Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 20:20, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179752420.451060.278...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179751827.179910.125...@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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- If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23 Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 21:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179752923.740951.300...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. Communism does not come from atheism, nor do the crimes committed by Stalin whether or not he was an atheist. >However, not all > atheists are communists.- How very generous of you to say so. You are still lying. Apparently bearing false witness is okay if you are lying for Jesus. > > - Vis tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <l468i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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.- You totally ignored the question. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 21:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179751071.629165.56...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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?- Still evading the point. You are truly a sick person. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 21 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mp68i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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.- In that case you should have no problem with the protesters who harrassed being arrested. It is odd though that the pro-life people did not discover how bad the harrassment was until after the arrests and after the arrests were held up in court, but that was probably just a coincidence. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 22 Maj, 00:52, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179781371.564902.168...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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 everyon= > > e in > > > > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Vir= > > gina > > > > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virgin= > > ia. > > > > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested i= > > n 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 ha= > > d 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? > > They could also be Christians that do not take their religion seriously. > Back in Virginia, they called them "back slidden Christians". Thank you for apologising. No doubt you will no longer say that most gang members are atheists. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 22 Maj, 00:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179781873.019238.93...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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 > > > > > Do you believe that most women are not aware what happened to their unborn > > > babies during the abortions? > > > Nothing happened to any unborn babies. > > Perhaps I should have wrote: > Don't you believe that most women are aware of the fact that their fetuses > were killed during the abortion process?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:02, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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>, Ma= > > rtin > > > > > > 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=3DA4=3DEB20=3DA4=3DE9, =3DA4W=3DA4=3DC811=3DAE=3DC958=3DA4= > > =3DC0, J...@nospam.com > > > > > (Jason) wro=3D > > > > > > > > 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= > > =3D > > > > > > > > ey > > > > > > > > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babi= > > es. > > > > > > > Actually, I don't know that most doctors wouldn't perform abortions. > > > > > > I know that most doctors who DO perform abortions would hesitate ab= > > out > > > > > > 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 n= > > ot > > > > > > 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 wron= > > g=2E > > > > > > Morality doesn't come from the Bible: in most cases, our morality h= > > as > > > > > > 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 af= > > ter > > > > > > 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 hu= > > man > > > > > > being. > > > > > > Yes, I do believe that a human fetus is more important than any anima= > > l=2E I > > > > > believe that people are more important than animals. They are injecti= > > ng > > > > > pigs with human DNA with hopes of transplanting the organs of those p= > > igs > > > > > 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 clearl= > > y has > > > > > legal rights. Unborn babies have no legal rights. The only people tha= > > t are > > > > > fighting for unwanted unborn babies are the members of pro-life group= > > s 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > > about them. Why do you do that? > > Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have > abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for > adoption? They do not tell women what to do. They are not like you. > > It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at > Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices > refer patients for abortions.- Yes, and your point is? > - Vis tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179782961.266861.268...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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 Su= > > preme > > > > > 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 th= > > at > > > > 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. > > In this case, do you believe the mother and her unborn baby was treated > differently or the same? I believe they were treated the same since the > man was found guilty of two murders. If he had only been found guilty of > one murder, they would have been treated differently. What you believe or what you "guess" is not relevant. What does the law say? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:02:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105070002350001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <oy84i.21436$YL5.12746@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >>>> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >> >>>> ... >> >>>>>> Here's something else that could happen: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to >> > work in >> >>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands >> > and start >> >>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's >supplies of >> >>>>>> anchovies. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South >> >>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton >> >>> look-alikes. >> >>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the >> >>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. >> >>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi >> >>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using >> >>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Couldn't happen? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the >> >>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for >> >>>>> people to kill each other. >> >>>> Well said. >> >>> Was Hitler an atheist? >> >> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the >> >> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. >> >> >> >> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed >> >>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. >> >> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a >> >> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. >> >> >> >> What about Alexander the Great? >> >>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to >> >>> conquer. >> >> No idea. >> >> >> >> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. >> >> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion >> >> related ideologies. >> >> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the >> >> name of religion. >> >> >> >> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They >> >> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist >> >> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they >> >> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. >> >> >> >> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be >> >> fundamentalist idiots. >> >> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there >> >> was no religion. >> >> >> >> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And >> >> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. >> >> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more >> >> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the >> >> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have >> > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? >> > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a >> > war as a fundamentalist theist? >> > >> No, a fundamentalist theist is more likely to start wars because he or >> she would be more inclined to do it in the name of whatever deities they >> happened to worship. > >I hate to state it but based upon my understanding of history--you are >correct. The next war will probably be started by a religious nutcase--the >president of Iran. He actully stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of >the world." Once he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel--we will have >to retaliate--probably with our own Nukes. > The last two wars America was involved in were started by religious nutcases. First was Afghanistan thanks to bin Laden and the Taliban and the second was Iraq thanks to George W Bush. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179781371.564902.168570@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 everyon= > e in > > > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Vir= > gina > > > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virgin= > ia. > > > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested i= > n 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 ha= > d 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? They could also be Christians that do not take their religion seriously. Back in Virginia, they called them "back slidden Christians". > > > > > > > > > > > There have been at least 10 murders since I have > > > > lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. T= > here > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105071149050001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >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 > So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes all to die. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:14:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105070014040001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179720533.536011.57690@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 21, 7:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> > > The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. >> > > Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion >> > > related ideologies. >> > > The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the >> > > name of religion. >> > >> > > See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They >> > > both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist >> > > or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they >> > > did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. >> > >> > > So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be >> > > fundamentalist idiots. >> > > The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there >> > > was no religion. >> > >> > > Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And >> > > quite often, that is the driving force behind it. >> > > That does not mean that without religion there will be no more >> > > terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the >> > > mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. >> > >> > > Tokay >> > >> > I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have >> > been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? >> > Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a >> > war as a fundamentalist theist? >> >> As atheism is the lack of a belief, it doesn't make sense to be a >> "fundamentalist atheist". It is possible to be atheist and a >> fundamentalist communist, however, but then communism is, itself, a >> dogmatic belief system not unlike religion. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >It is a dogmatic belief system. However, most communists are outspoken >atheists. They claim that religion is the opiate of the masses. >Jason > They are opposed to religiosity. Marx had plenty of evidence to show how religion destroyed culture. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179781873.019238.93160@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Perhaps I should have wrote: Don't you believe that most women are aware of the fact that their fetuses were killed during the abortion process? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179782094.943998.202990@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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>, Ma= > rtin > > > > > > 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=3DA4=3DEB20=3DA4=3DE9, =3DA4W=3DA4=3DC811=3DAE=3DC958=3DA4= > =3DC0, J...@nospam.com > > > > (Jason) wro=3D > > > > > > > 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= > =3D > > > > > > > ey > > > > > > > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babi= > es. > > > > > > > Actually, I don't know that most doctors wouldn't perform abortions. > > > > > I know that most doctors who DO perform abortions would hesitate ab= > out > > > > > 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 n= > ot > > > > > 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 wron= > g=2E > > > > > Morality doesn't come from the Bible: in most cases, our morality h= > as > > > > > 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 af= > ter > > > > > 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 hu= > man > > > > > being. > > > > > > Yes, I do believe that a human fetus is more important than any anima= > l=2E I > > > > believe that people are more important than animals. They are injecti= > ng > > > > pigs with human DNA with hopes of transplanting the organs of those p= > igs > > > > 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 clearl= > y has > > > > legal rights. Unborn babies have no legal rights. The only people tha= > t are > > > > fighting for unwanted unborn babies are the members of pro-life group= > s 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > about them. Why do you do that? Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for adoption? It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices refer patients for abortions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179782961.266861.268280@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 Su= > preme > > > > 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 th= > at > > > 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. In this case, do you believe the mother and her unborn baby was treated differently or the same? I believe they were treated the same since the man was found guilty of two murders. If he had only been found guilty of one murder, they would have been treated differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179783616.348606.41540@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 21 Maj, 20:20, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179752420.451060.278...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@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 't= > he > > > > > baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perf= > ectly > > > > > reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. > > > > > > > Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get p= > eople > > > > > to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correc= > t in > > > > > a legal sense. > > > > > > You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. Howev= > er, > > > > most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal > > > > profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BA= > BY ON > > > > BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FET= > US 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 rea= > ches > > > > the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kil= > l 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?- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart > from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, > according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay > as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt > give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23 > > I=2Ee. if she only aborts the man is not executed. Are you more moral > than your god? So the man that caused the miscarrage is charged with a crime and is taken before a judge. The judge decides how much of a fine the guilty man should pay. Christians don't obide by all of those thousands of laws mentioned in the Old Testament. We do obey the 10 commandments. I don't think that doctors that perform abortions should be charged with crimes and forced to pay fines. The reason is because abortions are legal in America. Do you believe that doctors that perform abortions should be charged with crimes and forced to pay fines? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179784712.503622.24810@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 21 Maj, 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <l468i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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.- > > You totally ignored the question. I believe that I did answer the question. We are very respectful to the people that are walking into or out of the abortion clinics or the doctors offices. We don't yell things to those people. Perhaps there are some pro-lifers that do those sorts of things but I have never seen that sort of thing happen in this city. I have only played a small role in one of those protests. It was actually very boring to walk back and forth carrying a sign. Most people ignored us. We did not harrass anyone. I was not even a member of that pro-life group. I stopped my car when I seen them. I walked back and forth with them and gave them some words of support. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179785136.869672.43960@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 21 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <mp68i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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.- > > In that case you should have no problem with the protesters who > harrassed being arrested. It is odd though that the pro-life people > did not discover how bad the harrassment was until after the arrests > and after the arrests were held up in court, but that was probably > just a coincidence. I agree that pro-life protesters that violate the law should be arrested. In this case, I don't know the details so will not comment. In the protest that I was involved in--we did not harrass anyone. It was actually very boring. Carrying a sign back and forth for several hours is very boring. I only stayed for about 30 minutes. I was not a member of that pro-life group. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 01:22:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <uo9253tbqkb1klgnalb3in9caht6sv3cdp@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:37:31 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >> >> >No, there wouldn't be much chaos at all. If the US began using nuclear >> >weapons there would be very many dead people, but that wouldn't >> >necessarily imply chaos as a result. >> >> If we really started dropping nukes there wouldn't be any chaos at all >> ... after a few short weeks. That's about how long it would take for >> the last person to die of radiation poisoning. BushCo would get its >> wish - total annihilation. > >You snipped my post. Bush would not start the war. Why not? He wants Armageddon - that's the fundamentalist goal. The sooner the world ends, the sooner the millennium begins. >The president of Iran stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map." 1) You don't wipe Israel off the map by nuking the USA. 2) You don't wipe Israel off the map by killing every Iranian with the fallout if you're Iran. (Iran is downwind of Israel.) 3) The Iranian president doesn't get to do what he wants - he does what the council of religious leaders of the country tell him to do. He can talk all he wants. If the world reacts badly, he can be replaced. The same Mullahs are still in charge behind the scenes. Everyone can identify the puppet, but no one knows who the puppeteers are. >If he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel, Bush would be obligated to retaliate. If he sets up a missile with a nuke, Israel would be obligated to eliminate it. And perfectly capable of knowing about it and taking it out, too. (Where do you think we get most of our Mid-East intel? From the under-achievement department at the CIA?) >Israel probably has their own nukes and they would retaliate. Most likely not with nukes, though. All they'd need would be a failed gantry. Tip the missile over and Iran is all done. That needs only a very tiny "bomb". >It's my guess that >Bush would use Nukes. However, it is also possible that Bush may use >conventional weapons It's my guess that Bush will make more mouth-noise. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179786160.386482.77640@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 22 Maj, 01:02, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 21 Maj, 10:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179723712.782708.91...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Mar= > tin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 11:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <1179711719.315620.299...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>= > , Ma=3D > > > rtin > > > > > > > > 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=3D3DA4=3D3DEB20=3D3DA4=3D3DE9, =3D3DA4W=3D3DA4=3D3DC81= > 1=3D3DAE=3D3DC958=3D3DA4=3D > > > =3D3DC0, J...@nospam.com > > > > > > (Jason) wro=3D3D > > > > > > > > > te: > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <1179621460.614622.219...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions becaus= > e th=3D > > > =3D3D > > > > > > > > > ey > > > > > > > > > > > > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn = > babi=3D > > > es. > > > > > > > > > Actually, I don't know that most doctors wouldn't perform abort= > ions. > > > > > > > I know that most doctors who DO perform abortions would hesitat= > e ab=3D > > > out > > > > > > > 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 =3D > > > 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 fing= > ers =3D > > > and > > > > > > > > > toes. Doesn't mean that they're the same as newborn babies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Most women are not taught that killing animals is taboo--= > just=3D > > > that > > > > > > killing > > > > > > > > > > people is taboo. They don't put people in prison for kill= > ing > > > > animals. > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Think about why. > > > > > > > > > > I buried a dead possum and did not lose any sleep over the po= > ssum=3D > > > . It > > > > > > > > would have been different if I buried a dead baby. I hope tha= > t 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 b= > aby. > > > > > > 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 fir= > st > > > > > > 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 =3D > > > 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 ca= > re n=3D > > > ot > > > > > > > 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 s= > ay > > > > > > > anything about people protecting animals: on the contrary, your= > god=3D > > > 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 wr= > ong,=3D > > > or > > > > > > > that discrimination against people of different races, religion= > or > > > > > > > sexual preference as wrong, or that the oppression of women is = > wron=3D > > > g=3D2E > > > > > > > Morality doesn't come from the Bible: in most cases, our morali= > ty h=3D > > > as > > > > > > > emerged _despite_ the Bible. > > > > > > > > I agree. Perhaps that is God's plan in action but I'm sure you wo= > uld > > > > disagree. > > > > > > > > > I am not a cold, unfeeling person. Neither is Kelsey (even tho= > ugh =3D > > > 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 necessa= > ry to > > > > > > > place the unborn child ahead of the mother who would be expecte= > d to > > > > > > > not only carry the baby to term but also continue to care for i= > t af=3D > > > ter > > > > > > > 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 differenc= > e is > > > > > > > that the fetus has the _potential_ one day of becoming an actua= > l hu=3D > > > man > > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > Yes, I do believe that a human fetus is more important than any a= > nima=3D > > > l=3D2E I > > > > > > believe that people are more important than animals. They are inj= > ecti=3D > > > ng > > > > > > pigs with human DNA with hopes of transplanting the organs of tho= > se p=3D > > > igs > > > > > > into humans. It appears that scientists care more about people t= > han =3D > > > they > > > > > > care about animals. > > > > > > I don't place the unborn child ahead of the mother. The mother cl= > earl=3D > > > y has > > > > > > legal rights. Unborn babies have no legal rights. The only people= > tha=3D > > > t are > > > > > > fighting for unwanted unborn babies are the members of pro-life g= > roup=3D > > > s and > > > > > > other people like myself. It's my opinion that the staff members = > of > > > > > > Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics are major enemies of unwa= > nted > > > > > > 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 havi= > ng > > > > > 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=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > > > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > > > about them. Why do you do that? > > > > Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have > > abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for > > adoption? > > They do not tell women what to do. They are not like you. > > > > > It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at > > Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices > > refer patients for abortions.- > > Yes, and your point is? > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Several days ago, I posted some comments from abortion clinic workers. The comments were from people (including doctors) that worked in abortion clinics. One of the counselors stated that she advised any pregnant woman that came into the clinic to have an abortion. The reason was because they made money from every abortion that was performed. I realize that an abortion clinic is different from a Planned Parenthood Office. Does Planned Parenthood derive any funds related to abortion services? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 In article <1179786323.865613.26680@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 22 Maj, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179782961.266861.268...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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 Su= > > > preme > > > > > > 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 th= > > > at > > > > > 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. > > > > In this case, do you believe the mother and her unborn baby was treated > > differently or the same? I believe they were treated the same since the > > man was found guilty of two murders. If he had only been found guilty of > > one murder, they would have been treated differently. > > What you believe or what you "guess" is not relevant. What does the > law say? You failed to answer my question. As far as the court decision is concerned, was the mother and her fetus treated the same? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:00:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105071200440001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > Let's not forget the communists in Acts. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:22:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105071122130001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 Does not apply. Why were there different laws in the Old Testament for behavior that caused the death of a fetus? 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.