Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 22, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <OA84i.21437$YL5.18045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <zz14i.8761$2v1.2033@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,

>>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <PcS3i.1070$u56.1020@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

>>>>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <hbe4i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> [snips]

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing

>>> is pretty

>>>>>>>>>> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point

>>>>> here is.

>>>>>>>>> Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression

> and are

>>>>>>>>> required to get counseling after they have killed someone.

>>>>>>>> I think you missed the gist of the point I was making; it was, I'll

>>> admit,

>>>>>>>> a tad subtle.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Here, you use the phrase "killing someone". Above, you simply used the

>>>>>>>> term "killing". See the difference? One is about killing

> _people_; the

>>>>>>>> other is a more generalized term, which applies also to, say, killing

>>>>>>>> bacteria, fungus, viruses and the like, all things we very much

>>> need to do

>>>>>>>> in order to survive.

>>>>>>>> The point is that, like so much "pro-life" and pro-religion

> rhetoric, the

>>>>>>>> terminology is sloppy. In many cases this is intentional, such as

>>> that of

>>>>>>>> a certain boneheaded woman I've been discussing abortion with who

>>> persists

>>>>>>>> in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this

>>>>>>>> intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows

>>>>>>>> she cannot support any other way.

>>>>>>> One reason that your friend does that is because many of the

> advocates of

>>>>>>> abortion attempt to depersonalize the fetus.

>>>>>> Which is proper. A fetus is not a person, legally or physically.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In some abortion clinics, the

>>>>>>> fetus is referred to as a POC (product of conception). That is

>>>>>>> depersonalization to the max.

>>>>>> You may be bothered by this because the anti-abortionists consider a

>>>>>> blastocyst to be a baby. Opposite side of the coin.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Your friend probably uses the term MURDER in

>>>>>>> order to personalize the fetus. Members of the military in World World I

>>>>>>> and II were trained to depersonalize the enemy--they even used

> slang terms

>>>>>>> for them which I will not mention in this post so as not to offend

> anyone.

>>>>>> That has been done in all wars by all combatants. Read your history.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That is like calling a fetus a POC.

>>>>>>>> You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy

> terminology, such

>>>>>>>> as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use

> "killing"

>>>>>>>> when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat

>>>>>>>> extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing

>>>>>>>> valued life" or some such.

>>>>>>> Yes--and the reason is to personalize the fetus. There is a bumper

> sticker

>>>>>>> that says: It's a Baby--Not a Choice. There is another that says:

>>>>>>> ABORTION=MURDER

>>>>>>> Those are attempts to cause people to see the fetus as an unborn baby.

>>>>>> When in fact it is not, legally or physically.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> One thing that has really helped our cause is the 3D color ultrasound. I

>>>>>>> saw a picture on the cover of a magazine. It was a 3D color

> ultrasound of

>>>>>>> a 7 month old fetus. It was so clear that it looked like a 7 month old

>>>>>>> baby. There was NO doubt that it was a BABY. In the year 1974, I heard a

>>>>>>> lady from Planned Parenthood tell a high school class that a fetus was a

>>>>>>> "mass of tissue". That lady was lying. A fetus is NOT a mass of tissue.

>>>>>>> The 3D color ultrasound means that representatives from Planned

> Parenthood

>>>>>>> will no longer be able to tell that lie to the members of a highschool

>>>>>>> class. That lady was trying to depersonalize the fetus. The advocates of

>>>>>>> abortion seem to always try to depersonalize the fetus--do you do that?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In one state, women are required to look at a 3D color ultrasound

> of their

>>>>>>> fetuses before they can have an abortion. I support that law. How to you

>>>>>>> feel about that law? It's to force women to personalize their fetus and

>>>>>>> see it as a baby.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I'm happy to agree that killing _people_ (or "valued life") can

> be cause

>>>>>>>> for depression; somewhat less inclined to agree that killing,

> period, is

>>>>>>>> cause for distress: if it's me or the bacteria, trust me, I'm not going

>>>>>>>> to lose any sleep over wiping them out by the millions.

>>>>>>> That is great to know--

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse

>>>>>>>>> to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize

>>>>>>>>> anyone--including unborn babies.

>>>>>>>> No such thing. A baby, by definition, is born. Well, delivered - by

>>>>>>>> birth, C-section or, in a couple of odd plays and the like, by simply

>>>>>>>> gutting the woman and having the results pour forth.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> A fetus is an unborn baby.

>>>>>>>> No, a fetus is a fetus. After birth, it is a baby.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You see, a baby is a person, with the rights of a person; a fetus

> isn't.

>>>>>>>> Your use of "unborn baby" thus confuses the issue; an

> unfertilized egg is

>>>>>>>> also - by your usage - an unborn baby; do we grant it the full

>>> rights of

>>>>>>>> a person? Obviously not. So you must mean this the other way around,

>>>>>>>> that a baby does not have the rights of a person.

>>>>> Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and killed

>>>>> the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with two

>>>>> murders?

>>>>>

>>>>> The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person.

>>>>>

>>>>> If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should be

>>>>> considered a person in every case. That's why many people in the pro-life

>>>>> community refer to the fetus as an unborn baby instead of a fetus or a

>>>>> POC.

>>>> Not really. One could just as easily take the other side: that the

>>>> fetus was not a person, so only one count of murder would apply.

>>>> However, there is justice in considering the fetus in this case to be a

>>>> potential person. The reason is that late term abortions are quite rare,

>>>> so it can reasonably inferred that the fetus would have been carried to

>>>> term had the mother not been murdered.

>>>>

>>>>>>>> Nope, neither of those positions make much sense, so something has to

>>>>>>>> give. In this case, the obvious solution is to use correct

> terminology:

>>>>>>>> fetus while inside the womb, baby after delivery.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> There are no major differences between a baby

>>>>>>>>> that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a

>>>>>>>>> mother's womb that is also 7 months old.

>>>>>>>> Yes, there is; the one delivered after 7 months has a chance to

> live; the

>>>>>>>> other is dead. It would suffocate. Of course, a fetus at 7

> months has

>>>>>>>> no such risk, as it has oxygen supplied by the host.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies.

>>>>>>>> Of course. They, however, are not the ones under consideration

> here. If

>>>>>>>> they want kids, they're not going to be lining up to have

> abortions, now

>>>>>>>> are they? The subject here is abortions, so women who, pretty much by

>>>>>>>> definition aren't going to have abortions really have no

> relevance to the

>>>>>>>> discussion.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be

>>>>>>>>> done in the first trimester.

>>>>>>>> Yes, but no reasons why they should not be done later; that is, no

>>>>>>>> reason to try to ban second and third trimester abortions.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously

>>>>>>>>>> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be

>>>>>>>>>> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary

>>>>>>>>>> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer

> GUILT when

>>>>>>>>> they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed.

>>>>>>>> "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who

>>>>>>>> dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be

> shunned. They

>>>>>>>> are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction;

>>>>>>>> anything else makes them evil.

>>>>>>> You are failing to see that when an abortion takes place, that the end

>>>>>>> result is a dead baby.

>>>>>> It's not a baby until it is born after being long enough in utero to be

>>>>>> viable outside it. Until that time it is a fetus.

>>>>> Let's say for the sake of discussion that after an abortion--there is a 7

>>>>> month old baby lying on the table. Would you call it a dead baby or a dead

>>>>> fetus?

>>>> Be careful of your language - your question is ambiguous. Had it been

>>>> born 7 months ago, a baby. Had it been conceived 7 months ago and not

>>>> yet born, a fetus.

>>> It was conceived 7 months ago and it's dead and lying on the table--is it

>>> a fetus or a baby?

>> Fetus

>>>>>> You care about the woman and that is wonderful. I

>>>>>>> care about the woman and the fetus.

>>>>>> You don't care about either. You don't care about the woman because you

>>>>>> do not respect her ability to make appropriately informed choices. You

>>>>>> don't respect the fetus because you potentially allow it to be born into

>>>>>> a family that cannot or will not care for it.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The reason is because after 9

>>>>>>> months--the fetus becomes a baby. The reason she will feel guilt is

>>>>>>> because it's normal for most people to have guilt feeling related to a

>>>>>>> death. It's my opinion that women that use the morning after pill or get

>>>>>>> abortions during the first trimester will have less depression

> than if the

>>>>>>> abortion took place during the second or third trimester.

>>>>>> That is possible; however, only a small percentage of abortions are

>>>>>> performed after the first trimester. If you would allow abortion during

>>>>>> the first trimester, you are permitting abortion. You had better get

>>>>>> your views to be more consistent.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I'll help you a bit: at what point in the pregnancy do you think that

>>>>>> abortion should be illegal? Under what circumstances should abortions

>>>>>> be allowed after that point?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I would be interested in your answer.

>>>>> I believe that abortions should be legal during the first trimester. The

>>>>> only exception would be if there was some sort of crisis that puts the

>>>>> mother's life in danger.

>>>> OK, that is a thoughtful and reasonable position, not particularly

>>>> different from that of many thoughtful people.

>>>>

>>>> But you don't approve of any abortions, regardless of when performed,

> right?

>>> That's more complicated and harder to answer but I will try: While

>>> abortion is still legal, it should be restricted to the first trimester

>>> unless the mother's life or health is in danger. The end goal of the

>>> pro-life movement is to eventually convince the vast majority of people

>>> that unborn babies have the right to life. We are not there yet. It may

>>> never happen. In the mean time, I would never force a woman to NOT have an

>>> abortion. I comply with the law.

>> You take a rational approach. Just get rid of the fanatics who are

>> polluting your mental processes and you may be on the road to

>> intellectual freedom.

>>

>>>>>>>> And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame

> involved, where

>>>>>>>> none should be.

>>>>> The shame or guilt is mainly because most women are taught from birth that

>>>>> the murder of a person is taboo. As I have stated in other posts, this is

>>>>> less likely to happen when the morning after pill is used since in most

>>>>> cases the woman does not even know whether or not she was pregnant.

>>>>>

>>>> The morning after pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting itself

>>>> in the uterus, so it's not really an abortifact, it's a contraceptive,

>>>> even if a late one.

>>>>

>>>> If I understand you correctly, you condone the morning after pill and

>>>> abortions in the first trimester because you believe their impact on the

>>>> mother will be less that abortions performed later. You seem to oppose

>>>> late-term abortions unequivocally.

>>>>

>>>> Is that a correct statement of your position?

>>> Yes--the only exception would be if the mother's life or health was in

> danger.

>> You would allow abortion at any time to save the mother's life?

>>

>>>

>

> YES

>

Interesting. Very honest and thoughtful answer. You have the courage to

look at the matter objectively. Now, if you could free yourself from the

doctrinaire liars around you, you could grow spiritually beyond your

wildest dreams.

Have the courage of your convictions. Take the leap.

May 22, 2007

Jason wrote:

> 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.

>

I am not sure that we would be obligated to strike at Iran for doing

that. I would hope that the world would do it anyway.

May 22, 2007

On May 22, 11:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179798665.168239.326...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 22, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179751650.961129.79...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 21, 3:24 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > > I have learned to do it. I rarely ever discussed my opinions while I was

> > > > > still working. I retired last year. I took some classes at a the state

> > > > > university and kept my opinions to myself. Some of my professors were

> > > > > atheists. I respected most of them except for one lady professor that

> > > > > humiliated Christians in her class.

>

> > > > Is that the incident where she allegedly asked Christians to raise

> > > > their hands? The incident in which you weren't actually present in

> > > > class to see?

>

> > > 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.

>

> > It's a false scenario: the assumption provided was that the people on

> > the boat would only survive if one were cast overboard and yet there

> > would have been absolutely no doubt that the remainder of the people

> > in the group would be guilty of murder if the old man were cast

> > overboard. Whether or not the people would be charged if this were a

> > real life situation is doubtful because the other people on the boat

> > could have argued that the old man was a threat to them, and yet for

> > all they knew they could have been rescued in a few hours rather than

> > a few days. I take it this was your situational ethics class.

>

> > Your teacher was an idiot: a good real life scenario would have been

> > the Apollo 13 astronauts; there were three men aboard Apollo 13 and

> > there wasn't enough air for all three of them; having one of them -or

> > even two of them- killed so that there could be at least one survivor

> > was, I'm sure, not even considered as an option. In the end, all

> > three men survived and their survival relied on their co-operation

> > rather than their competition. Obviously, your teacher was treating

> > the situation as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers

> > but real life isn't like that: in real life the people on the boat may

> > end up on an island where they might need somebody to build a fire,

> > somebody to gather fruit, somebody to go fishing, somebody to build a

> > hut, etc. In real life people depend on each other. In the extreme

> > case of five men on a boat and a month to go until rescue, the best

> > solution would be for the strongest member of the group to kill ALL

> > FOUR of the other men. In that case, there would be a greater chance

> > of the remaining man being charged with murder because what he did was

> > obviously unfair. By the same token, the "life" of an unborn fetus

> > cannot be given precedence over that of the woman who carries it

> > because she has a life of her own and can't be expected to give

> > everything up for the sake of a child she never wanted.

>

> > Martin

>

> Martin,

> That professor was not intelligent enough to realize the points that you

> mentioned in your post. Our reason was that it would be murder and none of

> us wanted to commit murder. I would give the same answer related the

> Apollo 13 scenario.

You should have. It is perfectly valid to attack a hypothetical

situation with a real life situation that contradicts it.

> Almost every professor that I have ever had was much

> more intelligent than that professor. She could not think outside the box.

>

> Would it be possible for a pregnant woman that did not want to keep her

> baby to have the fetus removed from her body and placed in the body of a

> woman that was not able to get pregnant. The woman that was pregnant would

> be paid lots of money for her fetus. Do you think this plan would work? It

> would stop lots of abortions.

It isn't about the money. You obviously have a very low opinion of

women. Some women just want their life back. You can't understand

that because you've never been pregnant.

> Even Planned Parenthood might want to get

> involved and collect fees for linking up the pregnant women with the women

> that wanted to carry the babies to term. I guess the lawyers would love

> this plan because they could make money by writing the contracts and

> handling the money transfers.

Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the

services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be

willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen.

Martin

May 22, 2007

On May 22, 10:15 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 05:57:35 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:

> > On May 21, 3:08 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> [snips]

>

> >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:34:49 -0700, Jason wrote:

> >> > You made many excellent points in your post. It appears that you have had

> >> > some legal training.

>

> >> None whatsoever.

>

> > Perhaps you should get some and come back. You might also consider

> > taking a logic 101 course and a basic math course.

>

> > The fact that you were able to fool Jason into thinking you had a clue

> > just goes to demonstrate the level of his naivite.

>

> Still can't make a point to save your life, can you? You're kind of like

> the flies we call "noseeums"; to insignificant to swat, but vaguely

> annoying in the few cases we become aware they exist at all.

>

> I've asked you repeatedly to make a point, you've failed, miserably, every

> single time, yet here you are whining and crying about it.

>

> I've got far more important things to do than waste time on you -

> collecting navel lint, for example - so I'm going to make this easy on you.

>

> Goodbye.

I'm sorry, did you have something you wanted to say to me?

Take whatever it is to somebody who cares.

Martin

May 22, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <jF84i.21438$YL5.20251@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <f2ql5q$g6n$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>>>>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>>>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

>>>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>>>>> Here's something else that could happen:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to

>>>>> work in

>>>>>>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands

>>>>> and start

>>>>>>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's

>>> supplies of

>>>>>>>>>> anchovies.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South

>>>>>>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton

>>>>>>> look-alikes.

>>>>>>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of

> course, the

>>>>>>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that.

>>>>>>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi

>>>>>>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using

>>>>>>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Couldn't happen?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the

>>>>>>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for

>>>>>>>>> people to kill each other.

>>>>>>>> Well said.

>>>>>>> Was Hitler an atheist?

>>>>>> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the

>>>>>> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the

> masses.

>>>>>> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed

>>>>>>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union.

>>>>>> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a

>>>>>> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What about Alexander the Great?

>>>>>>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to

>>>>>>> conquer.

>>>>>> No idea.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons.

>>>>>> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion

>>>>>> related ideologies.

>>>>>> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the

>>>>>> name of religion.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They

>>>>>> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist

>>>>>> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they

>>>>>> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be

>>>>>> fundamentalist idiots.

>>>>>> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there

>>>>>> was no religion.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And

>>>>>> quite often, that is the driving force behind it.

>>>>>> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more

>>>>>> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the

>>>>>> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Tokay

>>>>> I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have

>>>>> been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin?

>>>> I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But

>>>> because he was a fundamentalist.

>>>>

>>>>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a

>>>>> war as a fundamentalist theist?

>>>> In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes

>>>> because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other

>>>> ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules

>>>> you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is

>>>> no "holy land".

>>>>

>>>> So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as

>>>> long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do

>>>> whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like.

>>>>

>>>> Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide

>>>> bombers.

>>>>

>>>> Tokay

>>> Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in

>>> California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in

>>> California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in

>>> my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina

>>> obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia.

>>> They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the

>>> local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I

>>> live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY

>>> different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any

>>> gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang

>>> members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have

>>> lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There

>>> have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in

>>> California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are

>>> more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very

>>> seriously. Feel free to disagree with me.

>> You moved from a small town with a homogeneous population and not much

>> migration to the most heterogeneous state in the union, where all ethnic

>> groups live side by side. There will be differences. Everyone was the

>> whitebread same where you came from, but everyone is different where you

>> are. I live in San Francisco and raised two children here. I know about

>> the differences and the ethnic issues. Religion has nothing to do with

>> it. You have an unreasonable bias against atheists. If you are going to

>> live in a pluralistic state you had better get rid of any biases you have.

>

> I have learned to do it. I rarely ever discussed my opinions while I was

> still working. I retired last year. I took some classes at a the state

> university and kept my opinions to myself. Some of my professors were

> atheists. I respected most of them except for one lady professor that

> humiliated Christians in her class.

Such people do not merit respect unless there is a compelling reason.

It sounds doubtful in this case.

I respect atheists as long as they are

> respectful to me.

Agreed.

Most atheists that I have met were wonderful people.

> Believe it or not, almost everyone has biases--they just don't discuss

> them except with their closest friends. For example, you probably know

> people in San Francisco that have a bias against homosexuals but they

> would never state that bias with anyone except their closest friends.

It's probably out there, but I have never observed it in my circle of

friends and acquaintances.

>

May 22, 2007

On May 22, 11:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179797321.800369.95...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 22, 2:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179750992.987024.54...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 21, 2:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article

>

> <1179720512.091220.293...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > In addition to assaulting her, he also took away her right to chose

> > > > > > whether or not to have her baby.

>

> > > > > You are 100 percent correct. That is probably the major reason that the

> > > > > liberals on the court voted with the majority. My memory is not perfect

> > > > > but seem to recall that Planned Parenthood was hoping that the decision

> > > > > would be different in this case since they are concerned that this court

> > > > > decision could be used to uphold the rights of fetuses in other court

> > > > > cases. Is the word for this precedent?

>

> > > > This apparently accounts for the unanamous desire to change the law

> > > > following the Keeler case.

>

> > > >http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html

>

> > > > "When I have taught the Keeler case in my criminal law course, most

> > > > students who voice an opinion are unhappy with the result. Pro-life

> > > > members of the class are understandably upset with the ruling. And pro-

> > > > choice students point out that the choice of abortion belongs to the

> > > > mother, and that taking away that choice by killing her fetus without

> > > > her consent does as much -- or more -- violence to reproductive

> > > > freedom as a prohibition against abortion would.

>

> > > > "Many students agree, moreover, that a fetus has moral worth that

> > > > requires that as long as the mother is prepared to sustain the

> > > > physical and emotional burdens of pregnancy, others must refrain from

> > > > harming her fetus. In response to the ruling in Keeler, the California

> > > > legislature amended its murder statute to add "fetus" to the class of

> > > > victims whose malicious killing would qualify as murder, coupled with

> > > > an exception for consensual abortions."

>

> > > Thanks for your post. I agree that a fetus has moral worth. However, not

> > > just when the mother wants to carry the baby to term--but always--do you

> > > see my point?

>

> > The question remains whether or not the woman's right to choose

> > whether or not to have the baby has moral worth or not.

>

> Either the fetus has moral worth or it does not have moral worth. You

> can't have it both ways.

Either a woman has the right to decide whether or not to stay pregnant

or not. You can't have it both ways.

Martin

May 22, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <EH84i.21439$YL5.7615@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <3W44i.1201$u56.1181@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,

>>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <1179693431.955600.57530@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <1179510218.722129.104...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>> In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>> snip

>>>>>>>>> I would not force a woman to not have an abortion.

>>>>>>>> Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal.

>>>>>>> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that

> Martin

>>>>>>> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

>>>>>>> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded.

>>>>>> He did not have to lie. You do.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> We are succeeding in some

>>>>>>> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

>>>>>>> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

>>>>>>> the right to life.

>>>>>> Meaning you want to force women to not have abortions.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

>>>>>>> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

>>>>>>> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I

> don't want

>>>>>>> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to

> decide

>>>>>>> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want

> to have

>>>>>>> babies.

>>>>>> See above.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

>>>>>>> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

>>>>>>> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

>>>>>>> babies--prior to abortions.

>>>>>>> jason

>>>>>> And you want to make abortion illegal - i.e. force women to not have

>>>>>> an abortion.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> However, I see nothing

>>>>>>>>> wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion cl=

>>>>>> inics

>>>>>>>>> and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you

>>>>>>>>> think that pro-life protestors should be arrested?

>>>>> Did you forget to answer the above question with a yes or no answer?

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they

>>>>>>>> picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal.

>>>>>> Did you forget to answer the above?

>>>>> They now have rules about where pro-life protestors can carry their signs.

>>>>> In most cases, it's on the public side walk out and NOT on the property of

>>>>> the abortion clinic or doctor's office. If Rev. Phelp's people followed

>>>>> the law, they should not be arrested. If they failed to follow the law,

>>>>> they should have been arrested. Do you believe that environmentalists that

>>>>> stand in the road and not allow huge trucks carrying logs to pass should

>>>>> be arrested?

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In one of the southern

>>>>>>>>> states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, =

>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>>> are winning the battle.-

>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for

>>>>>>>> themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not

>>>>>>>> lie about it again.

>>>>>>> Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in

> America.

>>>>>>> I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any

> woman from

>>>>>>> having an abortion.

>>>>>> You want to make it illegal. You want to use force.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have

>>>>>>> the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would

>>>>>>> advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I

>>>>>>> would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If

>>>>>>> there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions

>>>>>>> illegal--I would vote in favor of it.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>>>>>> You still want to make it illegal. You keep evading that; are you

>>>>>> ashamed of it?

>>>>> The end goal of the pro-life movement is to influence the hearts and minds

>>>>> of American people to understand that unborn babies have the right to

>>>>> life. That's the reason it's called the pro-life movement.

>>>> They are miserable failures. They come across as shrill, unfeeling, and

>>>> intolerant. They do not show any respect for the needs of women, and

>>>> have been active in closing clinics that provide services to the

>>>> community just because of the the occasional abortion.

>>>>

>>>> They get their jollies and make themselves feel virtuous by forcing

>>>> themselves into the lives of others where they have no place.

>>>>

>>>> Your position would be far more moral if you stuck to your views of

>>>> abortion without endorsing the anti-abortion, reproduction fascists who

>>>> call themselves "prolife" the same way the Leninist minority called

>>>> itself "Bolsheviks," meaning the majority party.

>>>>

>>>>> However, since abortion is now legal, we try to do what we can to

>>>>> encourage women to place their unwanted babies up for adoption. There is a

>>>>> bumper sticker that says ADOPTION--NOT ABORTION. If women come into

>>>>> pro-life counseling centers, many of the counselors arrange for the women

>>>>> to have 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies.

>>>> They use scare tactics and intimidation rather than actual counseling.

>>>> That's the problem with these people. They sadistically intimidate

>>>> rather than advising and support. They are morally vacuous.

>>>>

>>>> The reason is to

>>>>> cause them to realize that they have a baby and not a mass of tissue or a

>>>>> POC (product of conception).

>>>> Whatever you want to call the fetus, it might be the result of rape. It

>>>> may be that the woman cannot care for it, and may be otherwise facing

>>>> some very difficult personal choices. How do you think it makes her

>>>> feel if all these folks do is call her a murderer? And you wonder about

>>>> post-abortion depression. Have there been studies of how much depression

>>>> occurs in women who visit these so-called "pro-life counseling centers?"

>>>>

>>>>> If a woman still wanted to have an abortion, I would encourage them to

>>>>> take the morning after pill or have the abortion during the first

>>>>> trimester.

>>>> This puts you at odds with the reproduction fascists. Have you thought

>>>> about what will happen to you if they find out?

>>>>

>>>>> There are other people in the pro-life community that would NEVER advise

>>>>> women that are seeking abortions to take the morning after pill or to have

>>>>> a first trimester abortion. We are not all of the same page related to

>>>>> these issues.

>>>>>

>>>> As far as they are concerned, you might as well join Planned Parenthood

>>>> and start donating time and money. Watch your back.

>>> I don't let any organization tell me how to think. I am not a member of

>>> any pro-life organization.

>>>

>> Yet you are swayed by preachers who have been shown to be liars. Are

>> they from your church? If so, you are a member of a "pro-life"

>> organization.

>

> I was discussing established pro-life organizations. There are probably

> women in my church that are advocates for Pro-Choice. It's a large church.

>

Who knows? I would not remain a member of a church (or synagogue) that

used lies to preach against abortion. The attitude is one thing, the

lies are another.

May 22, 2007

In article <m8u9i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:19:34 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> >> 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.

>

> Correct; it is not considered murder; at best it is considered loss of

> property and a recompense must be paid. Mind you, if she dies, then the

> attacker is treated as a murder and killed.

>

> So, God obviously doesn't consider abortion murder, or even anything to

> get worked up about; pay a fine, go about your business. Big whoop.

>

> The pro-lifers, by contrast, persist in screaming "abortion is murder" and

> treating it as such. This, of course, gives rise to the somewhat amusing

> situation where they base their morality on Biblical concepts, yet are now

> in the position of saying God Himself is immoral and tolerates such

> immorality - yet still claiming to derive their morals from God, despite

> being completely against what God Himself has decreed is the proper

> response in the situation.

>

> > Christians don't obide by all of those thousands of laws mentioned in

> > the Old Testament.

>

> No, but you do take a position which is completely contrary to what God

> Himself has deemed the situation to be. He says "Thou shalt not kill",

> but he also, as demonstrated above. is perfectly happy to tolerate

> abortion; the only killing he cares about is whether the mother dies or

> not.

>

> How wonderfully arrogant of you to claim to be a Christian, to believe in

> God, yet think you're in a position to put yourself above God, to define

> what is and isn't moral even when doing so contradicts God.

>

> I'll tell you, if I were a believer, I would be terrified to adopt such a

> stance. Let us not forget, he is a jealous God... he might not take too

> kindly to some mouthy upstart usurping His position of defining what is

> right and wrong, defining morality.

>

> > We do obey the 10 commandments.

>

> Yet you contradict the very God you supposedly believe. Not much of a

> faith, is it? I mean, you don't really believe in God, you don't

> really believe God has the power or the right to define morality; if you

> did, you wouldn't be trying to defend a completely contradictory view.

>

> > 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.

>

> And under God. In fact, they're so acceptable to God, He Himself says

> they're only worth a fine. Where do you get off trying to tell anyone

> that abortion is anything other than perfectly acceptable, when God

> Himself tells you you are wrong?

There is at least one other scripture that you are ignoring. I could not

find it but it says something like this: "God knew him while he was still

in his mother's womb". That scripture indicates that the soul and spirit

are placed in a baby prior to birth. Some Bible scholars believe it

happens during conception and others believe it happens after the brain

has formed. It's my opinion that it happens after the brain is completely

formed.

Related to the other issue--God wrote the 10 commandments and one of the

commandents states "Thou should not kill". I believe that commandment is

more important than the scripture that you mentioned. Related to that

scripture: I don't believe the man intended to cause the woman to lose her

child. It was an accident. That's very different than an abortion. In

those cases, the doctor intends to kill the unborn baby. If the man had

intended to kill an unborn baby--that would probably fall under

commandment related to: Thou shall not kill.

May 22, 2007

In article <frs9i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:57:52 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> >> The question is "Why not?" At the point where you can't refute

> >> anybody's argument, doesn't it fall upon you to at least consider that

> >> they may be right? What is the sense of saying "Good point... but I

> >> know you are wrong anyway. I just do."?

> >>

> >> Martin

> >

> > No--I have reasons and answers--I just don't like to have to repeat the

> > answers dozens of times. You already know my answers.

>

> That's kind of the point he's making - the questions being asked, the ones

> you keep saying "good point" to, are direct refutations of the very things

> you claim to believe in.

>

> Since you, yourself, cannot apparently refute those questions and comments

> - your only response to many of them is "good point" - surely you see the

> very fabric of what you believe in unraveling; at what point do you say to

> yourself "I can no longer maintain this belief, there are simply too many

> unanswered questions, or questions with wrong answers"?

>

> If you cannot even entertain such a notion, if there is no point at which

> you would give up this belief, then none of your "good point" and similar

> responses actually mean what they say; it is not "good point", but,

> rather, "Yes, you have a good point, but I refuse to even allow the

> possibility of your changing my mind, so I will refuse to even examine the

> implications of what you say" - a rather different proposition entirely.

Good point--just joking.

I usually respond to direct questions. People like yourself already know

my opinions on most of these issues. I see no reason to keep repeating my

major arguments over and over. I usually comment if someone comes up with

a new approach or new argument that I have not seen before.

May 22, 2007

In article <1179799302.211347.144920@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 2:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > I once worked with a person that taught school in the Harlem district. He

> > stopped teaching at the end of his first year. He said that the vast

> > majority of his students had no interest in learning.

>

> I've worked in three countries in Asia and the vast majority of

> students I've had anywhere were not interested in learning. Beginning

> teachers make the assumption of thinking their students want to learn

> but the truth is that half the job of a teacher is to motivate

> students. I imagine that there would be few people who would want to

> become teachers if they realized that students need constant

> motivational reinforcement or else they simply wouldn't pay attention

> and, thus, most teacher training programs are going to gloss over this

> point even though it is vitally important. Studies have shown that

> when a teacher gives a lecture, students are only paying attention 10%

> of the time and this obviously sets an upper limit on what they can

> actually retain from the lecture: I read about this in the book

> _Communication in the Language Classroom_ by Tony Lynch.

>

> Martin

Martin,

That teacher did not know what you know about teaching. I believe that

teaching is a talent and not all people have it. We both have had teachers

that have that talent and many other teachers that did not have that

talent.

Jason

May 22, 2007

On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

>On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-2105071149050...@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.

>

>It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is

>served from cooperation rather than competition.

In fact, it is not that clear cut.

A mix of 95% co-operators, and 5% cut-throat psychopaths is an

evolutionarily stable mix.

--

May 22, 2007

In article <1179799430.275927.151630@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 2:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179751725.767097.304...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 21, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > > Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in

> > > > > > California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in

> > > > > > California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost

> > everyone in

> > > > > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in

> > Virgina

> > > > > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in

Virginia.

> > > > > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were

> > arrested in the

> > > > > > local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car

accidents. I

> > > > > > live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY

> > > > > > different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never

> > had any

> > > > > > gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of

the gang

> > > > > > members are atheists.

> >

> > > > > It's a guess based on what?

> >

> > > > > > There have been at least 10 murders since I have

> > > > > > lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two

> > murders. There

> > > > > > have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in

> > > > > > California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that

atheists are

> > > > > > more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their

> > religion very

> > > > > > seriously. Feel free to disagree with me.

> >

> > > > > The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious

> > > > > affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates

> > > > > per religion category:

> >

> > > > > Response Number %

> > > > > ---------------------------- --------

> > > > > Catholic 29267 39.164%

> > > > > Protestant 26162 35.008%

> > > > > Muslim 5435 7.273%

> > > > > American Indian 2408 3.222%

> > > > > Nation 1734 2.320%

> > > > > Rasta 1485 1.987%

> > > > > Jewish 1325 1.773%

> > > > > Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

> > > > > Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

> > > > > Moorish 1066 1.426%

> > > > > Buddhist 882 1.180%

> > > > > Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

> > > > > Adventist 621 0.831%

> > > > > Orthodox 375 0.502%

> > > > > Mormon 298 0.399%

> > > > > Scientology 190 0.254%

> > > > > Atheist 156 0.209%

> > > > > Hindu 119 0.159%

> > > > > Santeria 117 0.157%

> > > > > Sikh 14 0.019%

> > > > > Bahai 9 0.012%

> > > > > Krishna 7 0.009%

> > > > > ---------------------------- --------

> > > > > Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does

> > > > > this)

> > > > > Unknown/No Answer 18381

> > > > > ----------------------------

> > > > > Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is

> > > > > known.

> > > > > Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)

> > > > > ----------------------------

> > > > > Total In Prisons 96968

> >

> > > > > Atheists only represent 0.209% of the prison population in America of

> > > > > 1 in 500, which is less than the statistical number you would expect

> > > > > based on the numebr of atheists in America today.

> >

> > > > > If atheists are more likely to commit crimes than theists then explain

> > > > > to mee why there are relatively so few atheists in prison.

> >

> > > > Thanks for posting the statistics. It's my guess that most of the people

> > > > that are in prison do not take their religions seriously--otherwise they

> > > > would not have ended up in prison. On the other hand, once they

make it to

> > > > prison, many of them get back involved in their religions and usually do

> > > > well while in prison and stay out of trouble.

> >

> > > How do you explain repeat offenders then?

>

> > They go back to their environments that they came from. If that

> > environment was conductive to criminal behavior--eg illegal drug use and

> > robbing people or stores to get money for buying more drugs--they are

> > likely to become repeat offenders. The prison counselors and psychologists

> > encourage them to NOT go back to the environments that they came from but

> > lots of inmates do it anyway.

>

> If hanging around other criminals is not conductive to rehabilitation

> then there doesn't seem to be much point expecting criminals to

> rehabilitate in prison.

>

> Martin

Martin,

They can if they set their minds to it and want to rehabilitate. Prisons

have all sorts of programs for those inmates. Group counseling works

great.

Jason

May 22, 2007

On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:41:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

- Refer:

<Jason-2105071941360001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>

:

>I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in your posts.

The "N" word?

"Normal"?

"Nice"?

"Neutral"?

"Noble"?

All words that you despise out of pure envy.

--

May 22, 2007

In article <1179801660.345047.254330@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 5:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > What is the name of their God? They place Christian preachers in prison in

> > China. Christians have to meet in secret in so called home churches.

>

> This isn't actually true, Jason. There are plenty of people to attend

> officially sanctioned churches in China.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

>

> "Today, the Chinese language typically divides Christians into two

> groups, members of Jidu jiao, (literally, Christianity) Protestantism,

> and members of Tianzhu jiao (literally "Lord of Heaven" religion),

> Catholicism. [...] Since loosening of restrictions on religion after

> the 1970s, Christianity has grown significantly within the People's

> Republic. It is still, however, tightly controlled by government

> authorities. [...] Many Christians choose however to meet

> independently of these organizations, typically in house churches.

> These fellowships are not officially registered and are seen as

> illegal entities and are often persecuted heavily. For this reason

> some meetings take place underground, coining the term "underground

> church". These Christians have been persecuted throughout the 20th

> century, especially during the Cultural Revolution, and there remains

> some official harassment in the form of arrests and interrogations of

> Chinese Christians. At the same time, there has been increasing

> tolerance of house churches since the late 1970s."

>

> Martin

Martin,

There may be "increasing tolerance" but that's very different than total

tolerance. There are lots of former preachers of those underground

churches in Chinese prisons. There are millions of Chinese Christians.

Jason

May 22, 2007

In article <1179799538.944944.219510@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179751828.470211.111...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 21, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179721146.307240.22...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 21, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > > Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in

> > > > > > California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in

> > > > > > California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost

> > everyone in

> > > > > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in

> > Virgina

> > > > > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in

Virginia.

> > > > > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were

> > arrested in the

> > > > > > local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car

accidents. I

> > > > > > live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY

> > > > > > different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never

> > had any

> > > > > > gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of

the gang

> > > > > > members are atheists.

> >

> > > > > It's a guess based on what?

> >

> > > > Many gang members do things that are major sins. A Christian that took

> > > > their religion seriously would not join a youth gang.

> >

> > > But what makes you think an atheist would? Most atheists are like

> > > everybody else except only that they lack this god belief that propels

> > > so many people around the world towards commiting violent acts.

> >

> > I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to join a gang--atheist

> > or Christian. It's probably for companionship or protection.

>

> Which is the same reason so many people around the world join their

> local religious group.

>

> Martin

Another reason: Because God wants us to go to church. There is a scripture

that says: "Forsake not yourselves from assembling together"

May 22, 2007

In article <1179802836.768826.228650@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 6:52 am, 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".

>

> So would we, if by "back slidden" you mean "typical".

>

> Martin

No--those are Christians that do anything they want to do without a regard

for the 10 commandments or anything else written in the Bible. Some of

them end up in prison which accounts for the statistics you posted.

May 22, 2007

In article <1179804699.590658.141960@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 7:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179786323.865613.26...@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > gudl...@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?

>

> He asked you what the law says. The law in California redefines

> murder as the killing of a human being OR a fetus but wilfull abortion

> is excluded from the law. Thus, women and fetuses are not treated the

> same under California law. That is your answer.

>

> Martin

Under that law, would a man be charged with murder if he stabbed a

pregnant woman--the fetus dies but the woman lives?

May 22, 2007

In article <1179804572.010702.12150@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 7:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > 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?

>

> Why would a pregnant woman walk into an abortion clinic if she didn't

> want an abortion? If you see a pregnant woman walking into an

> abortion clinic don't you too assume she wants to have an abortion?

>

> Martin

I would assume the same thing if I saw her walking into a Planned

Parenthood office. Those employees probably tell her about their abortion

services. They may also encourage her to have an abortion but I have no

proof.

May 22, 2007

In article <1179804129.753391.216030@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 7:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> > > 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.

>

> If you knew that hundreds of thousands of women died every year

> worldwide giving birth, would you still pressure a woman into having a

> baby she didn't want?

>

> Martin

Martin,

I would never tell a woman what to do unless she asked me for my opinion.

In that case, I would advise her to have the baby and put it up for

adoption. If she wanted to have an abortion, I would refer her to the

Planned Parenthood office.

Jason

May 22, 2007

In article <1179799705.711507.92500@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 3:16 am, 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.

>

> That doesn't actually answer his question though. Are they are are

> they not trying to discourage women from getting abortions?

>

> Martin

Yes, that is accurate. I was only with the pro-life protesters for about

30 minutes. We were carrying signs back and forth on the public street

outside the doctor's office. I only saw several people walk in and out of

the doctor's office. None of us knew whether or not any of the women were

seeking abortions. The doctor also had regular patients. None of us said

anything to any of those women. It was very boring. I was not a member of

that pro-life organization. It was NOT harrassment. I don't know if other

pro-life organizations harrass women but we did not harrass anyone. I

believe it was different before they changed the laws.

Jason

May 22, 2007

In article <1179799820.340365.71740@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 3:29 am, 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.

>

> Who is "we"? I thought you said you weren't a member of any "pro-

> life" organisation.

>

> Martin

Martin,

I used the term WE to refer to all members of all pro-life organizations

and those people that support their cause. One national ministry

established a home for un-wed mothers. After those mothers had their

babies, they were placed for adoption. I donated enough money to provide

total care for one of those pregnant mothers. I felt great knowing that I

saved the life of at least one baby. That ministry has saved the lives of

thousands of babies over the years. I like the bumper sticker that says,

Adoption--Not Abortion.

Jason

May 22, 2007

In article <1179805428.807778.130940@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 10:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in

your posts.

>

> Thanks for warning the rest of us not to bother reading his posts.

> Not that I hadn't figured this out already myself.

>

> Martin

You are welcome--I advise you and everyone else not to reply to posts from

people that have mental problems or use derogatory language.

May 22, 2007

In article <1179806008.637888.258120@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 11:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179797321.800369.95...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 22, 2:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179750992.987024.54...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 21, 2:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > In article

> >

> > <1179720512.091220.293...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > In addition to assaulting her, he also took away her right

to chose

> > > > > > > whether or not to have her baby.

> >

> > > > > > You are 100 percent correct. That is probably the major reason

that the

> > > > > > liberals on the court voted with the majority. My memory is

not perfect

> > > > > > but seem to recall that Planned Parenthood was hoping that the

decision

> > > > > > would be different in this case since they are concerned that

this court

> > > > > > decision could be used to uphold the rights of fetuses in

other court

> > > > > > cases. Is the word for this precedent?

> >

> > > > > This apparently accounts for the unanamous desire to change the law

> > > > > following the Keeler case.

> >

> > > > >http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html

> >

> > > > > "When I have taught the Keeler case in my criminal law course, most

> > > > > students who voice an opinion are unhappy with the result. Pro-life

> > > > > members of the class are understandably upset with the ruling.

And pro-

> > > > > choice students point out that the choice of abortion belongs to the

> > > > > mother, and that taking away that choice by killing her fetus without

> > > > > her consent does as much -- or more -- violence to reproductive

> > > > > freedom as a prohibition against abortion would.

> >

> > > > > "Many students agree, moreover, that a fetus has moral worth that

> > > > > requires that as long as the mother is prepared to sustain the

> > > > > physical and emotional burdens of pregnancy, others must refrain from

> > > > > harming her fetus. In response to the ruling in Keeler, the California

> > > > > legislature amended its murder statute to add "fetus" to the class of

> > > > > victims whose malicious killing would qualify as murder, coupled with

> > > > > an exception for consensual abortions."

> >

> > > > Thanks for your post. I agree that a fetus has moral worth. However, not

> > > > just when the mother wants to carry the baby to term--but always--do you

> > > > see my point?

> >

> > > The question remains whether or not the woman's right to choose

> > > whether or not to have the baby has moral worth or not.

> >

> > Either the fetus has moral worth or it does not have moral worth. You

> > can't have it both ways.

>

> Either a woman has the right to decide whether or not to stay pregnant

> or not. You can't have it both ways.

>

> Martin

I will answer your question: I agree that she has that right. Now--it's

your turn: Does the fetus have moral worth--yes or no?

my answer: Yes

Be brave--what's your answer?

May 22, 2007

In article <KLt4i.29705$Um6.7721@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > 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.

> >

> I am not sure that we would be obligated to strike at Iran for doing

> that. I would hope that the world would do it anyway.

Israel is an ally of the US.

May 22, 2007

In article <1179805812.679780.44060@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 11:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179798665.168239.326...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 22, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179751650.961129.79...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

Martin

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 21, 3:24 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > > I have learned to do it. I rarely ever discussed my opinions

while I was

> > > > > > still working. I retired last year. I took some classes at a

the state

> > > > > > university and kept my opinions to myself. Some of my

professors were

> > > > > > atheists. I respected most of them except for one lady

professor that

> > > > > > humiliated Christians in her class.

> >

> > > > > Is that the incident where she allegedly asked Christians to raise

> > > > > their hands? The incident in which you weren't actually present in

> > > > > class to see?

> >

> > > > 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.

> >

> > > It's a false scenario: the assumption provided was that the people on

> > > the boat would only survive if one were cast overboard and yet there

> > > would have been absolutely no doubt that the remainder of the people

> > > in the group would be guilty of murder if the old man were cast

> > > overboard. Whether or not the people would be charged if this were a

> > > real life situation is doubtful because the other people on the boat

> > > could have argued that the old man was a threat to them, and yet for

> > > all they knew they could have been rescued in a few hours rather than

> > > a few days. I take it this was your situational ethics class.

> >

> > > Your teacher was an idiot: a good real life scenario would have been

> > > the Apollo 13 astronauts; there were three men aboard Apollo 13 and

> > > there wasn't enough air for all three of them; having one of them -or

> > > even two of them- killed so that there could be at least one survivor

> > > was, I'm sure, not even considered as an option. In the end, all

> > > three men survived and their survival relied on their co-operation

> > > rather than their competition. Obviously, your teacher was treating

> > > the situation as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers

> > > but real life isn't like that: in real life the people on the boat may

> > > end up on an island where they might need somebody to build a fire,

> > > somebody to gather fruit, somebody to go fishing, somebody to build a

> > > hut, etc. In real life people depend on each other. In the extreme

> > > case of five men on a boat and a month to go until rescue, the best

> > > solution would be for the strongest member of the group to kill ALL

> > > FOUR of the other men. In that case, there would be a greater chance

> > > of the remaining man being charged with murder because what he did was

> > > obviously unfair. By the same token, the "life" of an unborn fetus

> > > cannot be given precedence over that of the woman who carries it

> > > because she has a life of her own and can't be expected to give

> > > everything up for the sake of a child she never wanted.

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Martin,

> > That professor was not intelligent enough to realize the points that you

> > mentioned in your post. Our reason was that it would be murder and none of

> > us wanted to commit murder. I would give the same answer related the

> > Apollo 13 scenario.

>

> You should have. It is perfectly valid to attack a hypothetical

> situation with a real life situation that contradicts it.

>

> > Almost every professor that I have ever had was much

> > more intelligent than that professor. She could not think outside the box.

> >

> > Would it be possible for a pregnant woman that did not want to keep her

> > baby to have the fetus removed from her body and placed in the body of a

> > woman that was not able to get pregnant. The woman that was pregnant would

> > be paid lots of money for her fetus. Do you think this plan would work? It

> > would stop lots of abortions.

>

> It isn't about the money. You obviously have a very low opinion of

> women. Some women just want their life back. You can't understand

> that because you've never been pregnant.

>

> > Even Planned Parenthood might want to get

> > involved and collect fees for linking up the pregnant women with the women

> > that wanted to carry the babies to term. I guess the lawyers would love

> > this plan because they could make money by writing the contracts and

> > handling the money transfers.

>

> Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the

> services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be

> willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen.

>

> Martin

Women are selling their eggs on the internet for lots of money. In this

case, they would be selling their fetuses--possibly on the web. Young

women would benefit (from the huge sums of money)--the woman that receives

the baby would benefit--the unborn baby would benefit since it would not

be aborted--lawyers would benefit. It's a win-win-win-win situation.

Sign In

Evolution is Just Junk Science

Recommended Posts

Guest cactus

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest cactus

Guest Martin

Guest Martin

Guest cactus

Guest Martin

Guest cactus

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Jason

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Guest Jason

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support