Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:35:55 -0700, Jason wrote: > We look at this issue in a very different way. We are not on the same > page. It's my opinion that every human fetus is an unborn human baby and > is a potential human baby. You say this - but you don't believe this. At least, not enough to care about the issue one way or the other. Why do I say that? Let's consider cases. Someone else - I gave you several examples - actually believed in animal rights. They did something about it. Fine, they got jailed for it, but they did something. Others believe in things enough they'll put their very lives on the line, in wars, for example, to defend those things they believe in. Others have risked injury or even death for their beliefs by standing up to bullies - even when the bully was the whole community. Many black activists did so in the mid 1900s, and many were tormented, harassed, beaten, even killed for it. History is replete with examples of this sort of thing; people who believe something, stand up for it, defend it, fight for it. You? Your belief is so overwhelming that it makes you... er... what? Oh, right, whine about it on newsgroups, maybe join a dozen others waving signs outside an abortion clinic. No real risk of jail, of harm, of death, no real effort involved... basically, a "belief" you could phone in. That's not going to get you into the history books. It's not going to get changes made. It's not going to make the world - or even the town - change its mind on the subject. In fact, what you show and describe is so devoid of any hope of actually having an impact, you would accomplish as much by simply not having this "belief" in the first place. If you actually believed what you said - that these are people and they are being killed for no good reason, you would be out doing something about it, wouldn't you? It's one thing if this were happening in, oh, Uganda, or some other place where simple distance has a limiting effect on your ability to do something about it, but it's not - it's happening right on your doorstep, in your very town, or a town close by, isn't it? Yet you don't actually do anything about it. You don't stop it. You would certainly never put yourself at risk for it. Obviously, the issue is simply not important to you - you "believe it" only as a pastime, like solving crosswords in the newspaper, not as a conviction that drives you to put a stop to the senseless wholesale slaughter of the innocent. Oh, right, "I obey the law". Unjust laws - laws which allow the uncontrolled slaughter of the innocents - aren't laws to respect, but to change, to overthrow, to ignore. When people of conviction know something unjust is happening, something which offends their convictions, they do something - even if it costs them. Even if it means jail, or worse - because they have a conviction. Not you; you have at best a passing notion that this could be bad things going on, but hey, who cares, not my problem, right? We don't take you seriously for several reasons, but the biggest, for me at least, is the simple fact that you say you believe, but you don't act like you believe, you act like you just don't care. It has been said "It ain't bragging if you can back it up"; the flip side of that is, if you don't back it up, you have no basis to brag. Yet here you are, trying to tell us all how caring you are, how concerned you are, how moral and ethical you are, because you don't agree with abortion... you brag about your inherent goodness and by implication your superiority over the rest of us... but you do not back it up with action. You haven't earned the right to brag, because you don't - can't - back it up. -- You complain about the effect -- try complaining about the cause. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >> > In article <5bllitF2tgv40U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> So, obviously, she'd already made up her mind to have the baby and >> >> relinquish it for adoption. All you did was foot the bill. >> > >> > Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an abortion >> > if I had not been there to foot the bill. >> >> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > > It was several years ago, I don't remember. Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you can't remember it well. Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me my house, my car and most of my possessions." So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your conviction. -- It's a pillow, it's a pillow! - Dan Ceppa Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <1180062824.128380.135930@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrot= > e: > > In article <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students ca= > me > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she wo= > uld > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy worl= > d=2E > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America wh= > en > > > > >> I was a child. > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then= > to > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > cause. > > Martin Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a natural cycle. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in <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. > >Martin Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his willingness to kill everyone. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On 24 Maj, 16:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180012367.510526.126...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <9dvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:35:55 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > We look at this issue in a very different way. We are not on the same > > page. It's my opinion that every human fetus is an unborn human baby and > > is a potential human baby. > > You say this - but you don't believe this. At least, not enough to > care about the issue one way or the other. Why do I say that? Let's > consider cases. > > Someone else - I gave you several examples - actually believed in animal > rights. They did something about it. Fine, they got jailed for it, but > they did something. > > Others believe in things enough they'll put their very lives on the line, > in wars, for example, to defend those things they believe in. > > Others have risked injury or even death for their beliefs by standing up > to bullies - even when the bully was the whole community. Many black > activists did so in the mid 1900s, and many were tormented, harassed, > beaten, even killed for it. > > History is replete with examples of this sort of thing; people who believe > something, stand up for it, defend it, fight for it. > > You? Your belief is so overwhelming that it makes you... er... what? Oh, > right, whine about it on newsgroups, maybe join a dozen others waving > signs outside an abortion clinic. No real risk of jail, of harm, of > death, no real effort involved... basically, a "belief" you could phone in. > > That's not going to get you into the history books. It's not going to get > changes made. It's not going to make the world - or even the town - > change its mind on the subject. > > In fact, what you show and describe is so devoid of any hope of actually > having an impact, you would accomplish as much by simply not having this > "belief" in the first place. > > If you actually believed what you said - that these are people and they > are being killed for no good reason, you would be out doing something > about it, wouldn't you? It's one thing if this were happening in, oh, > Uganda, or some other place where simple distance has a limiting effect on > your ability to do something about it, but it's not - it's happening right > on your doorstep, in your very town, or a town close by, isn't it? > > Yet you don't actually do anything about it. You don't stop it. You > would certainly never put yourself at risk for it. Obviously, the issue > is simply not important to you - you "believe it" only as a pastime, like > solving crosswords in the newspaper, not as a conviction that drives you > to put a stop to the senseless wholesale slaughter of the innocent. > > Oh, right, "I obey the law". Unjust laws - laws which allow the > uncontrolled slaughter of the innocents - aren't laws to respect, but to > change, to overthrow, to ignore. > > When people of conviction know something unjust is happening, something > which offends their convictions, they do something - even if it costs > them. Even if it means jail, or worse - because they have a conviction. > > Not you; you have at best a passing notion that this could be bad things > going on, but hey, who cares, not my problem, right? > > We don't take you seriously for several reasons, but the biggest, for me > at least, is the simple fact that you say you believe, but you don't act > like you believe, you act like you just don't care. > > It has been said "It ain't bragging if you can back it up"; the flip side > of that is, if you don't back it up, you have no basis to brag. Yet here > you are, trying to tell us all how caring you are, how concerned you are, > how moral and ethical you are, because you don't agree with abortion... > you brag about your inherent goodness and by implication your superiority > over the rest of us... but you do not back it up with action. You haven't > earned the right to brag, because you don't - can't - back it up. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Several people have done the things that you mentioned. Some have killed abortion doctors. Some have bombed abortion clinics. The problem is that those people HURT our cause because the result is that lots of people will not want to join our cause if they believe we are violent and crazy people. The best way to influence public opinion is by peaceful protests. It makes people want to join our cause. It's working. Here are the results of the latest poll: New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." In December, pollster John Zogby teamed up with Brad O'Leary of the O'Leary Report to examine the cultural differences in states that elected George W. Bush as president in 2000 and those that voted for Al Gore. The poll also contained questions relating to abortion. As previous polls have shown, a strong majority of Republicans take a pro-life position, but so do a sizable number of Democrats. Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter" while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed. The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago. According to the poll, 22 percent of Americans were more interested in abortion restrictions, while only 11 percent were less interested. Sixty-six percent said their views on abortion restrictions were the same as they were five or ten years ago. Since polls have consistently shown considerable support for laws such as parental notification, informed consent, and unborn victims legislation, the Zogby poll confirms Americans are moving in the direction of ensuring that sensible limits are placed on legalized abortion. Other recent polls also confirm a majority of Americans have a pro-life perspective. An October 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, found a majority of Americans and Catholics believe abortion is "morally unacceptable." Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 percent of Catholics agreed. Only 39 percent of Americans and 30 percent of Catholics found abortion morally acceptable. (1/16/2004) Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >> > In article <5bllitF2tgv40U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > >> snip > >> >> > 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. > >> >> > >> >> So, obviously, she'd already made up her mind to have the baby and > >> >> relinquish it for adoption. All you did was foot the bill. > >> > > >> > Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an abortion > >> > if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >> > >> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > > > > It was several years ago, I don't remember. > > Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you > can't remember it well. > > Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > > 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a > quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me > my house, my car and most of my possessions." > > So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't > even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > conviction. It was about $300 to $400. Check out these poll results. Various pro-life groups have convinced millions of people to join our cause: New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." In December, pollster John Zogby teamed up with Brad O'Leary of the O'Leary Report to examine the cultural differences in states that elected George W. Bush as president in 2000 and those that voted for Al Gore. The poll also contained questions relating to abortion. As previous polls have shown, a strong majority of Republicans take a pro-life position, but so do a sizable number of Democrats. Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter" while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed. The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago. According to the poll, 22 percent of Americans were more interested in abortion restrictions, while only 11 percent were less interested. Sixty-six percent said their views on abortion restrictions were the same as they were five or ten years ago. Since polls have consistently shown considerable support for laws such as parental notification, informed consent, and unborn victims legislation, the Zogby poll confirms Americans are moving in the direction of ensuring that sensible limits are placed on legalized abortion. Other recent polls also confirm a majority of Americans have a pro-life perspective. An October 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, found a majority of Americans and Catholics believe abortion is "morally unacceptable." Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 percent of Catholics agreed. Only 39 percent of Americans and 30 percent of Catholics found abortion morally acceptable. (1/16/2004) Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:05:35 -0700, Jason wrote: > Several people have done the things that you mentioned. Some have killed > abortion doctors. Some have bombed abortion clinics. The problem is that > those people HURT our cause because the result is that lots of people will > not want to join our cause if they believe we are violent and crazy > people. You don't have to kill to defend. I've already given you at least one example of actual action you could take which would actually stop the procedures being done - on a one at a time basis, anyhow - without harming anyone. Funny, you don't seem to have adopted it. Fuck it, it's easier to whine on the newsgroups, right? > The best way to influence public opinion is by peaceful protests. It makes > people want to join our cause. It's working. Here are the results of the > latest poll: > > New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life Of course, without seeing the text and methodology of the poll, that means jack shit. I'd have to do a little digging as I haven't used the article in a hell of a long time, but there was a poll done many moons back, by a respected pollster. The notion was to find out the relative prevalence of religious views. Out goes the questionnaire, asking the usual Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. One question asked "No religious affiliation" or words to that effect. What was discovered was that a large number selected that option - no religion or no religious affiliation. The poll was reworded and sent out, this time using the term "Atheist" instead of "no religion". The results were considerably different - very few, on the whole, selected that option. By simply wording the poll the right way, you can easily skew the numbers; as you can with the method of polling. So the fact some random poll asking unknown questions in unknown conditions concluded something really doesn't mean squat. > Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more > pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected > nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the > public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is > manslaughter." By a 53% margin, I could show you're a dolphin. This is hardly meaningful. > The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support > "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago. Sure. So do I. For example, they should be restricted to being performed by qualified personnel in proper conditions, rather than by the local butcher on a block in the back room. > Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the > mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 > percent of Catholics agreed. And you, of course, sitting on your ass doing nothing, are happy to take credit for this supposed increase in pro-life stance, right? The fact of the matter remains: you are a gutless coward, not doing a single thing of any meaning to back your so-called "belief", yet you're here parading it around like you're some sort of paragon of virtue and the rest of us are, by implication, baby-killing monsters. Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on. Get some balls, do something that shows you actually have a belief, not just some half-assed whiny little notion, then come tell us about it. You talk the talk, but then you run and hide. Man up, or shut up. -- He's a scrotum... halfway between a prick and an asshole. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:08:07 -0700, Jason wrote: >> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't >> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >> conviction. > > It was about $300 to $400. Oh, good. Your beliefs are so strong, so compelling, you actually paid for them about what I paid for my PVR - which is for pure entertainment value. Oh, yes, a very compelling argument for your deep, compelling conviction. What a wanker. -- "When I got to know myself, I learned true fear." - Scott Taylor Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in > <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. > > > >Martin > > Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > willingness to kill everyone. Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live several extra days? I would not do that. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:34:03 -0400, "James Brock" <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: - Refer: <aRr5i.13372$px2.7959@bignews4.bellsouth.net> > >"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1180048729.998197.167150@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> On May 25, 1:15 am, John <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On May 8, 6:01 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:> >Evolution is about diversification: the very >> > > fact that there are different races of man and different breeds of dog >> > > point to evolution in action >> > >> > No you are restating your observation that there are men and dogs and >> > aquivocating it with the word "Evolution" >> > >> > > neanderthals appear to be a race of humans that just naturally >> > > disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution! >> > >> > No, neanderthals disapearing is an event and until you define >> > 'evolution' for me in this context you are not even wrong. >> >> Natural selection is commonly described as "survival of the fittest". >> The neanderthals obviously weren't fit. >> >The neanderthals survived for at least 200,000 years. Homo Sapiens >have been around at most 50,000 years. Just wait around another >150,000 years and see if you can make the same claim. ; ) >> >> Martin Of course, "Neanderthals", "Homo Sapiens" are man-made artificial divisions in a continuum of gene changes, and fairly meaningless in the scheme of things. -- Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with >> >> a question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are >> >> now showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those >> >> students came home from school and was crying. She said that the >> >> planet would be destroyed by the time she was an adult and was >> >> worried that she would not be able to have a normal life. This >> >> real world is a crazy world. We were worried about Russia firing >> >> nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. >> >> > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then >> > to care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > The question is why we want to? -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "Every day, we buy -0.000005 Celsius degrees (of Global Warming reduction) for one half of the LHC collider." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in >> <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. >> > >> >Martin >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> willingness to kill everyone. > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live >several extra days? I would not do that. > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care for them. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <9dvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:35:55 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> We look at this issue in a very different way. We are not on the same >>> page. It's my opinion that every human fetus is an unborn human baby and >>> is a potential human baby. >> You say this - but you don't believe this. At least, not enough to >> care about the issue one way or the other. Why do I say that? Let's >> consider cases. >> >> Someone else - I gave you several examples - actually believed in animal >> rights. They did something about it. Fine, they got jailed for it, but >> they did something. >> >> Others believe in things enough they'll put their very lives on the line, >> in wars, for example, to defend those things they believe in. >> >> Others have risked injury or even death for their beliefs by standing up >> to bullies - even when the bully was the whole community. Many black >> activists did so in the mid 1900s, and many were tormented, harassed, >> beaten, even killed for it. >> >> History is replete with examples of this sort of thing; people who believe >> something, stand up for it, defend it, fight for it. >> >> You? Your belief is so overwhelming that it makes you... er... what? Oh, >> right, whine about it on newsgroups, maybe join a dozen others waving >> signs outside an abortion clinic. No real risk of jail, of harm, of >> death, no real effort involved... basically, a "belief" you could phone in. >> >> That's not going to get you into the history books. It's not going to get >> changes made. It's not going to make the world - or even the town - >> change its mind on the subject. >> >> In fact, what you show and describe is so devoid of any hope of actually >> having an impact, you would accomplish as much by simply not having this >> "belief" in the first place. >> >> If you actually believed what you said - that these are people and they >> are being killed for no good reason, you would be out doing something >> about it, wouldn't you? It's one thing if this were happening in, oh, >> Uganda, or some other place where simple distance has a limiting effect on >> your ability to do something about it, but it's not - it's happening right >> on your doorstep, in your very town, or a town close by, isn't it? >> >> Yet you don't actually do anything about it. You don't stop it. You >> would certainly never put yourself at risk for it. Obviously, the issue >> is simply not important to you - you "believe it" only as a pastime, like >> solving crosswords in the newspaper, not as a conviction that drives you >> to put a stop to the senseless wholesale slaughter of the innocent. >> >> Oh, right, "I obey the law". Unjust laws - laws which allow the >> uncontrolled slaughter of the innocents - aren't laws to respect, but to >> change, to overthrow, to ignore. >> >> When people of conviction know something unjust is happening, something >> which offends their convictions, they do something - even if it costs >> them. Even if it means jail, or worse - because they have a conviction. >> >> Not you; you have at best a passing notion that this could be bad things >> going on, but hey, who cares, not my problem, right? >> >> We don't take you seriously for several reasons, but the biggest, for me >> at least, is the simple fact that you say you believe, but you don't act >> like you believe, you act like you just don't care. >> >> It has been said "It ain't bragging if you can back it up"; the flip side >> of that is, if you don't back it up, you have no basis to brag. Yet here >> you are, trying to tell us all how caring you are, how concerned you are, >> how moral and ethical you are, because you don't agree with abortion... >> you brag about your inherent goodness and by implication your superiority >> over the rest of us... but you do not back it up with action. You haven't >> earned the right to brag, because you don't - can't - back it up. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Several people have done the things that you mentioned. Some have killed > abortion doctors. Some have bombed abortion clinics. The problem is that > those people HURT our cause because the result is that lots of people will > not want to join our cause if they believe we are violent and crazy > people. > > The best way to influence public opinion is by peaceful protests. It makes > people want to join our cause. It's working. If you saw (or heard) that parents were killing their 10 year old children, would you just sit around and whine about it on some newsgroups? Would you stand in a picket line for 30 minutes until you got bored? Would you simply hand out pamphlets? Or would you be in there defending those children at the risk of your own life? Well, if you think abortion is killing babies, why aren't you out there risking your life to save theirs? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>> In article <5bllitF2tgv40U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> snip >>>>> 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. >>>> So, obviously, she'd already made up her mind to have the baby and >>>> relinquish it for adoption. All you did was foot the bill. >>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an abortion >>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > > It was several years ago, I don't remember. How convenient. You spent what must have been in the area of thousands of dollars (if you provided for ALL her expenses, including medical bills, etc.) and you can't even remember an approximation of what it was. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > abortion >>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. >> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something >> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you >> can't remember it well. >> >> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. >> >> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd >> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, >> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a >> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me >> my house, my car and most of my possessions." >> >> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't >> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >> conviction. > > It was about $300 to $400. I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even paid for her food for 4 months. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 "Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message news:f36ntv$ea2$2@news04.infoave.net... > Jason wrote: >> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>> In article <5bllitF2tgv40U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> snip >>>>>> 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. >>>>> So, obviously, she'd already made up her mind to have the baby and >>>>> relinquish it for adoption. All you did was foot the bill. >>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an >>>> abortion >>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >> >> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > > How convenient. You spent what must have been in the area of thousands of > dollars (if you provided for ALL her expenses, including medical bills, > etc.) and you can't even remember an approximation of what it was. Yes, I thought that was a little suspicious myself. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On 24 Maj, 17:46, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180013037.107736.300...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, I have been told that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a >>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now >>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came >>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be >>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would >>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. >>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >>>>> I was a child. >>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to >>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. >>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since >> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question >> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > Jason > > Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we can do anything about it, should we? Tokay -- Oh don't the days seem lank and long When all goes right and none goes wrong, And isn't your life extremely flat With nothing whatever to grumble at! Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an >>> abortion >>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. >>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something >>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you >>>> can't remember it well. >>>> >>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. >>>> >>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd >>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, >>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a >>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me >>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." >>>> >>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't >>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >>>> conviction. >>> It was about $300 to $400. >> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even >> paid for her food for 4 months. > > I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Quote
Deathbringer Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 You know, I actually clicked here expecting to debate evolution. Why not just rename the thread "168+ pages of hypocrites dissecting eachother's personal lives" or if that doesn't fit in the title bar, "An enormous load of asinine tripe". Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <03fii4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:05:35 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Several people have done the things that you mentioned. Some have killed > > abortion doctors. Some have bombed abortion clinics. The problem is that > > those people HURT our cause because the result is that lots of people will > > not want to join our cause if they believe we are violent and crazy > > people. > > You don't have to kill to defend. I've already given you at least one > example of actual action you could take which would actually stop the > procedures being done - on a one at a time basis, anyhow - without harming > anyone. > > Funny, you don't seem to have adopted it. Fuck it, it's easier to whine > on the newsgroups, right? > > > The best way to influence public opinion is by peaceful protests. It makes > > people want to join our cause. It's working. Here are the results of the > > latest poll: > > > > New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life > > Of course, without seeing the text and methodology of the poll, that means > jack shit. > > I'd have to do a little digging as I haven't used the article in a hell of > a long time, but there was a poll done many moons back, by a respected > pollster. The notion was to find out the relative prevalence of religious > views. Out goes the questionnaire, asking the usual Christian, Jewish, > Muslim, etc. One question asked "No religious affiliation" or words to > that effect. > > What was discovered was that a large number selected that option - no > religion or no religious affiliation. The poll was reworded and sent out, > this time using the term "Atheist" instead of "no religion". The results > were considerably different - very few, on the whole, selected that option. > > By simply wording the poll the right way, you can easily skew the numbers; > as you can with the method of polling. So the fact some random poll > asking unknown questions in unknown conditions concluded something really > doesn't mean squat. > > > Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more > > pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected > > nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the > > public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is > > manslaughter." > > By a 53% margin, I could show you're a dolphin. This is hardly > meaningful. > > > The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support > > "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago. > > Sure. So do I. For example, they should be restricted to being performed > by qualified personnel in proper conditions, rather than by the local > butcher on a block in the back room. > > > Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the > > mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 > > percent of Catholics agreed. > > And you, of course, sitting on your ass doing nothing, are happy to take > credit for this supposed increase in pro-life stance, right? > > The fact of the matter remains: you are a gutless coward, not doing a > single thing of any meaning to back your so-called "belief", yet you're > here parading it around like you're some sort of paragon of virtue and the > rest of us are, by implication, baby-killing monsters. > > Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on. Get some balls, do something > that shows you actually have a belief, not just some half-assed whiny > little notion, then come tell us about it. > > You talk the talk, but then you run and hide. Man up, or shut up. Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if they saw pro-life protesters on a news show harrassing and shouting at women as they were walking into an abortion clinic? yes or no Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if they saw pro-life protesters on a news show standing peacefully (and holding signs) on the public street outside an abortion clinic? yes or no Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f36nns$ea2$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <9dvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 07:35:55 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> We look at this issue in a very different way. We are not on the same > >>> page. It's my opinion that every human fetus is an unborn human baby and > >>> is a potential human baby. > >> You say this - but you don't believe this. At least, not enough to > >> care about the issue one way or the other. Why do I say that? Let's > >> consider cases. > >> > >> Someone else - I gave you several examples - actually believed in animal > >> rights. They did something about it. Fine, they got jailed for it, but > >> they did something. > >> > >> Others believe in things enough they'll put their very lives on the line, > >> in wars, for example, to defend those things they believe in. > >> > >> Others have risked injury or even death for their beliefs by standing up > >> to bullies - even when the bully was the whole community. Many black > >> activists did so in the mid 1900s, and many were tormented, harassed, > >> beaten, even killed for it. > >> > >> History is replete with examples of this sort of thing; people who believe > >> something, stand up for it, defend it, fight for it. > >> > >> You? Your belief is so overwhelming that it makes you... er... what? Oh, > >> right, whine about it on newsgroups, maybe join a dozen others waving > >> signs outside an abortion clinic. No real risk of jail, of harm, of > >> death, no real effort involved... basically, a "belief" you could phone in. > >> > >> That's not going to get you into the history books. It's not going to get > >> changes made. It's not going to make the world - or even the town - > >> change its mind on the subject. > >> > >> In fact, what you show and describe is so devoid of any hope of actually > >> having an impact, you would accomplish as much by simply not having this > >> "belief" in the first place. > >> > >> If you actually believed what you said - that these are people and they > >> are being killed for no good reason, you would be out doing something > >> about it, wouldn't you? It's one thing if this were happening in, oh, > >> Uganda, or some other place where simple distance has a limiting effect on > >> your ability to do something about it, but it's not - it's happening right > >> on your doorstep, in your very town, or a town close by, isn't it? > >> > >> Yet you don't actually do anything about it. You don't stop it. You > >> would certainly never put yourself at risk for it. Obviously, the issue > >> is simply not important to you - you "believe it" only as a pastime, like > >> solving crosswords in the newspaper, not as a conviction that drives you > >> to put a stop to the senseless wholesale slaughter of the innocent. > >> > >> Oh, right, "I obey the law". Unjust laws - laws which allow the > >> uncontrolled slaughter of the innocents - aren't laws to respect, but to > >> change, to overthrow, to ignore. > >> > >> When people of conviction know something unjust is happening, something > >> which offends their convictions, they do something - even if it costs > >> them. Even if it means jail, or worse - because they have a conviction. > >> > >> Not you; you have at best a passing notion that this could be bad things > >> going on, but hey, who cares, not my problem, right? > >> > >> We don't take you seriously for several reasons, but the biggest, for me > >> at least, is the simple fact that you say you believe, but you don't act > >> like you believe, you act like you just don't care. > >> > >> It has been said "It ain't bragging if you can back it up"; the flip side > >> of that is, if you don't back it up, you have no basis to brag. Yet here > >> you are, trying to tell us all how caring you are, how concerned you are, > >> how moral and ethical you are, because you don't agree with abortion... > >> you brag about your inherent goodness and by implication your superiority > >> over the rest of us... but you do not back it up with action. You haven't > >> earned the right to brag, because you don't - can't - back it up. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Several people have done the things that you mentioned. Some have killed > > abortion doctors. Some have bombed abortion clinics. The problem is that > > those people HURT our cause because the result is that lots of people will > > not want to join our cause if they believe we are violent and crazy > > people. > > > > The best way to influence public opinion is by peaceful protests. It makes > > people want to join our cause. It's working. > > If you saw (or heard) that parents were killing their 10 year old > children, would you just sit around and whine about it on some > newsgroups? Would you stand in a picket line for 30 minutes until you > got bored? Would you simply hand out pamphlets? Or would you be in there > defending those children at the risk of your own life? > > Well, if you think abortion is killing babies, why aren't you out there > risking your life to save theirs? I understand your point. Peaceful protests will make it more likely that people would want to join our cause than protests that involve violence, harrassment of women and trespassing. 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.