"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0411180505.14ce1eba@posting.google.com...

"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message

news:<cngjuv$vfg$1@news.netins.net>...

"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0411171359.71777589@posting.google.com...

"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message

news:<cnd4ts$5i9$1@news.netins.net>...

"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0411160430.1ef8e269@posting.google.com...

--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<2virhaF2mgk3eU2@uni-berlin.de>...

Robert B. Winn wrote:

--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in

message
news:<2vfvucF2m8fpcU7@uni-berlin.de>...

Robert B. Winn wrote:

zeenric2@gate.net (Zinnic) wrote in message

news:<4ce617c0.0411100347.7f82562e@posting.google.com>...

rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message

news:<a17e5e0e.0411092144.634d4ee@posting.google.com>...

zeenric2@gate.net (Zinnic) wrote in message

news:<4ce617c0.0411091102.60df3d75@posting.google.com>...

Charles Hawkins <chawkin2@NOSPAMwam.umd.edu> wrote in

message
news:<cmo9k1$pg$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...

Robert B. Winn wrote:

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong

statement.

Suppose that a homosexual were to attempt to perpetrate

the
crime of

homosexuality with a child. If the child tells the

police

about
it,

the homosexual is arrested and convicted of the crime,

even

in
an

immoral pro-abortion society like this one. This is

just

one
example

of how a homosexual is prevented from participating in

the

sin
of

homosexuality. That is just the way it is.
Robert B. Winn

It seems to me that this would be a case of society

punishing
someone

for participating in the crime of sexual contact with a

child -
that's

statutory rape. Society would also punish someone who

did

such a
thing

with a child of the opposite sex. The crime here is not

homosexuality.

It's sex with a minor, and nobody is arguing that this

is
acceptable.

Sexual contact between consenting adults is another

matter.
They are

not violating anybody else's rights.

Out of interest, do you disapprove of any human activity

that

does
not

directly violate anybody else's specific rights? Do you

admit

of
any

such activity that is not 'good' for society in general?
Regards... Zinnic

I disapprove of abortions. Abortions directly violate the

rights
of

unborn children. I try to admit of activities that are

"good"
for

society in general.
For instance, growing food, building houses, etc.
Robert B. Winn

I presume that you regard 'anybody' as inclusive of unborn

children,

so your disapproval of abortion does not answer my question.

Let

me
be

more specific.

Whose 'rights' are violated by activities such as polygamy,
prostitution, pornography, sexual activity or nakedness in

public

places, depiction of violence, panhandling, student

truancy,

foxhunting?
Do you approve of societal restriction of these activities?
Regards...Zinnic

Society has the right to restrict these activities. People

who

do
not

like the society in which they live should consider moving to
different societies.
Robert B. winn

You forgot to answer whose rights are being violated.

The rights of children.
Robert b. Winn

Children are born.

Unborn children killed by abortion are not born.

Wait a minute! Unborn children aren't killed by abortion!
Are you mad?

child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam-Webster dictionary

Unborn children are killed by abortion.

Did you look up unborn? That's a child that's been delivered by

Cesarean

Section.
It doesn't mean a fetus.

Well, here is a new one.
Sorry, but according to the Bible in a verse written two thousand
years ago it means a child in its mother's womb. Luke 2:5 To be
taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
As you can see, Jesus Christ was a child while he was still in his
mother's womb. Now you can see why satan wanted all of those Bibles
burned.

Actually, that verse wasn't written tho thousand years ago.
It also wasn't written in English, so your entire argument is incorrect.
Your interpretation of another language is flawed.
Unborn children are those delivered by Cesarean Section. This fits the
description of children found in Webster's dictionary and makes your entire
argument incorrect.
Fetuses are not children, even according to Websters, even according to the
bible.

child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam-Webster dictionary

Unborn children are killed by abortion.

Did you look up unborn? That's a child that's been delivered by

Cesarean

Section.
It doesn't mean a fetus.

Well, here is a new one.
Sorry, but according to the Bible in a verse written two thousand
years ago it means a child in its mother's womb. Luke 2:5 To be
taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
As you can see, Jesus Christ was a child while he was still in his
mother's womb. Now you can see why satan wanted all of those Bibles
burned.

Actually, that verse wasn't written tho thousand years ago.
It also wasn't written in English, so your entire argument is incorrect.
Your interpretation of another language is flawed.
Unborn children are those delivered by Cesarean Section. This fits the
description of children found in Webster's dictionary and makes your entire
argument incorrect.
Fetuses are not children, even according to Websters, even according to the
bible.

rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message news:<a17e5e0e.0411190303.2ee55e4@posting.google.com>...

What is your position on euthanasia and suicide? I believe that these
are often entirely personal decisions, made by individuals of sound
mind, that do not infringe on the rights of others.
Are you really being truthful when you claim that it is just as sinful
to take human life at the zygotic and fully developed stages? I know
that you would choose neither, but can you honestly state that you see
no difference? Swear to God?
If you really feel that way, I can only conclude that you have allowed
your religiosity to destroy your humanity!
Regards...Zinnic

I would not kill either a zygote or an old person. It seems the same
to me.

That answers my question! You see no difference in the morality of
taking a fertilized ovum out of a freezer and putting an old person
into it! How coldhearted! How inhumane!

Now if you are asking me about medical extremes in which a
doctor might end the life of a zygote or turn off life support
machines that are keeping an old person alive, why don't you direct
your questions to medical science?

That was NOT what I was asking about!!

I try to stay away from medical science as much as possible. I regard
them as being increasingly insane.
Now you will say that I am inhumane because I would not want my
internal organs changed in order to stay alive. What is supposed to
be so great about living here with pro-abortion advocates? When it is
time for me to die, I will be glad for it to happen, but I will try to
stay alive until then because that is the law I was given.
Robert B. winn

When that occurs, I am sure all dead inhumans will welcome you with
cold hearts!!

I said I would not kill a zygote or an old person. You claim that is
inhuman. I say you are confused.
Robert B. Winn

You are inhumane because of your statement "It seems the same to me"
regarding termination of the life processes of "a zygote and an old
person".
I presume you identify equally with each!
Tell me: does your indifference also extend to the deaths of loved
ones and persons you do not identify with?
Regards...Zinnic