| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#201
|
|||
|
|||
"Prometheus" wrote in message I voted for Kerry as a conservative, because Bush hung himself in my book through his own words and actions. Did you really vote for Kerry or did you vote against Bush? We really need a strong, viable, third party. |
|
#203
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:55:51 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote: In article , says... Crap. The government codifies morality in legislation all the time. Why do you suppose there are laws against murder, stealing, or perjury? Because they interfere with the governments ability to maintain order and protect it's citizensb from each other. Abortion requires the government to choose between the rights of a citizen, the pregnant woman, and a fetus that may someday become a citizen if all goes well. Seems like a simple decision to me. Anything else requires the government to espouse a religious belief, which is of course the basis for your arguments. Thanks, I just got ****ed off at that, but you've got a much better and more concise answer. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:37:57 -0600, Prometheus
wrote: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:56:56 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote: "Prometheus" "Fletis Humplebacker" "Nate Perkins" .... snip I voted for Kerry as a conservative, because Bush hung himself in my book through his own words and actions. I have a really hard time understanding that statement. You voted for Kerry but are a conservative? I understand how Bush has alienated himself from conservatives, and he's not covering himself with glory this week either, appointing a liberal as Attorney General and making intimations of amnesty for illegal aliens. But how in the world could a conservative have any delusions that Kerry would be better from a conservative's viewpoint? Based upon his 20 year Senate history, not to mention that of his running mate's, what possible reason could you have to believe that he would be any less of an internationalist statist as president than he has been as a Senator? A conservative voting for Badnirak, that I understand, a conservative voting for Kerry seems a non sequitur |
|
#206
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Prometheus" wrote in message
... The people who want abortions do not want the potential child. We are overpopulated enough as it is without forcing drug addicts and prostitues and 15-year old rape victims to make a stilted almost-attempt at *raising* a child. Who the **** is going to take care of it once it's born? Who wants a life where they are hated and resented for the fact of their existance? You're quite the humanitarian, damning those darling innocents you love to a life of neglect and abuse. This is a stupid ****ing argument- you have children you love, so damn every unloved one to hell on earth because you *know* you're right. A mass of cells is not a slave. It is not a Jew. It's a goddamn blob of tissue. Why not let cancer grow and discover it's potental? After all, that is a mass of human cells as well. Maybe it has a soul. Maybe trees have souls, and you shouldn't cut them up to make boxes and armoires. Right now, I'd give better odds to a tree having a soul than you. todd |
|
#207
|
|||
|
|||
|
Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:04:20 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: g. It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth. Yes, it is. I thought it was only legal in the first two trimesters. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam In partial birth abortion the baby (oh, I,m sorry, mass of unborn cells) is murdered when all but the head is delivered. Some have tried to make that illegal. Glen |
|
#208
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:54:41 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: I do not know whether or not a fertilized egg has a soul, and I personally prefer to err on the side of caution, where caution is warranted. When a child is delivered whole and viable from a woman's body, it is no longer a part of her, but an entirely seperate entity, entitled to the rights granted to any other living individual. You don't see the inconsistency in your statements here? If you *truly* believe in erring on the side of caution, then the *only* self-consistent position is to oppose abortion in all circumstances, precisely because you do not know if a fertilized egg has a soul. If there is *any* doubt in your mind, if you believe that there is *any* possibility that it does, then you must oppose abortion on the grounds that it may be the murder of an innocent life. No it isn't. It's a very minor issue for me. To be self-consistant, I need to be morally sure of a thing before commiting to action. Erring on the side of caution for me is not performing abortions. Oh, but you don't see a problem with it, if *other* people perform abortions? IOW, as long as *you* don't personally participate in the killing, you don't mind if other people do. I see. Very admirable. I don't believe that women senselessly rush off to the abortion clinic on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they absolutely must not have an abortion, I would have to impose my morality on them- which was the context in which I mentioned this issue. I don't believe that people senselessly shoot other people on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they absolutely must not shoot another person, I would have to impose my morality on them. They probably do, but that is an entirely different issue. A living person walking down the street is not in a gray area when it comes to whether or not they are a "person". But you believe in erring on the side of caution, you said so yourself. So anything in that "gray area" should be treated as if it is a living person, because you're not sure if it is or not. So how are the two situations different? It's not a cavalier attitude towards the issue, it's respect for the right of a potential mother to make her own decisions. I have my opinions on it, but opinions are all they are. What about respect for the right of the embryo/fetus/infant to life? You're throwing three titles in there, and that's not correct. An infant has been delivered. And a fetus will be, as long as nobody interferes with it. So what? Answer the question: what about the right of the unborn child to life? The question of when the fetus becomes human can only be resolved by a religious or moral decision. The government has no right to make those decisions for citizens. Crap. The government codifies morality in legislation all the time. Why do you suppose there are laws against murder, stealing, or perjury? You know what, forget it. You care about this a lot more than I do, and it's useless to sit here and spin my wheels. I could write a million pages about it, and I'd still be wrong to you, so I'm going to bow out on this one. I don't agree with you, but that's not always necessary. Suit yourself. I hope that you eventually come to recognize the gross inconsistencies in your position WRT "erring on the side of caution." -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. Read what you wrote: "almost every state in the nation was split down the middle." IOW, nearly 50-50. That is a false statement. In fact, in 31 of the 51 (including DC) the winning margin was 10 percentage points or more; in about a dozen of those it was 20 or more. In only two was it less than 1%, and in only a handful was it less than 5%. [Source: Newsweek, 15 Nov 04] See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm for a county-by-county breakdown. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#210
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:04:20 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: g. It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth. Yes, it is. I thought it was only legal in the first two trimesters. You thought wrong. Educate yourself. The move to ban partial-birth abortion was started due primarily to one particular abortionist (in Kansas City, IIRC) who was performing this barbaric procedure in the 8th and 9th month, in some cases as little as a *week* before full-term -- and the discovery, by abortion opponents, that it was all perfectly legal. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#211
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
See, but I don't *believe* that a fetus is a human being from the day of conception. Err on the side of caution. Why does it have to be all the way or not at all? OK, for the sake of discussion, we'll assume that it doesn't have to be like that. Fine. Now draw the line. Specify a point at which the fetus becomes a human being, and explain why it is not a human being before that point but is one after. I submit that there are only two logically defensible places where that line can be drawn: conception, or the commencement of electrical activity in the brain. An infant is a human, a fetus in the late stages of development is more human than not. It's human. Period. It ain't a frog, is it? A blastocyte is almost indistingishable from any other species. Utterly false. Its DNA is unmistakeably *human* DNA. Does it have a soul? Who knows? What IS a soul? Err on the side of caution. I've met plenty of people that aren't worth any more than a sack of meat, and a spoiled one at that. Hmmm.... Is it OK to kill them? Please explain why or why not. The whole deal is a bio-mechanical process- cattle work the same as you and me, and we eat the damn things and use their skin for shoes. But they're God's Lil Children too. No, they're not. They're animals. They're not humans. The people who want abortions do not want the potential child. We are overpopulated enough as it is without forcing drug addicts and prostitues and 15-year old rape victims to make a stilted almost-attempt at *raising* a child. Straw man, and a damned poor one at that. The vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience, or as birth control after the fact. Cases such as you cite are a small portion of the total; and in any event, nothing prevents those mothers from giving the babies up for adoption. Nobody is *ever* "forc[ed]... to make a stilted almost-attempt at raising a child". Who the **** is going to take care of it once it's born? Who wants a life where they are hated and resented for the fact of their existance? You're quite the humanitarian, damning those darling innocents you love to a life of neglect and abuse. This is a stupid ****ing argument- you have children you love, so damn every unloved one to hell on earth because you *know* you're right. Preventing abortion is not the same as condeming unwanted, unloved children "to hell on earth" or "a life of neglect and abuse". Many babies, unwanted by their biological parents, are adopted into loving homes where they are wanted, treasured, and given a life that their biological parents could not possibly have provided. A mass of cells is not a slave. It is not a Jew. It's a goddamn blob of tissue. A blob of tissue that just happens to have a unique and complete set of human DNA, that needs only a little time and care. Why not let cancer grow and discover it's potental? After all, that is a mass of human cells as well. Now you're equating fetuses with tumors. You're starting to sound desparate. Maybe it has a soul. Maybe trees have souls, and you shouldn't cut them up to make boxes and armoires. Wow. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#212
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:53:16 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: [snip] |Electing President Bush was a step in that direction. He'll likely nominate |1-4 justices to the Supreme Court. And that is the scary part. The country can survive four more years of Bush. I not sure it can survive the fruitcakes he'll be nominating. [snip] | |Excellent red herring. The number of abortions performed due to rape in the |US are approximately 1% of the total. Frankly, I'm not even in favor of |abortion in this case, but if it will save the other 99%, I'll take the |lesser evil. As if it's the unborn child's fault that he/she came into |being in that way. I don't have much middle ground here...my only concern |is protecting the innocent unborn. If someone gets inconvenienced by that, |generally through their own consent, too bad This is really scary. In the 21st century there are still people thinking like this---but note how they are predominately men. Damn girl shouldn't have gotten raped in the first place, now she's just got to suffer for her sin. Since it was the good Reverend John that done it, she musta throw'd herself at him. Imagine that little 10-year-old tramp showin' up to Sunday school dressed in that short little dress, I mean, what's a man gonna do? Wes Stewart "However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." Barry Goldwater |
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:13:47 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:53:16 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" wrote: [snip] |Electing President Bush was a step in that direction. He'll likely nominate |1-4 justices to the Supreme Court. And that is the scary part. The country can survive four more years of Bush. I not sure it can survive the fruitcakes he'll be nominating. oh puhleeze; yeah, it would be really terrible if a few strict constitutionists were nominated to offset the Ruthie Ginsbergs who see the constitution as a document that should only be seen as a guideline and issue decisions based upon their "social conscience" molding the constitution to fit the whims of the day. .... anti-religious rant snipped |
|
#215
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:49:00 -0500, Renata
wrote: Cool map, county by county... http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ That is a good map, and a lot more realistic than simply turning things red or blue! Thanks for the link. Renata On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:05:45 -0600, Prometheus wrote: There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted 100% for Bush. Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the road to hell. -snip- Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:52:38 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message I voted for Kerry as a conservative, because Bush hung himself in my book through his own words and actions. Did you really vote for Kerry or did you vote against Bush? Against Bush. I wouldn't have voted for Kerry on his own merits- if the election wasn't so close, I would have gone libertarian. I just picked the lesser of two evils. We really need a strong, viable, third party. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#217
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:29:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:37:57 -0600, Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:56:56 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote: "Prometheus" "Fletis Humplebacker" "Nate Perkins" ... snip I voted for Kerry as a conservative, because Bush hung himself in my book through his own words and actions. I have a really hard time understanding that statement. You voted for Kerry but are a conservative? I understand how Bush has alienated himself from conservatives, and he's not covering himself with glory this week either, appointing a liberal as Attorney General and making intimations of amnesty for illegal aliens. But how in the world could a conservative have any delusions that Kerry would be better from a conservative's viewpoint? Based upon his 20 year Senate history, not to mention that of his running mate's, what possible reason could you have to believe that he would be any less of an internationalist statist as president than he has been as a Senator? The theory was that with a Republican majority in both houses, and no well-defined policies to push, Kerry would have been an ineffective president. I'd love for things to get better, but for now, it seems the best thing to do is to dig in heels, and try to keep things from moving at all. Once the momentum is stopped, then we can get things moving the other way. A conservative voting for Badnirak, that I understand, a conservative voting for Kerry seems a non sequitur Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woodchipz wrote:
It's a shame that probably none of these "Liberal Dilettantes" will ever teach a kid how to build a bird house..... Yeah I know what you mean. The goofy *******s are probably off doing re-hab work with some whiny organization like Habitat for Humanity. Hoo boy! Some people and what they waste their time on. Keith (Hello, Is This Thing On?) Bohn Regards, Tom. "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#219
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey B.A.D.,
Since you're so close to Hey B.A.D., Since you're so close to Liberon (Mendocino), you might as well take a relaxing drive up there, see their warehouse, visit Ron Hock (his shop is near Liberon's storeo on Rte 1), and get then head over and get the five lb. discount from Ron Ashby at Liberon. He's tons cheaper than anything you'll find at Woodcraft (they're gonna charge you about $27-$30 lb. for super blonde), and his stuff is WAY better. And fresher too. I wouldn't even call the stuff Woodcraft sells flakes. It's more like crumbs. I ain't saying it's BAD (ewwww, bad pun), but the stuff from Liberon (aka shellac.net) is freshly air freighted from India. Heck if ya order today from Liberon you'd have it in your hands this weekend I bet. 1-866-DEWAXED O'Deen Just say Yes, I'm a semi-commissioned salesman with mouths to feed. (Mendocino), you might as well take a relaxing drive up there, see their warehouse, visit Ron Hock (his shop is near Liberon's storeo on Rte 1), and get then head over and get the five lb. discount from Ron Ashby at Liberon. He's tons cheaper than anything you'll find at Woodcraft (they're gonna charge you about $27-$30 lb. for super blonde), and his stuff is WAY better. And fresher too. I wouldn't even call the stuff Woodcraft sells flakes. It's more like crumbs. I ain't saying it's BAD (ewwww, bad pun), but the stuff from Liberon (aka shellac.net) is freshly air freighted from India. Heck if ya order today from Liberon you'd have it in your hands this weekend I bet. 1-866-DEWAXED O'Deen Just say Yes, I'm a semi-commissioned salesman with mouths to feed. Regards, Tom. "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:43:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. Read what you wrote: "almost every state in the nation was split down the middle." IOW, nearly 50-50. That is a false statement. In fact, in 31 of the 51 (including DC) the winning margin was 10 percentage points or more; in about a dozen of those it was 20 or more. In only two was it less than 1%, and in only a handful was it less than 5%. [Source: Newsweek, 15 Nov 04] I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. No one has, as yet, explained just what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with *y'all*? See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm for a county-by-county breakdown. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#221
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#222
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Nov 2004 07:21:20 -0800, (David Hall)
wrote: Prometheus wrote in message . .. On 9 Nov 2004 06:14:46 -0800, (David Hall) wrote: Prometheus wrote in message If you believe that the fetus is a human being how on earth can you find any justification for allowing the destruction of millions every year under your very nose. You would have to feel a little like a German in 1945 or one of millions of Americans in the early 1800s who didn't think slavery was right, but they weren't going to anything to stop the southern slave owners from maintaining that "peculiar institution". Here you call me a Nazi and a supporter of Slavery. In my book, that was the end of intellegent discussion with you. Well, I guess that if you believe that everyone who was ever raised in an unloving family or who was abandoned as a child or even was abused would have been better off dead and doesn't "want" their lives then the possibility of an intelligent discussion is officially past. As another poster put it better than I could have - I am giving better odds that a tree has a soul than you right about now. **** you and the cross you rode in on, you arrogant self-righteous prick. To disagree is one thing- to make yourself the judge of my soul is quite another. There are many ways to see the world, and you don't have the corner on them all. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#223
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:19:51 -0600, Prometheus
wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:43:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. Read what you wrote: "almost every state in the nation was split down the middle." IOW, nearly 50-50. That is a false statement. In fact, in 31 of the 51 (including DC) the winning margin was 10 percentage points or more; in about a dozen of those it was 20 or more. In only two was it less than 1%, and in only a handful was it less than 5%. [Source: Newsweek, 15 Nov 04] I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. Thing is, that 1/2 the people is a bit misleading. How many votes do you think Kerry would have gotten, if, instead of all the allegations regarding Bush's National Guard service and headlines that attempted to link George Bush directly with Abu Ghraib, missing explosives, and flu vaccine shortages, the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN had led off their evening newscasts with teasers such as, "New allegations from the Swift Boat Veterans for truth regarding presidential hopeful John Kerry's Vietnam service, which he has made a cornerstone of his campaign arose today when that group of veterans who served with Mr. Kerry alleged that his service was not as "stellar" as Mr Kerry has indicated." or "He received several purple hearts, but never lost a duty day; John F. Kerry, who has made his Vietnam service a cornerstone of his qualifications for the office of president faced new questions today how he could have received not one, but several purple hearts without having had serious injuries, one of the criteria normally associated with that honor" or "John Kerry, who has made his Vietnam service a cornerstone of his campaign, saluting the Democratic convention, saying, 'John Kerry, reporting for duty', faced new questions today asking how someone so highly decorated could have betrayed his fellow comrades in arms by accusing them of war atrocities and meeting with the leader of the North Vietnamese in France in order to influence peace negotiations while his fellow soldiers were fighting with the forces commanded by Ms Van Thieu." .... you get the drift. There were numerous opportunities for the press to be as "unbiased and objective" towards Kerry as they were towards Bush. However, they chose to lead with forged documents, and file stories that were in accord with memos to correspondents that indicated how important the election was and that even though journalists needed to be "fair" there were times they needed to be more "fair" to one side than the other. The NYT, LA Times, and other print media were equally as biased in their reporting as the broadcast media. This certainly influenced more than a few voters. The fact that Bush won by as much as he did despite the incessant media pounding his adminstration was subjected to on a daily basis constitutes a crushing victory. While the other side was given a pass, where simply stating, "I will do things better, I have a plan. I can't tell you what that plan is because I don't know what I'll find when I get into office on January 20, but I have a plan" was accorded the status of "a major foreign policy statement", nothing the administration did received any favorable coverage. Had the press not been firmly in the Kerry camp, often mouthing the daily talking points from the campaign as if it was news, the margin by which Bush would have won would very likely have been much higher, potentially by 10 to 15 points. |
|
#224
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
And that is the scary part. The country can survive four more years of Bush. I not sure it can survive the fruitcakes he'll be nominating. Yeah, we need more activist judges legislating from the bench instead of interpreting the law as it stands. Damn girl shouldn't have gotten raped in the first place, now she's just got to suffer for her sin. Since it was the good Reverend John that done it, she musta throw'd herself at him. Imagine that little 10-year-old tramp showin' up to Sunday school dressed in that short little dress, I mean, what's a man gonna do? Wes Stewart From red herrings to non sequitors...you're covering all the bases. The scary part is I'm getting the impression that you're actually as obtuse as it appears. Get this into your skull...this is not about little girls getting raped. 99% of the problem has nothing to do with rape. I've already said I'd concede the rape cases. Done. You wanna talk about the real problem now...the other 99%? todd |
|
#225
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Prometheus" wrote in message
My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks, and three months sounds reasonable. If it is a glob of cells dividing on auto-pilot, I can't believe that that it is particularly worthy of protection. So, 9 weeks...OK to kill it. 10 weeks, it magically receives rights. Got it. So, you'd be OK enforcing a ban on abortions after 12 weeks? If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about pardoning those on death row. I realize that you probably won't let a little thing like a fact penetrate your skull, but Texas governors don't have the power to pardon those on death row. I always have to chuckle when the death penalty comes up in this debate. Seems that most pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Translation: kill the innocent and protect the guilty. Personally, I'm also against the death penalty. Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than animals? I've never had a problem with the great majority of animals, but there are a whole lot of humans that do nothing good for themselves or others, and more than a handful that cause a great deal of harm. I take it you're a vegan. And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted. It's great when a child is wanted and treasured, but this isn't always a shiny pretty world where gumdrops grow on trees and Uncle Reamus sings Zip-a-dee-do-dah. There is a lot of ugliness all around, and it's not all abortion-related. You can crusade to save an embryo, but it means nothing without a corresponding crusade to protect every single child after it is born. It can't be done. Banning abortion will, in fact, damn some children to unbearable levels of torment. Why *save* them for that? Why save them for adoption when there are boat-loads of foreign babies that need homes? Wow. You know what? Let's just kill all babies, because many of them will have difficult lives. We should spare them of that pain. Less desperate than ****ed off. I've cooled off a *little* now, but I don't take kindly to accusations of murder. I've never killed or even seriously wounded another person (nor have I been a participant in or witness to an abortion), and being called a murderer is unjust. How does "facilitator" sound? Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted owl doesn't have a soul? We're talking about baby humans, not tree frogs. Sometimes you just need to make the call for yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think. There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says something is so, that doesn't make it true. While you were writing the above paragraph, your body's immune defenses killed millions of bacteria cells. That is, unless lithium interferes with that in some way. If you suffocate yourself now, you can stop the carnage. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? todd |
|
#226
|
|||
|
|||
|
Prometheus did say:
I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. No one has, as yet, explained just what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with *y'all*? Get real. Jesus, being middle eastern, would obviously prefer the AK-47. -- New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule. |
|
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:43:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. Read what you wrote: "almost every state in the nation was split down the middle." IOW, nearly 50-50. That is a false statement. In fact, in 31 of the 51 (including DC) the winning margin was 10 percentage points or more; in about a dozen of those it was 20 or more. In only two was it less than 1%, and in only a handful was it less than 5%. [Source: Newsweek, 15 Nov 04] I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. Huh? Who said half the people are out of touch? No one has, as yet, explained just what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with *y'all*? What on earth are you talking about? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:38:47 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:54:41 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: I do not know whether or not a fertilized egg has a soul, and I personally prefer to err on the side of caution, where caution is warranted. When a child is delivered whole and viable from a woman's body, it is no longer a part of her, but an entirely seperate entity, entitled to the rights granted to any other living individual. You don't see the inconsistency in your statements here? If you *truly* believe in erring on the side of caution, then the *only* self-consistent position is to oppose abortion in all circumstances, precisely because you do not know if a fertilized egg has a soul. If there is *any* doubt in your mind, if you believe that there is *any* possibility that it does, then you must oppose abortion on the grounds that it may be the murder of an innocent life. No it isn't. It's a very minor issue for me. To be self-consistant, I need to be morally sure of a thing before commiting to action. Erring on the side of caution for me is not performing abortions. Oh, but you don't see a problem with it, if *other* people perform abortions? IOW, as long as *you* don't personally participate in the killing, you don't mind if other people do. I see. Very admirable. It's not particularly admirable to go back to when some women were getting illegal abortions in back rooms with coat hangers, either. I don't believe that women senselessly rush off to the abortion clinic on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they absolutely must not have an abortion, I would have to impose my morality on them- which was the context in which I mentioned this issue. I don't believe that people senselessly shoot other people on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they absolutely must not shoot another person, I would have to impose my morality on them. They probably do, but that is an entirely different issue. A living person walking down the street is not in a gray area when it comes to whether or not they are a "person". But you believe in erring on the side of caution, you said so yourself. So anything in that "gray area" should be treated as if it is a living person, because you're not sure if it is or not. So how are the two situations different? [snip rant] You didn't answer the question. It's not a cavalier attitude towards the issue, it's respect for the right of a potential mother to make her own decisions. I have my opinions on it, but opinions are all they are. What about respect for the right of the embryo/fetus/infant to life? You're throwing three titles in there, and that's not correct. An infant has been delivered. And a fetus will be, as long as nobody interferes with it. So what? Answer the question: what about the right of the unborn child to life? What about it? It has no experiences, no connections to this Earth. It loses nothing but possibilities- each one of us loses possibilities every time we make a decision, but that is the price of existance. IOW, you just don't care. Whatever happened to "err on the side of caution"? Those were *your* words, not mine. A living person who has seen and felt and tasted the things of this Earth loses something real- not just a possibility. Perhaps it does have a soul- but does your faith make the soul so fragile that it can be destroyed in a clinic? Is your God so unjust that the decision of a simple human being can damn or destroy that spark you call the soul with in the space of an hour or a day? "Err on the side of caution." Your words, not mine. The question of when the fetus becomes human can only be resolved by a religious or moral decision. The government has no right to make those decisions for citizens. Crap. The government codifies morality in legislation all the time. Why do you suppose there are laws against murder, stealing, or perjury? You know what, forget it. You care about this a lot more than I do, and it's useless to sit here and spin my wheels. I could write a million pages about it, and I'd still be wrong to you, so I'm going to bow out on this one. I don't agree with you, but that's not always necessary. Suit yourself. I hope that you eventually come to recognize the gross inconsistencies in your position WRT "erring on the side of caution." Terrible that I can't be a one-track zealot. Even worse that you can't make a consistent, cogent statement of your beliefs. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#229
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:01:52 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: See, but I don't *believe* that a fetus is a human being from the day of conception. Err on the side of caution. By forcing others not to do what they feel they must? No, by not killing something that _even_you_ admitted _might_ have a soul. Why does it have to be all the way or not at all? OK, for the sake of discussion, we'll assume that it doesn't have to be like that. Fine. Now draw the line. Specify a point at which the fetus becomes a human being, and explain why it is not a human being before that point but is one after. I submit that there are only two logically defensible places where that line can be drawn: conception, or the commencement of electrical activity in the brain. My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks, Oh, bull**** -- "observe and think" doesn't happen until 10 to 14 YEARS. and three months sounds reasonable. OK, you specified the point. Now explain why it is not a human being before that point, but is one after. If it is a glob of cells dividing on auto-pilot, I can't believe that that it is particularly worthy of protection. That's not an explanation. An infant is a human, a fetus in the late stages of development is more human than not. It's human. Period. It ain't a frog, is it? Up to a certain point, they're pretty hard to tell apart without using DNA. We share an awful lot of DNA with other mammals, so if that is the gold standard, why aren't other mammals protected? They're not human. A blastocyte is almost indistingishable from any other species. Utterly false. Its DNA is unmistakeably *human* DNA. Without using DNA. DNA is a blueprint, not life itself. It's still human, not a dog or a frog. I've met plenty of people that aren't worth any more than a sack of meat, and a spoiled one at that. Hmmm.... Is it OK to kill them? Please explain why or why not. The short answer is no, because it is illegal. Why? If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about pardoning those on death row. I'm opposed to capital punishment in most cases, too. In other instances, it is OK to kill someone who is initiating the use of physical force against you, intending to cause you serious harm or death. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another to prevent them from continuing to kill or trying to kill others. In all cases, they must initiate the use of force, and killing is the last resort. Fine -- now how does that justify killing an unborn child? The whole deal is a bio-mechanical process- cattle work the same as you and me, and we eat the damn things and use their skin for shoes. But they're God's Lil Children too. No, they're not. They're animals. They're not humans. Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than animals? We think, we reason, we have souls... I could go on, but if you really think that humans are no different from lower animals... Wow. I've never had a problem with the great majority of animals, but there are a whole lot of humans that do nothing good for themselves or others, and more than a handful that cause a great deal of harm. The people who want abortions do not want the potential child. We are overpopulated enough as it is without forcing drug addicts and prostitues and 15-year old rape victims to make a stilted almost-attempt at *raising* a child. Straw man, and a damned poor one at that. The vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience, or as birth control after the fact. Cases such as you cite are a small portion of the total; and in any event, nothing prevents those mothers from giving the babies up for adoption. Nobody is *ever* "forc[ed]... to make a stilted almost-attempt at raising a child". I'd prefer to err on the side of caution by protecting the cases that fall into the "straw man" category. The others need to examine their values for themselves. So for the overwhelming majority of cases in which abortion is performed for reasons of convenience, your position is "tough luck, fetus, too bad" ? "Err on the side of caution" means _don't_ kill something that you think might be a human being. You really ought to quit, you know -- the farther you take this, the more inconsistent you become. You're in a hole. Stop digging. Who the **** is going to take care of it once it's born? Who wants a life where they are hated and resented for the fact of their existance? You're quite the humanitarian, damning those darling innocents you love to a life of neglect and abuse. This is a stupid ****ing argument- you have children you love, so damn every unloved one to hell on earth because you *know* you're right. Preventing abortion is not the same as condeming unwanted, unloved children "to hell on earth" or "a life of neglect and abuse". Many babies, unwanted by their biological parents, are adopted into loving homes where they are wanted, treasured, and given a life that their biological parents could not possibly have provided. And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted. So rather than work to correct those problems, better that we just kill them all from the get-go. Lots easier that way, isn't it? It's great when a child is wanted and treasured, but this isn't always a shiny pretty world where gumdrops grow on trees and Uncle Reamus sings Zip-a-dee-do-dah. There is a lot of ugliness all around, and it's not all abortion-related. You can crusade to save an embryo, but it means nothing without a corresponding crusade to protect every single child after it is born. It can't be done. Banning abortion will, in fact, damn some children to unbearable levels of torment. Why *save* them for that? Why save them for adoption when there are boat-loads of foreign babies that need homes? You're in a hole. Stop digging. You're making yourself look like a lunatic. A mass of cells is not a slave. It is not a Jew. It's a goddamn blob of tissue. A blob of tissue that just happens to have a unique and complete set of human DNA, that needs only a little time and care. Every seed has the potential to grow, but if they all did, there would be no room in your garden. Ahh, now comes the overpopulation argument. Also false. Why not let cancer grow and discover it's potental? After all, that is a mass of human cells as well. Now you're equating fetuses with tumors. You're starting to sound desparate. Less desperate than ****ed off. I've cooled off a *little* now, but I don't take kindly to accusations of murder. I've never killed or even seriously wounded another person (nor have I been a participant in or witness to an abortion), and being called a murderer is unjust. Who called you a murderer? Not me. Maybe it has a soul. Maybe trees have souls, and you shouldn't cut them up to make boxes and armoires. Wow. Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted owl doesn't have a soul? Sometimes you just need to make the call for yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think. I figured it out all for myself, thank you, that trees don't have souls. Sorry you're having such a hard time with it. There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says something is so, that doesn't make it true. Wow. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Prometheus" I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. I used that phrase but was unable to get you to understand that I was talking about the liberal leadership. No one has, as yet, explained just what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with *y'all*? You could start by understanding what you're reading and hearing. |
|
#231
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ahh. I see. Now we attack countries that use WMD against their own
citizens. Thanx for straightening that out. Renata On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:13:58 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote: -snip- That's been discussed many times here and elsewhere. Pretending it hasn't doesn't help your case. If France starts harboring terrorists, invading it's neighbors for a land grab, using WMDs on it's citizens and the U.N. is deadlocked into a perpetual circle jerk then something will need to be done. |
|
#232
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Renata wrote:
Sorry, no, yourself. The justification for the war was WMD and their use against the USA. No WMD found and certainly nothing (infrastruture, weapsons, or even evidence of such) has been foudn that would be anywhere close to being an imminent threat to the USA. I believe the rationale has deteriorated to "he's a bad man". Not true. Not even close. WMD was one of several justifications for the war, but not the only one, and not even the primary one. Others included continued failure to comply with numerous UN Security Council resolutions, and harboring and supporting terrorists. These were stated very clearly *before* the invasion. Before you say Saddam had no connection to terrorism... answer these questions: Who was Abu Nidal? And where was he living, at the time of his death? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:22:33 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: |"Wes Stewart" wrote in message | And that is the scary part. The country can survive four more years | of Bush. I not sure it can survive the fruitcakes he'll be | nominating. | |Yeah, we need more activist judges legislating from the bench instead of |interpreting the law as it stands. | | Damn girl shouldn't have gotten raped in the first place, now she's | just got to suffer for her sin. Since it was the good Reverend John | that done it, she musta throw'd herself at him. Imagine that little | 10-year-old tramp showin' up to Sunday school dressed in that short | little dress, I mean, what's a man gonna do? | | Wes Stewart | |From red herrings to non sequitors (sic)...you're covering all the bases. The |scary part is I'm getting the impression that you're actually as obtuse as |it appears. Get this into your skull...this is not about little girls |getting raped. 99% of the problem has nothing to do with rape. I've |already said I'd concede the rape cases. Done. You wanna talk about the |real problem now...the other 99%? I *am* addressing the real problem: control freaks who want to tell other people how to conduct their lives. That's 100% of the problem. Perhaps my argument hit a sore spot with you, but it *does* follow (BTW, if you're going to use big words, you should at least spell them correctly). I responded directly to what you said earlier but "forgot" to repeat above, and I quote: "I don't have much middle ground here...my only concern is protecting the innocent unborn. If someone gets inconvenienced by that, generally through their (sic) own consent, too bad" I'm afraid I fail to find the concession in that drivel. I might add that often "consent" isn't consent in the eyes of the law. First a control freak gets an under-aged girl pregnant and then a bunch of control freaks that can't mind their own business tell her to put up with the "inconvenience." Sounds like gang rape to me. I don't suppose that you have a wife, daughter or close female friends, but if you do (they have my sympathy) consider one of them becoming pregnant following a rape, or in a wanted pregnancy having it determined that the fetus is profoundly abnormal or that carrying to term can result in serious or fatal consequences for her. This is not a statistical abstraction to be dismissed with a cavalier "it's just an inconvenience" argument, this is an *individual* with an *individual* agonizing decision to make. Considering this *one* case should the woman in question have the say over her fate or should I tell her what to do about her inconvenience? I don't know the woman or her circumstances, but I know what's best for her, because a voice in my head told me so. So you tell me, does she decide or do I decide? That is the crux of the issue. |
|
#235
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message |From red herrings to
non sequitors (sic)...you're covering all the bases. The |scary part is I'm getting the impression that you're actually as obtuse as |it appears. Get this into your skull...this is not about little girls |getting raped. 99% of the problem has nothing to do with rape. I've |already said I'd concede the rape cases. Done. You wanna talk about the |real problem now...the other 99%? I *am* addressing the real problem: control freaks who want to tell other people how to conduct their lives. That's 100% of the problem. Perhaps my argument hit a sore spot with you, but it *does* follow (BTW, if you're going to use big words, you should at least spell them correctly). I responded directly to what you said earlier but "forgot" to repeat above, and I quote: Ooooh. I misspelled "sequitur". You got me there. You feel like a big man, now? I'm not a control freak. I'm pretty willing to let someone lead their own life as they see fit, provided they don't harm someone else in the process. I still notice that you provide the most inflammatory cases as your arguement, while failing to address the vast majority. "I don't have much middle ground here...my only concern is protecting the innocent unborn. If someone gets inconvenienced by that, generally through their (sic) own consent, too bad" I'm afraid I fail to find the concession in that drivel. I might add that often "consent" isn't consent in the eyes of the law. First a control freak gets an under-aged girl pregnant and then a bunch of control freaks that can't mind their own business tell her to put up with the "inconvenience." Sounds like gang rape to me. Are you somehow obsessed with rape of underage girls? Get off it. How about talking about the other 99% for once? I don't suppose that you have a wife, daughter or close female friends, but if you do (they have my sympathy) I'd like to see you say that to my face. consider one of them becoming pregnant following a rape, or in a wanted pregnancy having it determined that the fetus is profoundly abnormal or that carrying to term can result in serious or fatal consequences for her. If my wife or one of my daughters was carrying a child and was in danger of losing her life, that is pretty much the only exception I could make for abortion, which would be self-defense. It would take an Immaculate Conception for my wife to conceive at this point, but if one of my daughters became pregnant unwillingly, I would counsel them to put the child up for adoption. This is not a statistical abstraction to be dismissed with a cavalier "it's just an inconvenience" argument, this is an *individual* with an *individual* agonizing decision to make. For 99% of abortion cases, the decision to conceive was already made ahead of time. They consented to have sexual intercourse and accepted the risk. You seem to want to focus on the exception instead of the rule. Considering this *one* case should the woman in question have the say over her fate or should I tell her what to do about her inconvenience? I don't know the woman or her circumstances, but I know what's best for her, because a voice in my head told me so. I'll let you answer that question yourself. Imagine that you're stranded on a deserted island and the only two people are you and an infant. Now, you didn't ask for this infant to come along, did you? He/she was forced on you. It's going to be a major inconvenience and difficulty taking care of him/her. Would you support someone in that position killing the infant, so as to not be burdened? In many people's minds, there is no difference between that choice and the choice of an abortion. The only difference is that the one in the womb hasn't breathed air yet. todd |
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far
worse than being aborted. I really don't need to point out how pathetic that staement is...but I'm going to anyhow. And you call me a self-rightous prick... Dave Hall |
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:51:36 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks, and three months sounds reasonable. If it is a glob of cells dividing on auto-pilot, I can't believe that that it is particularly worthy of protection. So, 9 weeks...OK to kill it. 10 weeks, it magically receives rights. Got it. So, you'd be OK enforcing a ban on abortions after 12 weeks? After twelve weeks, ok. I'll concede that- ban it then. I can't set the exact point, but that sounds fine to me. I don't support aborting 5 minutes before birth. If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about pardoning those on death row. I realize that you probably won't let a little thing like a fact penetrate your skull, but Texas governors don't have the power to pardon those on death row. I always have to chuckle when the death penalty comes up in this debate. Seems that most pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Translation: kill the innocent and protect the guilty. Personally, I'm also against the death penalty. I'm for the death penalty. It just always seemed very odd to me that someone can hate abortion in the name of life, and then sanction the killing of criminals (aside from yourself, as stated above). If Texas governors don't have the power to pardon death-row inmates, then of course my statement above is not valid. Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than animals? I've never had a problem with the great majority of animals, but there are a whole lot of humans that do nothing good for themselves or others, and more than a handful that cause a great deal of harm. I take it you're a vegan. No, I'm just trying to understand your position. And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted. It's great when a child is wanted and treasured, but this isn't always a shiny pretty world where gumdrops grow on trees and Uncle Reamus sings Zip-a-dee-do-dah. There is a lot of ugliness all around, and it's not all abortion-related. You can crusade to save an embryo, but it means nothing without a corresponding crusade to protect every single child after it is born. It can't be done. Banning abortion will, in fact, damn some children to unbearable levels of torment. Why *save* them for that? Why save them for adoption when there are boat-loads of foreign babies that need homes? Wow. You know what? Let's just kill all babies, because many of them will have difficult lives. We should spare them of that pain. No, why don't we save all of them, and the pro-life folks can agree to adopt all the ones that were going to be aborted. Hope you've got a big house. Less desperate than ****ed off. I've cooled off a *little* now, but I don't take kindly to accusations of murder. I've never killed or even seriously wounded another person (nor have I been a participant in or witness to an abortion), and being called a murderer is unjust. How does "facilitator" sound? **** poor as well. I don't hand out phamplets to school children or give rides to abortion clinics either. How about non-participant? Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted owl doesn't have a soul? We're talking about baby humans, not tree frogs. A soul is a soul. Sometimes you just need to make the call for yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think. There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says something is so, that doesn't make it true. While you were writing the above paragraph, your body's immune defenses killed millions of bacteria cells. That is, unless lithium interferes with that in some way. If you suffocate yourself now, you can stop the carnage. I'm not concerned about the "carnage"- I'm asking why one moral code is right, but another which tends towards an even greater respect for all life is wrong. If my disagreement with your code makes me a murderer, does you disagreement with their code make you one as well? Aut inveniam viam aut faciam Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? todd Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#238
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:05:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:43:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. Read what you wrote: "almost every state in the nation was split down the middle." IOW, nearly 50-50. That is a false statement. In fact, in 31 of the 51 (including DC) the winning margin was 10 percentage points or more; in about a dozen of those it was 20 or more. In only two was it less than 1%, and in only a handful was it less than 5%. [Source: Newsweek, 15 Nov 04] I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the people out-of-touch is sickening. Huh? Who said half the people are out of touch? Bush, his cabinent, his political advisors, and many of thousands of his supporters. It's been all over the news and was explicitly stated at least twice in this thread. No one has, as yet, explained just what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with *y'all*? What on earth are you talking about? See the beginning of this thread. Or a newspaper. Or your radio. Or a television. Or don't, as you like. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#239
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't believe that people senselessly shoot other people on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they absolutely must not shoot another person, I would have to impose my morality on them. They probably do, but that is an entirely different issue. A living person walking down the street is not in a gray area when it comes to whether or not they are a "person". But you believe in erring on the side of caution, you said so yourself. So anything in that "gray area" should be treated as if it is a living person, because you're not sure if it is or not. So how are the two situations different? [snip rant] You didn't answer the question. An embryo floating in a woman's belly has no senses or mental processes before a certain point. Someone walking down the street does. What about it? It has no experiences, no connections to this Earth. It loses nothing but possibilities- each one of us loses possibilities every time we make a decision, but that is the price of existance. IOW, you just don't care. Whatever happened to "err on the side of caution"? Those were *your* words, not mine. As this thread as go on, I realize you're right. I don't care. I had blithely assumed that I was not for abortion, but on second thought, I could actually give a crap if someone else is doing it- same as I really don't care when the Palestinians and Israelis blow one another up. Just keep it the hell off my lawn, and don't try take my freedom from me because of it. Terrible that I can't be a one-track zealot. Even worse that you can't make a consistent, cogent statement of your beliefs. This damn thing wasn't even about abortion pro or con in the first place- it was a response to someone who wanted examples of the religious right forcing morality on others. I don't give a crap about abortion. I do care about facists destroying our country because people focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others. The folks who voted for Bush for whatever reason have asked for more death than abortion is likely to cause in a decade. I'm not consistant about abortion- because I don't think about it much, and don't really care to. Why don't you spend hundreds of hours researching anti-trust legislation or the finer points of environmental law? Hell, perhaps you do. Pick your issues- this one isn't one of mine, I just don't like being called a murderer because I don't get on a white horse and go off to stick my fingers in someone else's pie. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#240
|
|||
|
|||
|
My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks, Oh, bull**** -- "observe and think" doesn't happen until 10 to 14 YEARS. That's the bull****. More learning goes on in the first two years than any other point in your life. The short answer is no, because it is illegal. Why? Because going to jail interferes with my freedom. And because they have not initiated force aginst me. If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about pardoning those on death row. I'm opposed to capital punishment in most cases, too. I'm not, just making a point. In other instances, it is OK to kill someone who is initiating the use of physical force against you, intending to cause you serious harm or death. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another to prevent them from continuing to kill or trying to kill others. In all cases, they must initiate the use of force, and killing is the last resort. Fine -- now how does that justify killing an unborn child? It doesn't, and was not intended to. Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than animals? We think, we reason, we have souls... I could go on, but if you really think that humans are no different from lower animals... Wow. In an awful lot of cases, no- I do not think that humans are much different than "lower animals". I have no more right to assume that I'm "better" than a dolphin because I'm human than I do to assume that I'm "better" than a Frenchman because I'm American. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution by protecting the cases that fall into the "straw man" category. The others need to examine their values for themselves. So for the overwhelming majority of cases in which abortion is performed for reasons of convenience, your position is "tough luck, fetus, too bad" ? Lot of tough luck in the world. "Err on the side of caution" means _don't_ kill something that you think might be a human being. You really ought to quit, you know -- the farther you take this, the more inconsistent you become. You're in a hole. Stop digging. Nah, maybe I'll hit China. And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted. So rather than work to correct those problems, better that we just kill them all from the get-go. Lots easier that way, isn't it? What are you doing, personally, to correct the problems? How many adopted children do you have? You're in a hole. Stop digging. You're making yourself look like a lunatic. Just ****ed off. Every seed has the potential to grow, but if they all did, there would be no room in your garden. Ahh, now comes the overpopulation argument. Also false. It is? Who called you a murderer? Not me. Probably not. The thread is too long and mixed with other crap for me to care to pick back through everything to find the reference. Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted owl doesn't have a soul? Sometimes you just need to make the call for yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think. I figured it out all for myself, thank you, that trees don't have souls. Sorry you're having such a hard time with it. Good for you. I think they may. I just don't consider that a reason not to cut them down. There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says something is so, that doesn't make it true. Wow. They believe in their morality just as fervantly as you do. If they were the majority, would that make them right to force it on you? Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Footings/Foundation Walls in Wrong Position! | Home Ownership | |||
| Need advice! WRONG GRANITE TOP WAS INSTALLED IN MY KITCHEN!! | Home Ownership | |||
| "Sorry I dialed the wrong Number." Calls ???????? | Home Repair | |||
Linear Mode
