Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179721146.307240.22310@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > It's a guess based on what? > > > 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. > > The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious > affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates > per religion category: > > Response Number % > ---------------------------- -------- > Catholic 29267 39.164% > Protestant 26162 35.008% > Muslim 5435 7.273% > American Indian 2408 3.222% > Nation 1734 2.320% > Rasta 1485 1.987% > Jewish 1325 1.773% > Church of Christ 1303 1.744% > Pentecostal 1093 1.463% > Moorish 1066 1.426% > Buddhist 882 1.180% > Jehovah Witness 665 0.890% > Adventist 621 0.831% > Orthodox 375 0.502% > Mormon 298 0.399% > Scientology 190 0.254% > Atheist 156 0.209% > Hindu 119 0.159% > Santeria 117 0.157% > Sikh 14 0.019% > Bahai 9 0.012% > Krishna 7 0.009% > ---------------------------- -------- > Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does > this) > Unknown/No Answer 18381 > ---------------------------- > Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is > known. > Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody) > ---------------------------- > Total In Prisons 96968 > > Atheists only represent 0.209% of the prison population in America of > 1 in 500, which is less than the statistical number you would expect > based on the numebr of atheists in America today. > > If atheists are more likely to commit crimes than theists then explain > to mee why there are relatively so few atheists in prison. > > Martin Thanks for posting the statistics. It's my guess that most of the people that are in prison do not take their religions seriously--otherwise they would not have ended up in prison. On the other hand, once they make it to prison, many of them get back involved in their religions and usually do well while in prison and stay out of trouble. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179721146.307240.22310@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > It's a guess based on what? Many gang members do things that are major sins. A Christian that took their religion seriously would not join a youth gang. > > 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. > > The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious > affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates > per religion category: > > Response Number % > ---------------------------- -------- > Catholic 29267 39.164% > Protestant 26162 35.008% > Muslim 5435 7.273% > American Indian 2408 3.222% > Nation 1734 2.320% > Rasta 1485 1.987% > Jewish 1325 1.773% > Church of Christ 1303 1.744% > Pentecostal 1093 1.463% > Moorish 1066 1.426% > Buddhist 882 1.180% > Jehovah Witness 665 0.890% > Adventist 621 0.831% > Orthodox 375 0.502% > Mormon 298 0.399% > Scientology 190 0.254% > Atheist 156 0.209% > Hindu 119 0.159% > Santeria 117 0.157% > Sikh 14 0.019% > Bahai 9 0.012% > Krishna 7 0.009% > ---------------------------- -------- > Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does > this) > Unknown/No Answer 18381 > ---------------------------- > Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is > known. > Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody) > ---------------------------- > Total In Prisons 96968 > > Atheists only represent 0.209% of the prison population in America of > 1 in 500, which is less than the statistical number you would expect > based on the numebr of atheists in America today. > > If atheists are more likely to commit crimes than theists then explain > to mee why there are relatively so few atheists in prison. > > Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <EH84i.21439$YL5.7615@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <3W44i.1201$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. I was discussing established pro-life organizations. There are probably women in my church that are advocates for Pro-Choice. It's a large church. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <53b2531jpnbbcqquntn4tskm1lu0du8pbf@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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). The parents should teach those things. They do teach these subjects in many public schools. > > >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. 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <bv9253tthrbun8eg7oaktbcna4v9j7hkin@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. Students tend to try to "fit in" with their peers. A student in a private college prep school would try his or her best to keep up with their peers. Since they teach courses like Chemistry, College Prep Biology and College Prep Calculus--that student would probably do well in those courses. If the father lost his job and placed that student in the public school--he or she may fall in with the wrong crowd and start taking "easy" subjects like sociology, band and sex education. I agree that American parents are dropping the ball. The students should be driven to take college prep courses. Do you agree? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179724164.616697.12700@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Do you believe that most women are not aware what happened to their unborn babies during the abortions? > > > 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 Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179723712.782708.91940@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 11:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179711719.315620.299...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 1:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179647198.327662.45...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5=A4=EB20=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C811=AE=C958=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) wro= > > > > > te: > > > > > > In article > > > > <1179621460.614622.219...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because th= > > > > > ey > > > > > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. > > > > > Actually, I don't know that most doctors wouldn't perform abortions. > > > I know that most doctors who DO perform abortions would hesitate about > > > performing a late term abortion. And rightly so as it would be a > > > greater risk to the mother than an early term abortion. > > > > > > > > > And yet the doctors themselves would have a better perspective than > > > > > > > you as to just what is being aborted, wouldn't they? > > > > > > > > Yes--but as your know--the doctor has to make sure all the body parts of > > > > > > the baby have been removed. Otherwise, an infection will occur. Answer > > > > > > this question: While that doctor is counting the fingers and toes, > > how can > > > > > > he not realize that it's a baby and not a POC? > > > > > > > Kittens, puppies, even mice, they're all going to have fingers and > > > > > toes. Doesn't mean that they're the same as newborn babies. > > > > > > > > Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo--just that > > killing > > > > > > people is taboo. They don't put people in prison for killing animals. > > > > > > > Exactly. Think about why. > > > > > > I buried a dead possum and did not lose any sleep over the possum. It > > > > would have been different if I buried a dead baby. I hope that you can see > > > > the difference. > > > > > I was hoping you could see the difference between a baby and an > > > undeveloped fetus. > > > > Yes, there is a big difference between a 1 week old fetus and a baby. > > There is even lots of differences between a 1 month old fetus and a 7 > > month old fetus. > > That's the main reason that abortions should occur during the first > > trimester unless the mother's life is in danger. > > > > > Most children eat meat. Perhaps you were referring to the > > > > children of vegetarians. I could see how they would learn to see the > > > > killing of animals as taboo. > > > > > I was thinking just now, if Kelsey were to bother posting again, of > > > mentioning the ASPCA with regards to the fact that people do care not > > > only for the lives of animals but for the suffering of animals. I > > > think the point needs to be made here too. The Bible doesn't say > > > anything about people protecting animals: on the contrary, your god is > > > supposed to have given mankind dominion over te animal kingdom and > > > yet, despite this, people have come to see that hurting animals is > > > wrong. This is an example of morality developing independent of > > > religious belief, just as people have come to see slavary as wrong, or > > > that discrimination against people of different races, religion or > > > sexual preference as wrong, or that the oppression of women is wrong. > > > Morality doesn't come from the Bible: in most cases, our morality has > > > emerged _despite_ the Bible. > > > > I agree. Perhaps that is God's plan in action but I'm sure you would disagree. > > > > > > > > > I am not a cold, unfeeling person. Neither is Kelsey (even though he > > > has less feelings for those of us who are small). Most people are > > > able to empathize with the unborn child. It just isn't necessary to > > > place the unborn child ahead of the mother who would be expected to > > > not only carry the baby to term but also continue to care for it after > > > it is born. As much as people care about dogs and cats, say, is > > > anybody going to put the well being of a cat ahead of that of a > > > living, (independently) breathing human being? Because that is what > > > you are doing with regards to the fetus, and the only difference is > > > that the fetus has the _potential_ one day of becoming an actual human > > > being. > > > > Yes, I do believe that a human fetus is more important than any animal. I > > believe that people are more important than animals. They are injecting > > pigs with human DNA with hopes of transplanting the organs of those pigs > > into humans. It appears that scientists care more about people than they > > care about animals. > > I don't place the unborn child ahead of the mother. The mother clearly has > > legal rights. Unborn babies have no legal rights. The only people that are > > fighting for unwanted unborn babies are the members of pro-life groups 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. > > Actually, that's not true. Do you honestly think that if a woman > eight months pregnant were to walk into a Planned Parenthood Clinic > and demand an abortion that they wouldn't try to tlak her into having > the baby? > > Martin Martin, You are probably correct. However, most women have first trimester abortions and they would probably talk them into having abortions. As you pointed out, Planned Parenthood makes money off of abortions. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <uo9253tbqkb1klgnalb3in9caht6sv3cdp@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. You snipped my post. Bush would not start the war. The president of Iran stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map." If he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel, Bush would be obligated to retaliate. Israel probably has their own nukes and they would retaliate. It's my guess that Bush would use Nukes. However, it is also possible that Bush may use conventional weapons such as dozens of cruise missles fired from ships or submarines. You can learn more about this subject from this book: "Jerusalem Countdown--A Warning to the World" by John Hagee Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:07:37 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > Unborn babies have no legal rights. >> >> Non-existent things rarely do. > > You see the fetus as NON-EXISTENT. Obviously I don't. You know this. Try again. > disagreement. I see the fetus as EXISTENT. Now there's a stunning ability to grasp the obvious. > 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. They did? Funny, you haven't shown that. You've shown a sound bite that says that under unknown conditions, with unknown limits and unknown applicability, a killing involving both a pregnant woman and her fetus can be considered two murders. This is not quite the same as "a fetus and the mother are equal". Try again. > Please re-write your questions They're in my other posts to you, including at least one you responded to while dodging the questions. You can trivially find them using any news client. I've already posted them twice and had you ignore them, why should I expend the effort to have you ignore them again? -- No Special Rights for Make Believe! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:01:52 -0700, Martin wrote: [snips] > On May 21, 11:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> pro-life groups 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. > > Actually, that's not true. Do you honestly think that if a woman eight > months pregnant were to walk into a Planned Parenthood Clinic and demand > an abortion that they wouldn't try to tlak her into having the baby? Of course he does. These are not simply people offering services in his opinion, these are people who are actively out hunting pregnant women, for the express purpose of terminating fetuses. To him, they are the enemy, bent on destruction of life. The fact he cannot actually come up with any reason why these people would be doing this doesn't seem to matter. The fact that they actually provide a wide range of services, a trivial portion of which happen to be abortion services, doesn't seem to matter. All that matters is that, for unexplained reasons, they are, like the zombies from a bad movie, out roaming the streets seeking new victims to destroy. At least, that's the impression one gets reading his posts on them. -- Goat may have created men, but it took Sam Colt to make them equal. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <9vs7i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. It would be easier if you asked your most important questions without mixing them with your points. You already know my opinions on most of the these issues so only ask questions that I have not already answered. In general, I approach these issues with two sets of goals in mind. The long term goal is to convince most people in America that unborn babies have the right to life. We are not there as of yet but are making progress--esp. in the so called Bible Belt states. In one of those states there is only one abortion clinic and it usually has pro-life protestors in front of it doing business hours. The short term goal is to encourage all women seeking abortions to take the morning after pill. If that is not possible, I would encourage them to get first trimester abortions. Of course, if the mother's life was in danger, she should be able to get an abortion during any trimester. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:11:05 -0700, Jason wrote: > I have thought about that subject. The mother is alive and in most cases > has a husband and in many cases has other children. Her death would cause > great harm to that family if that woman died in childbirth. So wait... it's okay for her to commit what you regard as murder, as long as she benefits from it? I see. So if she benefits by, oh, not having to go through the physical difficulties of pregnancy, she still benefits, so it's okay, right? > The death of > the child would also cause harm to that family but not as much harm as > the death of the woman would cause. Ummm... you're the one trying to convince us they are equals - that was, in fact, your lead-in to your posting of the soundbite about the legal decision, to crow about how the fetus and mother are, and I quote, "equal". Thus you are now arguing completely contradictory statements; that they are equal, but that losing one does more harm than losing the other. That would mean they are not equal. Which is it? > She may even be able to have another > baby. So would the fetus, if allowed to grow and mature. Thus, this is simply not an applicable argument. > I realize that it's a contradiction. No kidding. You're arguing against yourself as fast as for; on what basis do _we_, outside your head, conclude which side of the fence you're actually on? > Some people in the pro-life > movement believe the mother should be forced to have a baby I thought you said in another post that they wouldn't do that? Or is this a case of "We wouldn't do it, but we think it should be done" - i.e. not having the courage of your own convictions, to stand up, do what you believe is right, and keep a gun on her until delivery? Your entire position is becoming less coherent by the minute. -- "Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is, dumbfuck?" Becke Jones Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:16:05 -0700, Jason wrote: > Let's say that you are a pro-life doctor that had a pregnant lady as a > patient that had serious medical problems. You determine that the lady may > die if she has the baby. Would you force that woman to carry that baby to > term and have that baby? If I were a pro-life doctor, I would have to say yes, as she may die, but the fetus will die. No question at all; shut up woman, you're just a brood mare, like the entire movement says you are. Besides, if you die, well who cares, we've been trying to get rid of your rights since we started the movement, so I'm just carrying out the party line. Yes, and? -- Maybe it otta be renamed to Hades command set. - David Strickland Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 18 May 2007 07:10:45 +0000, cactus wrote: > I cannot speak to sexual politics in his sect, but you seem to be right. > Women have no choice in his world. I wonder whether they have the right > to choose their own husbands. As long as they choose the "right" ones? -- Even if you understood women - you'd never believe it! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 18 May 2007 01:53:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. However, I see nothing > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion > clinics Change the setting a little. Mid century, southern US. Outside a school. Blacks have won the right to send their kids to the same schools as whites. Outside the school, a young black child approaches. She knows that the prevailing feeling in the community is that she has no right to be there, despite the laws. She is probably terrified of simply going in. Between her and the door stand a group of protesters, waving signs protesting desegregation. Now, tell us this... do you think those people waving signs are doing anything but trying to force her to turn away? Of curse not. That is exactly why they're there - to foster and promote the emotional and cultural state that tells her she is a bad and horrible person for being there, that she has no right to be there, that she should go home and be a "good little ******", not try to pretend she's "as good as a white". Now explain to us the difference between that, and your pro-lifers standing outside a clinic, fostering the same sort of emotional and cultural state, the only difference being that it's not "be a good little ******", but "be a good little breeder". Oh, no, nothing wrong with this at all. -- It's a fool's errand to be sure, but I think you're just the right individual for that task. - Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 18 May 2007 11:19:15 -0700, Jason wrote: > Have you seen any news reports about environmentalists that stand in the > roads to block huge trucks that are carrying logs? They carry protest > signs. > > Do you think that those people--even the ones standing next to the > road--should be arrested? If they're trespassing, certainly. If they interfere with legitimate business, I might agree with their ideals, but yes, they are breaking the law. What they are not doing is harassing innocent individuals who are probably already terrified and confused. It takes a really strong conviction to stand together, as a group, and torment a single woman or a couple, who are probably already scared, worried and possibly confused. As another poster said, they're not out in front of recruitment offices and the like, despite those being places where people in essence sign up to take lives. Wonder why that is? Oh, right, because that would involve actually having the guts to stand up for what you believe in when there's someone who might, just possibly, be in a position to push back. A conviction of convenience is not a conviction at all. Oh, and for the record... I have been in situations such as that. Facing down cops. Facing down baseball bats and two by fours. Facing down people trying to push through or run us down with their cars and vans. And here's the real chuckle... I was doing that for people I had no personal involvement with, nothing to gain from it but simple self respect. You may not agree with what I was fighting for or why, but that's not the point; the point is that when push comes to shove, I put my convictions to the test and stood up for them in the faces of imminent personal harm. Your side? They only do it when the worst they risk is a splinter from the post of the sign they carry. -- "You nescient schmuck." -- Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:35:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > I was discussing established pro-life organizations. There are probably > women in my church that are advocates for Pro-Choice. It's a large church. It doesn't really matter if you're part of an official organization or if your church condones this; the fact is, you spew the party line. I can call myself a commie if I like, but if what I spew is conservatism at every step, I'm a conservative - my lack of formal membership in the party is really quite irrelevant. -- Don't take me for an idiot...please...because I am NOT an idiot. - Joanna Amren (Defending Christanic Creationism myths) Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:55:30 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Fight for the non-existent? Why? > > The fetus is existent A firm grasp of the screamingly obvious, as noted earlier. > See the above court decision. A murderer was convicted of murdering a > fetus. Really? So the mother lived, eh? Imagine that. Of course, it completely invalidates your posting of the soundbite, as that was about a case where the mother died, too. > Ask any questions that I failed to answer in your next post. <imported> 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. </imported> I can't wait to watch you ignore these questions all over again. -- Annoy Christians: count their gods in front of them. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 21 May 2007 01:12:14 -0700, Jason wrote: > You are probably correct. However, most women have first trimester > abortions and they would probably talk them into having abortions. As you > pointed out, Planned Parenthood makes money off of abortions. Looking over their 2004-2005 annual report, we see 8,645,591 total patients in 2004, of which 255,015 were abortion procedures. That's 2.95%. This means that more than 97% of their procedures were things other than abortion. Nor does this examine other sources of revenue; only actual procedures done. Thus, for abortions to account for enough revenue to even be worthy of mention, they would also have to be sufficiently expensive that the very people who need them most wouldn't be able to afford them, which kind of defeats the purpose. In short, there's f-all reason to think PP has any stake at all in promoting abortion. If they lost the entire revenue stream, they wouldn't even blink; the women needing the service, however, would be screwed. -- Were you born this stupid, or were you homeschooled? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 2:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179720512.091220.293...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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? This apparently accounts for the unanamous desire to change the law following the Keeler case. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html "When I have taught the Keeler case in my criminal law course, most students who voice an opinion are unhappy with the result. Pro-life members of the class are understandably upset with the ruling. And pro- choice students point out that the choice of abortion belongs to the mother, and that taking away that choice by killing her fetus without her consent does as much -- or more -- violence to reproductive freedom as a prohibition against abortion would. "Many students agree, moreover, that a fetus has moral worth that requires that as long as the mother is prepared to sustain the physical and emotional burdens of pregnancy, others must refrain from harming her fetus. In response to the ruling in Keeler, the California legislature amended its murder statute to add "fetus" to the class of victims whose malicious killing would qualify as murder, coupled with an exception for consensual abortions." Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 01:27, 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? My answer is right below. If you are going to lie about me not answering, you should cut out my answer. It won't fool anybody, but it would show a minimum of intelligence. > > > > > > > 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? Let's cut this short. Protesting is a right. Harrassment is not, nor is blocking of traffic. The anti-abortion protesters were arrested because they were breaking the law. They were harrassing both the personnel the women coming to the clinics. Your question is answered - again. Anybody, regardless of the issue, is properly subject to arrest if they break the law. Please, please do not once again claim that your question was not answered. > > > > > > > > > >In one of the southern > > > > > states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, = > > we > > > > > are winning the battle.- > > > > > Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for > > > > themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not > > > > lie about it again. > > > > Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America. > > > I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from > > > having an abortion. > > > You want to make it illegal. You want to use force. > > > >If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have > > > the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would > > > advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I > > > would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If > > > there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions > > > illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > You still want to make it illegal. You keep evading that; are you > > ashamed of it? > > The end goal of the pro-life movement is to influence the hearts and minds > of American people to understand that unborn babies have the right to > life. That's the reason it's called the pro-life movement. > > However, since abortion is now legal, we try to do what we can to > encourage women to place their unwanted babies up for adoption. There is a > bumper sticker that says ADOPTION--NOT ABORTION. If women come into > pro-life counseling centers, many of the counselors arrange for the women > to have 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies. The reason is to > cause them to realize that they have a baby and not a mass of tissue or a > POC (product of conception). > > If a woman still wanted to have an abortion, I would encourage them to > take the morning after pill or have the abortion during the first > trimester. > There are other people in the pro-life community that would NEVER advise > women that are seeking abortions to take the morning after pill or to have > a first trimester abortion. We are not all of the same page related to > these issues.- You just continue to evade the truth. You want to make abortions illegal; that amounts to forcing women to not have abortions. What you are doing in the meantime does not change the goal. Your unwillingness to face that makes one think you are ashamed. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 01:40, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179694664.712177.299...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:10:52 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >Yes--except for private Christian schools--they teach evolution and >creation science. They teach that evolution is "only a theory" and most of them go no further than that on evolution. If you want to produce stupid graduates, that's how to do it in one sentence. The world depends on science more and more, and you teach students that science, real science, isn't even important enough to rate a whole sentence of its own in 4 years of study, but praying has to be taught every day. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 2:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? I found the text of the actual law. It was posted on talk.abortion. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 PENAL CODE SECTION 187 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. © Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 01:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > 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 > > >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > >> <1179648828.383854.130...@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? Stalin did not kill because he was an atheist. Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system. Stalin was a dictator determined to hold onto power. He killed anybody who might possibly be a threat to him. It had nothing to do with atheism, nor could it. > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > war as a fundamentalist theist?- A fundamental atheist would be somebody committed to the fundamental teachings of atheism. Since there are no teachings of atheism your question is meaningless. 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.