Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:41:12 -0700, Jason wrote: >> You would allow abortion at any time to save the mother's life? >> >> > >> > > > YES Including post-partum? Hmm; there's a few folks around I think deserve a good dose of being aborted. -- We'll have to slaughter innocent people who show how godly we are. - Fredric Rice Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Mike wrote: >> I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in >> your posts. > > > "nothing"? "not"? "need"? "necessary"? "no"? Oh, you mean where he used > "******s" in a sarcastic way to illustrate a point and show how the > bigoted people felt at the time who were against the freedom of all men? Don't confuse him. His brain will hurt and he may forget what his preacher told him to think. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <vsdei4-hm5.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:28:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > We differ in regard to how we intrepret the scripture. I continue to > > believe that if a man purposely kills a fetus--that it falls under the > > commandment. If a man unintentionly kills a fetus--it falls under the > > scripture that you mentioned. > > You continue to believe it, yet you can't give an explanation for the > passage. Of course, the passage itself shows that while "Thou shalt not > kill" is a general principle, it is not applicable to fetuses - according > to God Himself. > > You, of course, persist in trying to tell God that He is wrong. Isn't > that generally considered hubris? All Christians do not interpret the scriptures the same way. That's the reason we have so many different denominations. I once worked with a man that was a Mormon. We had lots of discussions about the meaning of various scriptures. They interpret certain scriptures their way and members of my church interpret the same scriptures our way. Paul explained it this way: 1 Cor. 13:12 For now we see in a mirrow dimly [while we are still on this earth], but then [while we are in heaven] face to face [with God]--now I know in part, but then [while I am in heaven] I shall know fully..." In other words, we may not truly understand how to interpret every scripture the same way--until after we get to heaven. At that point in time, all scriptures wil make perfect sense because we will no longer "know in part" but instead will "know fully". Therefore, it does not concern me when someone else interprets a scripture in a different way than I interpret that same scripture. If you choose to believe that scripture means that God has no problem with abortion doctors killing unborn babies--feel free to do so. Does God hate it when children are murdered? See Psalm 106: Those people were sacrificing their sons and daughters to demons. It states they "shed innocent blood". God was very upset with them (vs 40). Answer this question: Since the blood of fetuses is "innocent blood" do you still believe that God condones abortion? Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On 23 mayo, 01:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <02aci4-79r....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:31:29 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > 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. > > > And if someone attacked the mother and caused her to abort, he'd be fined. > > Not killed, which was the penalty for murder. Yes, and? > > > > Some Bible scholars believe it > > > happens during conception > > > If so, then God Himself has no particular concerns over the issue of soul > > and spirit, as he tells us the penalty is a simple fine. Not killing, > > unless the mother dies - i.e. unless a murder is committed. > > > > Related to the other issue--God wrote the 10 commandments and one of the > > > commandents states "Thou should not kill". > > > Yes, indeed. If you kill the mother, you get killed - the punishment for > > a murderer. If you cause her to abort, you pay a fine. God Himself > > obviously doesn't regard fetuses as having the same status as the mother. > > > > 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. > > > Doesn't really matter, though. It says, quite clearly, that if she > > dies, so does the person causing the harm, but if her fetus dies, well, > > pay a fine and have a nice day. > > > Intentional or not, fact is God Himself puts the mother and the fetus on > > very different grounding: if she dies, you're treated as a murderer; if > > the fetus dies, no big deal, just a question of payment for damaged > > property. > > > How wonderful it must be to tell God you're better than he is and he > > should shape up and get some real morals. > > I interpret the scripture different than you interpret it. The law is > about unintentionly causing a woman to lose her baby. The law is NOT about > someone that stabs a pregnant woman with a sword in an effort to > intentionly murder the fetus. The best example I can think of is a person > that is driving down the road and accidently runs over a man that is > riding a bicycle. The driver would not be charged with first degree > murder. Let's say that same man intentional runs over a man that he knew > was having an affair with his wife. In that case, he would be charged with > first degree murder. > Related to abortion: The doctor is intentionly causing fetuses to lose > their lives. That, in my opinion, is a violation of one of the > commandments. all these arguments are nonsense. God himself ordered a lot of masive murderings of women and children. Even the story of Great Flood is a history of a masive murdering made by god. So, it is easy to deduct that Jehovah is a criminal god. So, those priest that are followers of a criminal god, has not any high ground to teach us morals to the common folk. Bramble Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:31:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2205072231080001@66-52-22-53.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179892444.944254.284530@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: .... >> Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic >> countries. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I >know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is >also legal in some foreign countries. So, why don't you compare comparable crimes and find out whether your hypothesis is valid? If your hypothesis is that religious countries have fewer crimes, then the murder rate would be lower in the religious country. The burglary, robbery, rape, assault and other acts that are commonly called crimes throughout the world would also be lower. Is your hypothesis valid or is it just wishful thinking on your part? >We now have lots of gangs in large >cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit >lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not >legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very >many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Wow, you are actually adding thoughtful complexity to the question. >Would you agree that the >crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in >1900? No. You'll have to provide evidence to support your claim. Of course we didn't have the failed drug prohibition laws we have today, so you need to account for that. >If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their >religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. >Jason And if not, will you admit that your hypothesis is invalid? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179916950.157502.274910@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 23, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> I agree with most of your points. Other people have pointed out to > me that >>>>> Christians are just as likely to commit crimes as atheists. I thought >>>>> about it and concluded that person is correct. The reason is that > lots of >>>>> Christians do not take their religions seriously and as a result do not >>>>> always obey the laws. They even end up in prison if they commit > felonies. >>>> Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic >>>> countries. >>> I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I >>> know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is >>> also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in large >>> cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit >>> lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not >>> legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very >>> many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that the >>> crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in >>> 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their >>> religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. >> No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been >> dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may >> have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost >> half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the >> 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited >> more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > I can't explain it. Would you agree that the crime rate in 2000 is far > higher than it was in the year 1800? Do you have some stats to show that? Maybe it's far LOWER than it was in 1800? BTW, why do you keep changing the dates every time your stupid-assed ideas get shot down? I think that it is and the reason is > because the vast majority of the people in America that lived in 1800 were > Christians that took their religion seriously. I have no facts to back up > my opinion re: to this issue. How would I go about finding the murder rate > in 1800. I.e. your opinion here is is just like your opinion on everything else; something you pulled out of your ass with absolutely no idea if it has any basis in fact at all? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <bfb953hvpdsr5itnpkkcrikcac0gbc40g1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:31:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2205072231080001@66-52-22-53.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1179892444.944254.284530@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > >> Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic > >> countries. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I > >know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is > >also legal in some foreign countries. > > So, why don't you compare comparable crimes and find out whether your > hypothesis is valid? If your hypothesis is that religious countries have > fewer crimes, then the murder rate would be lower in the religious > country. The burglary, robbery, rape, assault and other acts that are > commonly called crimes throughout the world would also be lower. Is your > hypothesis valid or is it just wishful thinking on your part? > > >We now have lots of gangs in large > >cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit > >lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not > >legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very > >many gun related crimes in foreign countries. > > Wow, you are actually adding thoughtful complexity to the question. > > >Would you agree that the > >crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in > >1900? > > No. You'll have to provide evidence to support your claim. Of course we > didn't have the failed drug prohibition laws we have today, so you need > to account for that. > > >If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their > >religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. > >Jason > > And if not, will you admit that your hypothesis is invalid? You are correct--lots of research would need to be done before we would know for sure. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:46:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart >> >> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused >> >> women and girls who pose you no threat? >> >> > I comply with the law. >> >> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. >> >> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. > > What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? You could, as but one example, storm in when a procedure is to be performed and stand between doctor and patient, effectively blocking the procedure entirely; if the doc can't get to the patient, the procedure doesn't happen. I'm sure you can come up with many more. Funny thing, though; if you did that, you'd risk anything up to and including being arrested... but you would also stop a procedure which would otherwise have happened. Oh, but wait... you could get arrested . Nope, can't have that. Too risky. Much safer to sit on the sidelines, in a group, harassing those very people who are in no position to defend themselves against you. You know what they call someone who gangs up and picks on weaker victims, right? I believe the term is "bully". Or, as I like to put, it, "ball-less coward with no guts at all." -- No, I'm not a fundy. - Johnny Mckinney Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 In article <Jason-2105071403140001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5be9ftF2s35frU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > > > snip > > > > > > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. > > > > What are you plans to take care of them after they're born? > > Put them up for adoption. Translation: Dump them into the system. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 In article <v5vei4-j9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:46:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> >> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart > >> >> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused > >> >> women and girls who pose you no threat? > >> > >> > I comply with the law. > >> > >> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. > >> > >> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. > > > > What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? > > You could, as but one example, storm in when a procedure is to be performed > and stand between doctor and patient, effectively blocking the procedure > entirely; if the doc can't get to the patient, the procedure doesn't > happen. > > I'm sure you can come up with many more. Funny thing, though; if you did > that, you'd risk anything up to and including being arrested... but you > would also stop a procedure which would otherwise have happened. > > Oh, but wait... you could get arrested . Nope, can't have that. Too > risky. Much safer to sit on the sidelines, in a group, harassing those > very people who are in no position to defend themselves against you. > > You know what they call someone who gangs up and picks on weaker victims, > right? I believe the term is "bully". Or, as I like to put, it, > "ball-less coward with no guts at all." I've already helped to prevent an unborn baby from being aborted. I done it legally. The young unwed pregnant woman spent about 4 months in a home for unwed mothers with about 12 other unwed mothers. I paid all of her expenses. After her baby was born, it was placed for adoption. It's possible to comply with the law while preventing an abortion. I never even met that young lady. I try not to violate laws. I have never spent any time in jail and don't plan to ever spend a day in jail or even to get arrested. I've only protested against abortion for thirty minutes. During that 30 minutes, I never talked to any of the women that walked into or out of that abortion doctor's office. In addition, none of the other pro-life protesters talked to any of the women. Most of those protesters were women. Jason Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 "655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message news:DipthotDipthot-4B78C9.17200323052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > In article > <Jason-2105071403140001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <5be9ftF2s35frU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> > >> > snip >> > > >> > > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. >> > >> > What are you plans to take care of them after they're born? >> >> Put them up for adoption. > > Translation: Dump them into the system. And if they're not healthy white infants, that's where the majority of them will stay. I wonder what Jason's opinion is on baby dumps, i.e., "Safe Havens"? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart >>>> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused >>>> women and girls who pose you no threat? >>> I comply with the law. >> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. >> >> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. > > What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? > > They could debate the issues in a civil fashion. They could, as they often do, work to get laws changed to their liking. They could have their preachers preach in church about it, as they often do. They could publicly shame those members of their congregations who get abortions. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5bj7n7F2tfcnoU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >>> Martin, >>> That's great news that you gave money to a pro-life organization. Several >>> weeks ago, I read a column about the morning after pill. I hope that in >>> the years to come, that the morning after pill will mean that the vast >>> majority of women that have unwanted babies will never have to have a >>> clinical abortion. Do you agree with me? >> If some woman has an unwanted baby, why would she want an abortion? > > I believe that a fetus is an unborn baby. Do you believe that an egg is a preconceived baby? Perhaps I should have used the > term fetus or "unborn baby" instead of "baby". > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 In article <6k65i.2646$u56.277@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>>> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart > >>>> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused > >>>> women and girls who pose you no threat? > >>> I comply with the law. > >> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. > >> > >> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. > > > > What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? > > > > > They could debate the issues in a civil fashion. They could, as they > often do, work to get laws changed to their liking. They could have > their preachers preach in church about it, as they often do. They could > publicly shame those members of their congregations who get abortions. I don't know what the members of other churches do--but we don't shame them. We treat them the same way we treat everyone else. We treat them with respect. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:45:36 -0700, Jason wrote: >> You know what they call someone who gangs up and picks on weaker victims, >> right? I believe the term is "bully". Or, as I like to put, it, >> "ball-less coward with no guts at all." > > I've already helped to prevent an unborn baby from being aborted. "A". One. In just the time you've spent here posting, you could have been out "saving" more, perhaps many more. You could have done something impressive - like barging in, even in the face of harm or arrest - and inspired others to follow suit, starting an actual movement. Instead you sit here yammering, or on the sidelines where you can gang up on those least able to defend themselves against you. Oh, yes, all very impressive. > home for unwed mothers with about 12 other unwed mothers. I paid all of > her expenses. Thereby instilling guilt in her should she disagree with you. Yes, very good, using your typical emotional predation. All very impressive. > After her baby was born, it was placed for adoption. It's > possible to comply with the law while preventing an abortion. Nobody ever said it wasn't. What I said was that you're a ball-less wonder, a coward, hiding behind the law like your Mommy's skirt, instead of putting your convictions to the test when you had something to lose. So far, you've done nothing to change that conclusion. > I try not to violate laws. As I said, a coward. Obeying a law you find morally repugnant isn't a sign of you being respectable, it's a sign of you being a gutless weakling. > I have never spent > any time in jail and don't plan to ever spend a day in jail or even to > get arrested. Know who Joseph Harris is? He got arrested and sent to jail for three years - because of his activities relating to animal rights. Mark Taylor got four years. Sarah Gisbourne got six years. The list goes on and on. I'm not saying I condone their actions. What I am saying is this: they actually had convictions . They thought something was wrong and should be stopped, and the did something about it, risking - and getting - jail time. They did this for animals . They put their livelihoods, careers, everything on the line for what they believed, and they're paying the price for their actions, but they actually stood up for what they believed in and acted . You, however, don't. You're supposedly trying to save human life, not just animals, but you won't stand up for that, you won't actually put yourself on the line for your "convictions". You're the insignificant nothing who sits in the back yelling things, but when faced with actually getting the job done, you slink away and hide. You are, in short, pathetic. I don't agree with what those people did, but I damn well respect them for why they did it; they believed something needed to be done and they did it. That takes guts. It takes courage. More to the point, it takes conviction. A faith of convenience is no faith at all, they say, but then neither is a conviction of convenience. You either believe it - live it, do it, fight for it - or you're just a mouthy little pissant who doesn't deserve a voice on the subject. Leave that part to those who do have the guts to back up their words with some actions. You, sir, are a coward. -- "You nescient schmuck." -- Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <6k65i.2646$u56.277@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you > do, apart >>>>>> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused >>>>>> women and girls who pose you no threat? >>>>> I comply with the law. >>>> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. >>>> >>>> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. >>> What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? >>> >>> >> They could debate the issues in a civil fashion. They could, as they >> often do, work to get laws changed to their liking. They could have >> their preachers preach in church about it, as they often do. They could >> publicly shame those members of their congregations who get abortions. > > I don't know what the members of other churches do--but we don't shame > them. We treat them the same way we treat everyone else. We treat them > with respect. > > You seem to be in a minority. The reproduction fascists picket clinics, they do what they can to browbeat and intimidate women into forgoing abortions, they are gleeful when one of their own murders a clinic worker, and they come across as obnoxious, bullying and hateful. Quote
Guest R. Steve Walz Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 Jason wrote: > > In article <v5vei4-j9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:46:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snips] > > >> > > >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> > > >> >> I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you > do, apart > > >> >> from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused > > >> >> women and girls who pose you no threat? > > >> > > >> > I comply with the law. > > >> > > >> Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. > > >> > > >> Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. > > > > > > What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? > > > > You could, as but one example, storm in when a procedure is to be performed > > and stand between doctor and patient, effectively blocking the procedure > > entirely; if the doc can't get to the patient, the procedure doesn't > > happen. > > > > I'm sure you can come up with many more. Funny thing, though; if you did > > that, you'd risk anything up to and including being arrested... but you > > would also stop a procedure which would otherwise have happened. > > > > Oh, but wait... you could get arrested . Nope, can't have that. Too > > risky. Much safer to sit on the sidelines, in a group, harassing those > > very people who are in no position to defend themselves against you. > > > > You know what they call someone who gangs up and picks on weaker victims, > > right? I believe the term is "bully". Or, as I like to put, it, > > "ball-less coward with no guts at all." > > I've already helped to prevent an unborn baby from being aborted. I done > it legally. The young unwed pregnant woman spent about 4 months in a home > for unwed mothers with about 12 other unwed mothers. I paid all of her > expenses. After her baby was born, it was placed for adoption. It's > possible to comply with the law while preventing an abortion. I never even > met that young lady. I try not to violate laws. I have never spent any > time in jail and don't plan to ever spend a day in jail or even to get > arrested. I've only protested against abortion for thirty minutes. During > that 30 minutes, I never talked to any of the women that walked into or > out of that abortion doctor's office. In addition, none of the other > pro-life protesters talked to any of the women. Most of those protesters > were women. > Jason ----------------- Fetuses are NOT persons. Nobody recalls ever having been their fetus. This means that there was no conscious being at that time, just a live animal body, nothing more. We can kill them for convenience, just like we kill dumb animals. Steve Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On May 24, 4:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > All Christians do not interpret the scriptures the same way. I think you meant "Christians do not all interpret the scriptures the same way". What you wrote would mean "All Christians interpret the scriptures differently" and, if that were true, then the scriptures would have to be completely meaningless. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On May 24, 3:47 pm, "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com> wrote: > Fetuses are NOT persons. Nobody recalls ever having been their fetus. > This means that there was no conscious being at that time, just a live > animal body, nothing more. We can kill them for convenience, just like > we kill dumb animals. Can you remember when you were a one-year old baby? No? Does that mean you weren't alive at the time? I'm not supporting Jason's argument. I'm just shooting down all dumb arguments as soon as I see them. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:19, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179783616.348606.41...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 21 Maj, 20:20, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179752420.451060.278...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 21 Maj, 02:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <sb515310adep44jull35a8lcvo2mq4e...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:44:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > >Did you know that if a person stabbed a woman that was pregnant and > > > killed > > > > > > >the mother and the fetus--that the murderer would be charged with = > > two > > > > > > >murders? > > > > > > > Which states or countries? > > > > > > > >The reason: The fetus is considered to be a person. > > > > > > > Which states or countries? > > > > > > > >If the fetus is considered to be a person in that case, it should = > > be > > > > > > >considered a person in every case. > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > >That's why many people in the pro-life > > > > > > >community refer to the fetus as an unborn baby instead of a fetus = > > or a > > > > > > >POC. > > > > > > > Most women, particularly after quickening, refer to the fetus as 't= > > he > > > > > > baby' or possibly even a name if they have named it. That is a perf= > > ectly > > > > > > reasonable thing to do, but its not technically meaningful. > > > > > > > Religious zealots like to use politically misleading words to get p= > > eople > > > > > > to accept their lies. That doesn't mean that their words are correc= > > t in > > > > > > a legal sense. > > > > > > You are correct--the medical term and the legal term--is fetus. Howev= > > er, > > > > > most people are not involved in the medical profession or the legal > > > > > profession. I have even seen pregnant women wear shirts that say, "BA= > > BY ON > > > > > BOARD". I have never seen a shirt on a pregnant woman that says, "FET= > > US ON > > > > > BOARD". > > > > > > Do you want me to find proof that murder charges could be filed on any > > > > > person that murders a fetus? For example, a boy friend has a pregnant > > > > > girlfriend that refuses to have an abortion. After the girlfriend rea= > > ches > > > > > the third trimester, he stabs the lady in the stomach in order to kil= > > l the > > > > > fetus. The woman lives but the unborn baby dies. Do you think the cops > > > > > should charge that boyfriend with murder and assault or just assault = > > and > > > > > battery?- > > > > > Do you think god was wrong when his rules did not treat abortion as > > > > murder? > > > > What scripture are you referring to?- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart > > from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, > > according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay > > as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt > > give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23 > > > I=2Ee. if she only aborts the man is not executed. Are you more moral > > than your god? > > So the man that caused the miscarrage is charged with a crime and is taken > before a judge. The judge decides how much of a fine the guilty man should > pay. Yes,according to what the Bible says is the word of god,it is not murder. So, you disagree with god. > > Christians don't obide by all of those thousands of laws mentioned in the > Old Testament. We do obey the 10 commandments. So, you think god was wrong. >I don't think that doctors > that perform abortions should be charged with crimes and forced to pay > fines. The reason is because abortions are legal in America. Do you or do you not think that abortion is murder? Do you or do you not think it should be against the law? Do you > believe that doctors that perform abortions should be charged with crimes > and forced to pay fines?- Why would you ask such an incredibly silly question? You already know that I think that it is up to the woman to decide and that abortions should remain legal. Furthermore your question has nothing to do with why you disagree with god. Are you going to answer that or not? > > - Vis tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179784712.503622.24...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 21 Maj, 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <l468i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [snips] > > > > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 01:53:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. However, I see > nothing > > > > > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion > > > > > clinics > > > > > Change the setting a little. Mid century, southern US. Outside a school. > > > > Blacks have won the right to send their kids to the same schools as > > > > whites. Outside the school, a young black child approaches. She knows > > > > that the prevailing feeling in the community is that she has no right to > > > > be there, despite the laws. She is probably terrified of simply going in. > > > > > Between her and the door stand a group of protesters, waving signs > > > > protesting desegregation. > > > > > Now, tell us this... do you think those people waving signs are doing > > > > anything but trying to force her to turn away? > > > > > Of curse not. That is exactly why they're there - to foster and promote > > > > the emotional and cultural state that tells her she is a bad and horrible > > > > person for being there, that she has no right to be there, that she should > > > > go home and be a "good little ******", not try to pretend she's "as good > > > > as a white". > > > > > Now explain to us the difference between that, and your pro-lifers > > > > standing outside a clinic, fostering the same sort of emotional and > > > > cultural state, the only difference being that it's not "be a good little > > > > ******", but "be a good little breeder". > > > > > Oh, no, nothing wrong with this at all. > > > > The laws related to protesting in front of abortion clinics have been > > > changed. Prolife protestors are not allowed to block the sidewalks or > > > prevent people from entering or leaving an abortion clinic or a doctor's > > > office.- > > > You totally ignored the question. > > I believe that I did answer the question. We are very respectful to the > people that are walking into or out of the abortion clinics or the doctors > offices. You were not asked how you behave during a protest - if you have ever been in one. >We don't yell things to those people. Perhaps there are some > pro-lifers that do those sorts of things but I have never seen that sort > of thing happen in this city. I have only played a small role in one of > those protests. It was actually very boring to walk back and forth > carrying a sign. Most people ignored us. We did not harrass anyone. I was > not even a member of that pro-life group. I stopped my car when I seen > them. I walked back and forth with them and gave them some words of > support.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179785136.869672.43...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 21 Maj, 21:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <mp68i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [snips] > > > > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 11:19:15 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > Have you seen any news reports about environmentalists that stand in the > > > > > roads to block huge trucks that are carrying logs? They carry protest > > > > > signs. > > > > > > Do you think that those people--even the ones standing next to the > > > > > road--should be arrested? > > > > > If they're trespassing, certainly. If they interfere with legitimate > > > > business, I might agree with their ideals, but yes, they are breaking the > > > > law. > > > > > What they are not doing is harassing innocent individuals who are > > > > probably already terrified and confused. > > > > > It takes a really strong conviction to stand together, as a group, > > > > and torment a single woman or a couple, who are probably already scared, > > > > worried and possibly confused. > > > > > As another poster said, they're not out in front of recruitment offices > > > > and the like, despite those being places where people in essence sign up > > > > to take lives. Wonder why that is? Oh, right, because that would involve > > > > actually having the guts to stand up for what you believe in when there's > > > > someone who might, just possibly, be in a position to push back. > > > > > A conviction of convenience is not a conviction at all. > > > > > Oh, and for the record... I have been in situations such as that. > > > > Facing down cops. Facing down baseball bats and two by fours. Facing > > > > down people trying to push through or run us down with their cars and > > > > vans. And here's the real chuckle... I was doing that for people I had no > > > > personal involvement with, nothing to gain from it but simple self > respect. > > > > > You may not agree with what I was fighting for or why, but that's not the > > > > point; the point is that when push comes to shove, I put my convictions to > > > > the test and stood up for them in the faces of imminent personal harm. > > > > Your side? They only do it when the worst they risk is a splinter from > > > > the post of the sign they carry. > > > > We are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. In my > > > opinion, that is just as important as any other issue and even more > > > important than protecting the rights of trees or protecting the lives of > > > test animals. Most pro-life protestors follow the laws in terms of where > > > they carry their signs. We do that for a reason: We are trying to change > > > to get people to join our cause. We know that if we harrassed people going > > > into abortion clinics that it would hurt our cause and people would not > > > want to join our cause. In this case, peaceful protests are very > > > effective.- > > > In that case you should have no problem with the protesters who > > harrassed being arrested. It is odd though that the pro-life people > > did not discover how bad the harrassment was until after the arrests > > and after the arrests were held up in court, but that was probably > > just a coincidence. > > I agree that pro-life protesters that violate the law should be arrested. > In this case, I don't know the details so will not comment. In the protest > that I was involved in--we did not harrass anyone. It was actually very > boring. Carrying a sign back and forth for several hours is very boring. I > only stayed for about 30 minutes. I was not a member of that pro-life > group.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179786160.386482.77...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 22 Maj, 01:02, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 21 Maj, 10:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1179723712.782708.91...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Mar= > > tin snip > > > > > You are probably correct. However, most women have first trimester > > > > > abortions and they would probably talk them into having abortions. As= > > you > > > > > pointed out, Planned Parenthood makes money off of abortions. > > > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > > > > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > > > > about them. Why do you do that? > > > > Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have > > > abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for > > > adoption? > > > They do not tell women what to do. They are not like you. > > > > It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at > > > Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices > > > refer patients for abortions.- > > > Yes, and your point is? > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Several days ago, I posted some comments from abortion clinic workers. The > comments were from people (including doctors) that worked in abortion > clinics. One of the counselors stated that she advised any pregnant woman > that came into the clinic to have an abortion. The reason was because they > made money from every abortion that was performed. I realize that an > abortion clinic is different from a Planned Parenthood Office. Does > Planned Parenthood derive any funds related to abortion services? As you have been told many times by now, Planned Parenthood is not a business but a non-profit organisation. They receive money for services related to many things; abortion is one of them. They do not make money (earn a profit) on any of them. You know this, or you certainly should know this by now. If they were earning a profit, one of their many enemies would surely attempt to have their non-profit status taken away; that has not happened. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 On 22 Maj, 01:50, 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?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 In article <1180012367.510526.126710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 22 Maj, 01:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179784712.503622.24...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 21 Maj, 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <l468i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > [snips] > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 01:53:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. However, I see > > nothing > > > > > > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion > > > > > > clinics > > > > > > > Change the setting a little. Mid century, southern US. Outside a = > school. > > > > > Blacks have won the right to send their kids to the same schools as > > > > > whites. Outside the school, a young black child approaches. She k= > nows > > > > > that the prevailing feeling in the community is that she has no rig= > ht to > > > > > be there, despite the laws. She is probably terrified of simply go= > ing 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 do= > ing > > > > > anything but trying to force her to turn away? > > > > > > > Of curse not. That is exactly why they're there - to foster and pr= > omote > > > > > the emotional and cultural state that tells her she is a bad and ho= > rrible > > > > > 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 docto= > r's > > > > office.- > > > > > You totally ignored the question. > > > > I believe that I did answer the question. We are very respectful to the > > people that are walking into or out of the abortion clinics or the doctors > > offices. > > You were not asked how you behave during a protest - if you have ever > been in one. > > > >We don't yell things to those people. Perhaps there are some > > pro-lifers that do those sorts of things but I have never seen that sort > > of thing happen in this city. I have only played a small role in one of > > those protests. It was actually very boring to walk back and forth > > carrying a sign. Most people ignored us. We did not harrass anyone. I was > > not even a member of that pro-life group. I stopped my car when I seen > > them. I walked back and forth with them and gave them some words of > > support.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > You still have not answered the question. Nobody is asking how you > behaved. Try again. Which question are you referring to? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.