Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:45:06 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. The parents should also teach reading, math, science, history ... Schools exist to fill in the things parents DON'T teach, and sex is one of those things. Besides, most parents don't know that much about human sexuality or about marriage and relationships (which is also taught in the same course). Half of the parents end up getting divorced. >They do teach these subjects in many public schools. And you're claiming that it's a waste of time. >> 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. And, yet, some of the best schools are public schools located in huge cities. >That's one of the reasons parents move out of the city. That's a very small part of the reason. It never appeared on my horizon when my wife and I decided to leave the city for the suburbs. Where IN THE SUBURBS we ended up was, in part, decided by school district. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179720533.536011.57...@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > 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. > It is a dogmatic belief system. However, most communists are outspoken > atheists. They claim that religion is the opiate of the masses. The irony, of course, is that socialism dogma is no different from religious dogma in that both are based on failed assumptions. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:24 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <jF84i.21438$YL5.20...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f2ql5q$g6n$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> 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? > > >> 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. Is that the incident where she allegedly asked Christians to raise their hands? The incident in which you weren't actually present in class to see? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > 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. How do you explain repeat offenders then? Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 01:32, 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. But what makes you think an atheist would? Most atheists are like everybody else except only that they lack this god belief that propels so many people around the world towards commiting violent acts. Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <bv9253tthrbun8eg7oaktbcna4v9j7hkin@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> 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. Their "peers", in the formative years, unless they're in day-care are Mommy and, to a lesser extent, Daddy. By the time a child is in school, his/her feelings about learning have been formed. You haven't raised many children, have you? >I agree that American parents are >dropping the ball. The students should be driven to take college prep >courses. Do you agree? Not in the least. A wrench makes a poor screwdriver. The ball the parents are dropping isn't college prep, it's learning. If a child is given a love of learning with his mother's milk, he'll do well, whether he's in a good school, a bad school or no school. If a child is taught that school is just a place for his parents to dump him until he's old enough to quit, he'll do poorly with the best teachers in the best school. Children who take general classes still learn enough to do well in college - IF they were motivated to want to learn as toddlers. Children who consider school a waste of their time and effort who take college prep courses fail them the same way they fail general courses. The data is all there - the schools refuse to put the responsibility where it the data say it belongs because the parents vote on funding for their salaries. Telling parents, "We can't educate your children unless YOU send them to us ready, able and eager to learn", doesn't win school budget votes. But it's the way to turn out well-educated graduates, and it's the sole common denominator in whether a child will learn or not. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 2:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > 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. Why are you refering to yourself in the plural? You're probably the only one here dumb enough to not get what I was saying. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 4:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179724164.616697.12...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 21, 11:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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? You're assuming that most women would consider a collection of stem cells to be "alive". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:08 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@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. Perhaps you should get some and come back. You might also consider taking a logic 101 course and a basic math course. The fact that you were able to fool Jason into thinking you had a clue just goes to demonstrate the level of his naivite. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 02:09, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:05:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2005071805480...@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > ... > > > > > > >Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in > >California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in > >California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in > >my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina > >obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. > >They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the > >local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I > >live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY > >different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any > >gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang > >members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have > >lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There > >have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in > >California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are > >more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very > >seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. > >Jason > > It's nice of you to admit your bias when you make your bigoted > comments.- It's my guess that he burns down orphanages for fun and eats human flesh. He is, of course, free to disagree with me. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 02:12, 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?- Do you think god was wrong when his rules did not treat abortion as murder? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 4:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179723712.782708.91...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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? > You are probably correct. However, most women have first trimester > abortions and they would probably talk them into having abortions. You're lying. If they tell women that abortion is a matter of their choice then women will conclude that it is a matter of their choice. > As you > pointed out, Planned Parenthood makes money off of abortions. Why are you putting words in my mouth? That's dishonest. If Planned Parenthood draws in 10 million dollars a year (across the entire country) and that money goes to pay the doctors involved then they are NOT making money from abortions. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 3:30 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And I'm not a fetus. Do you have a point or are you just blowing smoke as usual? Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 09:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179720533.536011.57...@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. Which does not make atheism and communism the same thing. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 4:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Unless and until you ever start working at Planned Parenthood, he has no reason to believe that people like that work there. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 09:32, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- A And their is a higher percentage of theists ending up in prison than atheists, meaning one more of your famous guesses was wrong. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 21, 2:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > 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. This coming from the child whose "arguing" tactic is to cover his ears and close his eyes while loudly chanting "Na na na I can't hear you (and thus you have failed to make your point)" Martin Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2005072118130001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Liar - It's a dead embryo or dead fetus. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <kn18i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. A man murdered a pregnant woman. He was convicted to murdering two people. He murdered the mother and her unborn baby. I believe that the typical person would conclude that the California Supreme Court Judges treated the mother and her unborn baby exactly the same. > > > 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <eb78i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. The man was convicted of murdering the mother AND HER FETUS. I don't know how the judges would have ruled if the mother had lived. It's possible the judges would have found the man guilty of one murder and one case of assault with great bodily harm. > > > 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? You do not have that right. I have NEVER prevented any woman from having an abortion. > > 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. In this case, the judges treated the mother and her fetus just the same. > > 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? You do not have that right and I do not have that right. As the law now stands, there are no conditions. I comply with the law. > > 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? You keep missing the point--I follow the law. > > 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? The end goal is to convince the majority of people in America that an unborn baby has the right to life. If that happens, it will because the vast majority of Americans want it to happen. We are not there as of yet. Since we are not there as of yet, we comply with the law. Women have the right to abortion. I would NEVER force a woman to not have an abortion so please quit writing that I would do that or that I want to do that. > > 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. I clearly stated in my post that it was a baby--not something more or something special--just that it was a human baby. You are assuming that I wrote something that I did not write. I do believe that an unborn baby is a person that has the right to life. I have never stated that an unborn baby has MORE rights than the mother of that unborn baby. I believe they have EQUAL rights. > > 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. In the court decision that I mentioned, those judges did exactly what you have accused me of doing. They treated the mother and her unborn baby equally. > > </imported> > > I can't wait to watch you ignore these questions all over again. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179752124.549315.61860@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 4:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179724164.616697.12...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 11:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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? > > You're assuming that most women would consider a collection of stem > cells to be "alive". > > Martin Martin, When most women are pregnant, they know that an unborn baby is growing inside their bodies. The exception would be the first month. When a woman that is sexually active misses a period--in many cases--her first thought is "Am I pregnant?" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179750992.987024.54430@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Thanks for your post. I agree that a fetus has moral worth. However, not just when the mother wants to carry the baby to term--but always--do you see my point? The person that wrote the above information appears to believe (and I hope I am wrong) that the fetus does NOT have moral worth if the mother of that fetus did not want to carry her baby to term. I would appreciate it if you tell me whether or not you agree with me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179752420.451060.278400@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 21 Maj, 02:12, 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?- > > Do you think god was wrong when his rules did not treat abortion as > murder? What scripture are you referring to? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179751827.179910.125980@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 21 Maj, 01:32, 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 k= > illed > > >> >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 perfect= > ly > > >> reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. > > > > >> Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get peop= > le > > >> 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 t= > he > > >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.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8= > rselstegn - > > Oddly enough it is not considered murder in the Mosaic law either. > Since this law was supposedly given by god, one would think that the > pro-life people would worry about being against god. Thou shall not kill 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.