Only if the person taking the opposition uses it as an ad hominem fallacy: >> "the argument is wrong not because the argument is wrong, but because the >> person making it isn't a nice person." > > It's a question of how far on the sidelines you are. It's bad enough > that we're all guys talking about what women should do with their > bodies but then, on top of that, you're not interested in having kids > yourself. It opens you up to people saying you should just stay out > of it. Which might apply if I was actually telling women what women should do with their bodies. I'm not - that's the other side. I'm saying that a woman's rights should not be subjugated to the needs of another. One might as well argue that because I'm not black, I should not be able to argue for black rights, or because I'm not gay, I should not be able to argue for gay rights. Obviously, this is a bit silly. One might reasonably suggest telling me to go to hell if I were trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies - "You're a man and don't like kids, where do you get off telling us what we're allowed to do with our reproduction" - but I'm not; I'm doing the exact opposite, arguing against those who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies; thus my being male, or disliking kids, or being gay (if I were) is simply irrelevant. -- HolySmoke: Failure to yield to idiots on the Information Superhighway. 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.