Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <2n4353l75qd1cce8l85g7ib4sfemvepqil@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. I wondered why they teach evolution theory. I was told that the main reason they teach evolution is because many of their graduates go to college. They did not want their graduates to be at a disadvantage when they took college science courses such as biology 101. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <n35353tg1g3bgoc5puvfo7iamve31ki9gi@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. Thanks for your post. We agree on most issues. However, if the students express a desire to go to college (during their teen years), it's my opinion that the parents should encourage them to take college prep. classes in high school. The reason is so that college classes will be easier for them. For example, I did not take chemistry while in high school. As a result, I had a very difficult time passing various college science classes. I passed those classes but I had to study much more than the students that had taken Chemistry. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <5r4353p3l4qh4jc6s6si7rs97p7f1ne8rm@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I once worked with a person that taught school in the Harlem district. He stopped teaching at the end of his first year. He said that the vast majority of his students had no interest in learning. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179751650.961129.79070@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that divided the class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each group had to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted each group to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard since we viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the logical thing to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term "murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young Christian man dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, the other atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of them--except for that lady that humiliated us. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179751725.767097.304350@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, They go back to their environments that they came from. If that environment was conductive to criminal behavior--eg illegal drug use and robbing people or stores to get money for buying more drugs--they are likely to become repeat offenders. The prison counselors and psychologists encourage them to NOT go back to the environments that they came from but lots of inmates do it anyway. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179751828.470211.111520@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to join a gang--atheist or Christian. It's probably for companionship or protection. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179752923.740951.300570@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. It's not the same thing but most communists are atheists. However, not all atheists are communists. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <4758i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? You are assumming that I stated things that I did not state. You are assuming that I believe things that I do not believe. > > > 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? The fetus and the mother are equal. In this case, the doctor's job is to save the life of both the mother and the fetus. If that is impossible, the doctor has to make a judgement call. It's my opinion that he should save the mother. > > > 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. Are you saying that in these situations--the doctor should allow the mother to die in an effort to save the fetus? > > 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? No--I stated that I would never force a woman to not have an abortion. I can not control what other people in the pro-life community believe or what they do. > > Your entire position is becoming less coherent by the minute. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <l468i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. The laws related to protesting in front of abortion clinics have been changed. Prolife protestors are not allowed to block the sidewalks or prevent people from entering or leaving an abortion clinic or a doctor's office. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. What are you plans to take care of them after they're born? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179751071.629165.56900@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. ashamed of what? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <mp68i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. In my opinion, that is just as important as any other issue and even more important than protecting the rights of trees or protecting the lives of test animals. Most pro-life protestors follow the laws in terms of where they carry their signs. We do that for a reason: We are trying to change to get people to join our cause. We know that if we harrassed people going into abortion clinics that it would hurt our cause and people would not want to join our cause. In this case, peaceful protests are very effective. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <a028i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@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. > > 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. Actually, Planned Parenthood does send representatives to high schools. In 1974, a representative from Planned Parenthood spoke to the members of a high school sociology class. I was present. She told the class about all of the services provided by Planned Parenthood--including abortion services. They are not hunting for pregnant women but they are letting young girls know about their services--including abortion services. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Martin, >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that divided the >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each group had >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted each group >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard since we >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the logical thing >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young Christian man >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, the other >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. Why do you tell such lies? And why do you have a persecution complex? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:00:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >It's not the same thing but most communists are atheists. Actually, communism is very theistic: it deifies the state. And I would wager that most communists are theists, too. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:22:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1179751827.179910.125980@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> 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 > ....unless god commands it or does it. Then it's ok. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2105071403140001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5be9ftF2s35frU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> > >> > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. >> >> What are you plans to take care of them after they're born? > > Put them up for adoption. How nice for you. And if they're unadoptable? (i.e., not HWIs) What are your plans then? Abandon them? Leave them in foster care and walk away? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest UC Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On May 6, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Lamarkism. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2105071427530001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <51v353l5gq9v0vg055c693i06pmpki58ep@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:00:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >It's not the same thing but most communists are atheists. >> >> Actually, communism is very theistic: it deifies the state. >> And I would wager that most communists are theists, too. >> >> >> Don > > Don, > What is the name of their God? They place Christian preachers in prison in > China. Christians have to meet in secret in so called home churches. Yeah? So? Perhaps they might consider moving. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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? > > Many gang members do things that are major sins. A Christian that took > their religion seriously would not join a youth gang. How does that demonstrate that most gang members are atheists? Do you have anything beyond "It's my guess" to support your position? > > > > > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <5be9ftF2s35frU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. > > What are you plans to take care of them after they're born? Put them up for adoption. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 10:07, 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: > > > 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? Nothing happened to any unborn babies. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 10:12, 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? > > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <51v353l5gq9v0vg055c693i06pmpki58ep@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:00:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >It's not the same thing but most communists are atheists. > > Actually, communism is very theistic: it deifies the state. > And I would wager that most communists are theists, too. > > > Don Don, What is the name of their God? They place Christian preachers in prison in China. Christians have to meet in secret in so called home churches. Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <kn18i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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. What the "typical person" may or may not conclude does not determine what the law is. > > > > > > > > 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?- Skjul tekst i anf 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.