| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2003 02:46:31 PM |
| Object: |
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) in message > <rb14lv4ekg2eco62s2t7er2ad79mmip64e@4ax.com> wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Aborting a pregnancy is generally a lot less damaging for
the pregnantr [sic] woman that having that pregnancy con-
tinue through to term birth.
For instance a woman is about 10 times more likely to die
from term birth than from routine abortion.
Similarly, the vast majority, if not all, of the complications that can
occur from routine abortion *also* occur (but usually more
severely/frequently) with continuation of a pregnancy to term. And there
are plenty of complications from term pregnancy that simply don't happen
to the woman if a routing abortion is performed.
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
I see Pat is still passing on that old tired lie
from the CDC abortion staff about the risks of
child birth being 10 times greater than abortion.
.
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
31 Aug 2003 05:42:52 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0308311146.39025367@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul."
You do indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 12:38:44 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2003 09:49:52 -0700,
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
The Culture of Death crowd...
...is a figment of PJ's hate-filed and ignorant imagination.
Actually, the term "Culture of Death" was first coined by the
Pope a couple of years ago. I've repeatedly given the Pope
credit for the term, but apparently Craig forgot that.
YOU'VE subscribed to it. So it's just as much a figment of *your*
imagination as it is the pope's. I never said you *originated* it.
God is omniscient and omnipotent. That means that He has
always KNOWN everything *about* everything, past present and
future. And that He may freely INTERACT, uniquely, with any
person, group, or all humanity, however and whenever He
chooses.
I'm reminded of Mat 7:6:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn again and rend you."
Then you'd better pitch your Bible, PJ. Because you won't
find ANYTHING against abortion in it.
But... before you do, you might want to give Ex. 21:22-24 a look.
First off, the person being DEFENDED by those verses clearly is
the WOMAN. (There's no suggestion that her FETUS be removed
and evaluated for injuries, so that the appropriate penalties of "an eye
for an eye" or "a tooth for a tooth" can properly be imposed.)
Next -- I LOVE it when Anti-Choicers draw upon that passage,
because it would be hard to come up with one that could be used
as a BETTER example of just how UNlikely is is that the Bible would
go to the extent of defending z/e/fs! (For the sake of brevity,
I'll use only the NIV in my responses.) Here's why. Turn to the
verses IMMEDIATELY *before* the ones often cited about the
assault on the woman, in the SAME passage:
Ex. 21:20-21...
20 -- If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the
slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 -- but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a
day or two, since the slave is his property.
Here we see the Bible treating:
A. An already-human being as mere PROPERTY.
B. It can be either a MALE or a FEMALE
C. There is NO penalty to the assailant if death doesn't occur.
D. If death DOES occur, the penalty is UNSPECIFIED.
So let's consider THIS scenario: A 13-year-old girl (or it could
be a boy) suddenly and inexplicably provokes the wrath of her owner,
who takes a rod and violently THRASHES her mercilessly to within a
millimeter of her life, and leaves her lying in a senseless and
unconscious bloody heap in the middle of a dusty road. She lies
there in abject agony, mixed with periods of unconsciousness, for
two days and nights. Then, 47 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds
after the beating, she manages to struggle to her feet and struggle
off, crippled and maimed, teeth broken off, arm broken, and with
an eye put out. The penalty to her owner for having inflicted
such horrendous, unconscionable and cruel damage? NONE!!
Or she DIES. What is her owner's penalty THEN? It's unspecified.
For all we know, it could be 3 lashes on the back of his hand by a fellow
slave-owner, wielding a wet noodle.
Given all of this, the notion that the Bible would be concerned
with mere z/e/fs becomes totally LUDICROUS.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
31 Aug 2003 05:55:43 PM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 12:46:31 -0700, (Papa Jack)
blathered:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) in message > <rb14lv4ekg2eco62s2t7er2ad79mmip64e@4ax.com> wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Aborting a pregnancy is generally a lot less damaging for
the pregnantr [sic] woman that having that pregnancy con-
tinue through to term birth.
For instance a woman is about 10 times more likely to die
from term birth than from routine abortion.
Similarly, the vast majority, if not all, of the complications that can
occur from routine abortion *also* occur (but usually more
severely/frequently) with continuation of a pregnancy to term. And there
are plenty of complications from term pregnancy that simply don't happen
to the woman if a routing abortion is performed.
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
I see Pat is still passing on that old tired lie
from the CDC abortion staff about the risks of
child birth being 10 times greater than abortion.
The CDC performs abortions? What will Papa Jack come up with next.
Oh, by the way, why do you claim that the relative risks of abortion
and full-term delivery are a lie? Because it causes you to have
doubts about your cherished beliefs?
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
02 Sep 2003 07:34:37 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" wrote:
On 31 Aug 2003 12:46:31 -0700, (Papa Jack)
blathered:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) in message > <rb14lv4ekg2eco62s2t7er2ad79mmip64e@4ax.com> wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Aborting a pregnancy is generally a lot less damaging for
the pregnantr [sic] woman that having that pregnancy con-
tinue through to term birth.
For instance a woman is about 10 times more likely to die
from term birth than from routine abortion.
Similarly, the vast majority, if not all, of the complications that can
occur from routine abortion *also* occur (but usually more
severely/frequently) with continuation of a pregnancy to term. And there
are plenty of complications from term pregnancy that simply don't happen
to the woman if a routing abortion is performed.
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Good that you can't tell who's religious or non-religious.
However, it's usually all too clear where pro-aborts stand on those issues.
They're the ones who drag religion into it - usually in an attempt to smear
their opponents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
03 Sep 2003 07:38:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:34:37 +1200, wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" wrote:
On 31 Aug 2003 12:46:31 -0700, (Papa Jack)
blathered:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) in message > <rb14lv4ekg2eco62s2t7er2ad79mmip64e@4ax.com> wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Aborting a pregnancy is generally a lot less damaging for
the pregnantr [sic] woman that having that pregnancy con-
tinue through to term birth.
For instance a woman is about 10 times more likely to die
from term birth than from routine abortion.
Similarly, the vast majority, if not all, of the complications that can
occur from routine abortion *also* occur (but usually more
severely/frequently) with continuation of a pregnancy to term. And there
are plenty of complications from term pregnancy that simply don't happen
to the woman if a routing abortion is performed.
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Good that you can't tell who's religious or non-religious.
However, it's usually all too clear where pro-aborts stand on those issues.
They're the ones who drag religion into it - usually in an attempt to smear
their opponents.
As usual, no spam posts without regard for facts.
In this particular thread, it is Papa Jack who 'dragged religion into
it'. Perhaps you can post another example of a pro-choicer initiating
a discussion of religion.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
04 Sep 2003 07:38:14 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0309041553.1bce24bc@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
The great majority
of Americans state their religion is very important
to them -- so, I can't see how you can hope to
make a good impression by trashing otheir folks
religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. They have no place in society
generally.
Beleive what you wish, personally, insofar as it affects *only*
yourself, PJ.
Just keep your nose out of other people's business, other people's
religious beliefs etc. If you don't keep your religious beliefs to
yourself YOU are the one who is "trashing other folk's religious
beliefs".
Whatever makes you think you are making a good impression on someone by
trashing their religious beliefs (just because your beliefs happen to be
different)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
05 Sep 2003 11:17:10 AM |
|
|
Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. They have no place in society
generally.
Beleive what you wish, personally, insofar as it affects *only*
yourself, PJ.
Just keep your nose out of other people's business, other people's
religious beliefs etc. If you don't keep your religious beliefs to
yourself YOU are the one who is "trashing other folk's religious
beliefs".
All laws are based on beliefs. (If they weren't they'd be arbitrary)
Some happen to be religious, some philosophical, some practical. The
only way to avoid this is anarchy.
Trish
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
05 Sep 2003 07:57:54 PM |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2003 16:53:13 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:<582dlv0u7cjhbc1jhqqurhf3o23qqt71q8@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:34:37 +1200, wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" wrote:
(Papa Jack) wrote:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
[snip]
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying
psychological damage. It hasn't been politically correct
to notice or acknowlege it, but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious
anti-abortionists out of the closet.
=======================================================================
No Spam.com wrote:
Good that you can't tell who's religious or non-religious.
However, it's usually all too clear where pro-aborts stand
on those issues. They're the ones who drag religion into it
- usually in an attempt to smear their opponents.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight
As usual, no spam posts without regard for facts.
In this particular thread, it is Papa Jack who 'dragged
religion into it'. Perhaps you can post another example
of a pro-choicer initiating a discussion of religion.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head:
Wrong as usual -- Trish and Krisblake made the first
comments about the "soul." Then, I stated:
Slight clarification here. Trish (one of the anti-abortionists) made
the first comment about the 'soul', and the Krisblake questioned her.
How high will that petard hoist you?
"The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children."
Then, YOU REPLIED:
"Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the
religious anti-abortionists out of the
closet."
YOU subsequently added:
"Most of them are 'in the closet'. Dig
deeply in most anti-abortionists, and you
will find that their attitude toward
abortion is religiously based, and they
attempt to conceal it when arguing. (Of
course, not all of them do, just think of
the rosary-rattling protestors.)
Actually, I firmly believe comments like yours do
great harm to your own cause. The great majority
of Americans state their religion is very important
to them -- so, I can't see how you can hope to
make a good impression by trashing otheir folks
religious beliefs.
Where is I trash anybody's religious beliefs? I just don't want the
consequences of their beliefs forced on others.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
31 Aug 2003 11:26:32 PM |
|
|
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 07:47:45 AM |
|
|
In article <23be6401.0308312026.5129aed7@posting.google.com>,
Discotrish@msn.com says...
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls.
Prove it.
(In fact prove that souls even exist!)
Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
There are several reasons why one species might tend to favour its own
species over other species. And that includes members of another species
seeing humans as less valauble that members of their own species.
None of them have anything to do with religion.
Personally I see no reason why any living thing is any more or less
valuable (in absolute terms) than any other living thing.
Why is the lamb or chicken less valuable (in absolute terms) than the
wolf or human that ate it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 05:49:56 AM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 21:26:32 -0700, (Trish) in alt.abortion
with message-id <23be6401.0308312026.5129aed7@posting.google.com> wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
Your proof for that is what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 10:24:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 06:49:56 -0400, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.
wrote:
On 31 Aug 2003 21:26:32 -0700, (Trish) in alt.abortion
with message-id <23be6401.0308312026.5129aed7@posting.google.com> wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
Your proof for that is what?
As Rodney King said about the LAPD -- beats me. I know that according
to the Bible that animals do have souls and are also creations of God
that God has commanded man to care for.
Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 --
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;
even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth
the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man
hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
dust again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 10:50:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:24:20 GMT, (Paul Anderson) in
alt.abortion with message-id <3f536383.191116761@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 06:49:56 -0400, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.
wrote:
On 31 Aug 2003 21:26:32 -0700, (Trish) in alt.abortion
with message-id <23be6401.0308312026.5129aed7@posting.google.com> wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
Your proof for that is what?
As Rodney King said about the LAPD -- beats me. I know that according
to the Bible that animals do have souls and are also creations of God
that God has commanded man to care for.
Where is your proof your bible is anything more than myth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 01:10:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:56:20 -0400, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.
wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net wrote:
....
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
Your proof for that is what?
I know that according o the Bible that animals do have souls and are
also creations of God that God has commanded man to care for.
Where is your proof your bible is anything more than myth?
The Bible is a collection of many writings, most of which is not myth.
My proof is the Bible itself, an interesting read. Proverbs are
particularly enjoyable as they are mostly good words to live by.
You cannot use a source to prove itself. All proof must be independent of
the item being proven.
*****. Anyone can read the silly thing and see that it is more
than a collection of myths.
Proverbs 20:1, 31:4-7
Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is
deceived thereby is not wise.
[It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine;
nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law,
and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto
those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty,
and remember his misery no more.
Not myth, just plain good advice no matter what your religious beliefs
are.
Mention of the soul is generally done by Christians who often claim to
follow the Bible. Much of what Christians claim the Bible says is not
there. I like to point out that the Bible does not support their
implied belief that man is superior to animals because of the
possession of a 'soul'.
Irrelevant. Until it can be shown your bible
Just hold on one fucking minute dipwad -- don't attach the Bible to
me. It is *NOT* my Bible. I do not believe in the immoral soul. I
do not believe anyone died for my sins. I don't even accept the
concept of sin. I just happen to know it better than most Christians.
is anything more than just
literature and has any supporting evidence, especially for the more
unlikely claims, then whatever it says can be ignored as unimportant.
Those who profess to follow it should not ignore it as unimportant,
which was to whom my remarks were meant.
In this case the remark was "... people have souls. Otherwise there's
no real reason to accord people any more rights or respect than
animals." Animals also have souls, according to the same source that
most posters claim as authoritive, and thus any reference animals
merit *less* respect or rights on the basis of the 'soul' is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 01:31:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:10:44 GMT, (Paul Anderson) in
alt.abortion with message-id <3f5383a3.199341407@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:56:20 -0400, prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote
prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote:
wrote:
...
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Trish
Your proof for that is what?
I know that according o the Bible that animals do have souls and are
also creations of God that God has commanded man to care for.
Where is your proof your bible is anything more than myth?
The Bible is a collection of many writings, most of which is not myth.
My proof is the Bible itself, an interesting read. Proverbs are
particularly enjoyable as they are mostly good words to live by.
You cannot use a source to prove itself. All proof must be independent of
the item being proven.
*****. Anyone can read the silly thing and see that it is more
than a collection of myths.
Proverbs 20:1, 31:4-7
Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is
deceived thereby is not wise.
[It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine;
nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law,
and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto
those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty,
and remember his misery no more.
Not myth, just plain good advice no matter what your religious beliefs
are.
And having nothing at all to do with any god or religion. You can find
similar items in any religious text you care to look in, and they can't all
be valid can they? Are there really that many gods?
Where is the supporting evidence that it is a valid religious text
containing truth over and above common knowledge?
Mention of the soul is generally done by Christians who often claim to
follow the Bible. Much of what Christians claim the Bible says is not
there. I like to point out that the Bible does not support their
implied belief that man is superior to animals because of the
possession of a 'soul'.
Irrelevant. Until it can be shown your bible
Just hold on one fucking minute dipwad -- don't attach the Bible to
me. It is *NOT* my Bible. I do not believe in the immoral soul. I
do not believe anyone died for my sins. I don't even accept the
concept of sin. I just happen to know it better than most Christians.
Fine. Whether it is yours or not my comments still stand. It is nothing
more than a work of literature until it has some supporting evidence - and
currently it has none.
is anything more than just
literature and has any supporting evidence, especially for the more
unlikely claims, then whatever it says can be ignored as unimportant.
Those who profess to follow it should not ignore it as unimportant,
which was to whom my remarks were meant.
It would be about as important as following the Book of the Dead or
Grimm's Fairy Tales.
In this case the remark was "... people have souls. Otherwise there's
no real reason to accord people any more rights or respect than
animals." Animals also have souls, according to the same source that
most posters claim as authoritive, and thus any reference animals
merit *less* respect or rights on the basis of the 'soul' is false.
Prove any such thing as a soul exists. Anywhere.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 07:48:37 AM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2003 21:26:32 -0700, (Trish) wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls.
How the ***** have you determined that?
Don't answer, I already know -- you answer out of your ***** without
any credible evidence to support your inane claims.
Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
We are animals, numbskull.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 11:51:54 AM |
|
|
On 9/1/03 12:26 AM, in article
23be6401.0308312026.5129aed7@posting.google.com, "Trish"
<Discotrish@msn.com> wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious anti-abortionists
out of the closet.
Even non-religious people have souls. Otherwise there's no real reason
to accord people any more rights or respect than animals.
Let's hope you and me are never in a plane crash. So long as I have matches
and I am hungry, I'll be eating Trish-steaks. Souls and rights are out the
window at that point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
01 Sep 2003 05:42:59 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message > news:<s2v4lvkv426dvf6ru4knp7iomgcai7pkgp@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
[snip]
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious
anti-abortionists out of the closet.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
"...out of the closet?" Who was in the closet?
I certainly haven't been. When I first started
posting to t.a., I was an agnostic -- and I often
stated that. However, as the years went by, I
gradually came to believe I'd mada a serious
mistake when I left the church of my youth 30+
years earlier. One of the primary influences on
my decision was my repeated consideration of the
various issues related to abortion -- and, my
contempt for the typical harsh bigotry of the
Pro-Abortion Rights crowd.
I have repeatedly stated openly for the past
3 or 4 years that I am a practicing Christian.
However, I usually do not bring my personal
religious beliefs into the abortion debate
because my views on abortion haven't changed
much from the days before I returned to the
Church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
02 Sep 2003 07:43:37 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2003 15:42:59 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message > news:<s2v4lvkv426dvf6ru4knp7iomgcai7pkgp@4ax.com>...
(Papa Jack) wrote:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
[snip]
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying psychological
damage. It hasn't been politically correct to notice or acknowlege it,
but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious
anti-abortionists out of the closet.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
"...out of the closet?" Who was in the closet?
I certainly haven't been. When I first started
posting to t.a., I was an agnostic -- and I often
stated that. However, as the years went by, I
gradually came to believe I'd mada a serious
mistake when I left the church of my youth 30+
years earlier. One of the primary influences on
my decision was my repeated consideration of the
various issues related to abortion -- and, my
contempt for the typical harsh bigotry of the
Pro-Abortion Rights crowd.
Most of them are 'in the closet'. Dig deeply in most
anti-abortionists, and you will find that their attitude toward
abortion is religiously based, and they attempt to conceal it when
arguing. (Of course, not all of them do, just think of the
rosary-rattling protestors.)
I have repeatedly stated openly for the past
3 or 4 years that I am a practicing Christian.
However, I usually do not bring my personal
religious beliefs into the abortion debate
because my views on abortion haven't changed
much from the days before I returned to the
Church.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
03 Sep 2003 05:52:01 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message news:<k6ealv830chhbel5b1ite7sp5t3uo1no0o@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
Krisblake (Krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com) wrote:
Trish (Discotrish@msn.com) wrote:
Pat Winstanley (wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
=======================================================================
[snip]
=======================================================================
Trish wrote:
There is the risk of death of the soul and accompanying
psychological damage. It hasn't been politically correct
to notice or acknowlege it, but it exists just the same.
=======================================================================
Krisblake wrote:
"Death of the Soul"...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack sighed:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul." They only recognize the physical
human body. That's why it's so easy for them to
encourage the mass slaughter of unborn children.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight wrote:
Ah, mention of the soul is bringing the religious
anti-abortionists out of the closet.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
"...out of the closet?" Who was in the closet?
I certainly haven't been. When I first started
posting to t.a., I was an agnostic -- and I often
stated that. However, as the years went by, I
gradually came to believe I'd mada a serious
mistake when I left the church of my youth 30+
years earlier. One of the primary influences on
my decision was my repeated consideration of the
various issues related to abortion -- and, my
contempt for the typical harsh bigotry of the
Pro-Abortion Rights crowd.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight wrote:
Most of them are 'in the closet'....
=======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Larry, do you realize there are millions of
Pro-Lifers? Like any large group, they include
a wide range of "types" of folks. When you try
to make such sweeping generalizations about "how
they are," you make yourself sound like a bigot.
=======================================================================
Lawrence E. McKnight wrote:
...Dig deeply in most anti-abortionists, and you
will find that their attitude toward abortion is
religiously based, and they attempt to conceal
it when arguing. (Of course, not all of them do,
just think of the rosary-rattling protestors.)
=======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Larry, I'm not ashamed of my religious beliefs at
all -- but, after several years on talk.abortion
I know raising religious issues will bring out the
worst in wome of the Pro-Abortion Righters. I've
seen the obscene sneers and the insults before,
(such as "rosary-rattling protestors").
I'm reminded of Mat 7:6:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn again and rend you."
My belief that killing an unborn child for convenience
is morally wrong is simply part of my overall belief
in the sanctity of all human life. Is that religious
in nature? I was an agnostic for 30+ years and I felt
the same way then , so my current beliefs are not
totally based on my religious beliefs. But, then, my
parents and early teachers DID teach me killing was
wrong when I was a child. So,...?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I have repeatedly stated openly for the past
3 or 4 years that I am a practicing Christian.
However, I usually do not bring my personal
religious beliefs into the abortion debate
because my views on abortion haven't changed
much from the days before I returned to the
Church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
03 Sep 2003 07:47:16 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Most of them are 'in the closet'....
Larry, do you realize there are millions of
Pro-Lifers? Like any large group, they include
a wide range of "types" of folks. When you try
to make such sweeping generalizations about "how
they are," you make yourself sound like a bigot.
Then I suppose that your sweeping generalizations about people
who are pro-choice makes YOU a bigot.
A hypocrite, too.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
02 Sep 2003 09:49:55 PM |
|
|
One of the primary influences on
my decision was my repeated consideration of the
various issues related to abortion -- and, my
contempt for the typical harsh bigotry of the
Pro-Abortion Rights crowd.
Actually a lot of them are quite nice. We shared lunch during a
pro/anti-abortion rally a few years back and when you talk one on one
everyone is quite reasonable. You know how slogan-shouting at rallies
can get people fired up though. I'm not quite sure what you mean by
bigotry. I may not agree with their point of view but in most cases
it's an honestly held one.
Trish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
02 Sep 2003 11:20:14 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
I have repeatedly stated openly for the past
3 or 4 years that I am a practicing Christian.
And if senility doesn't render you completely incompetent before you
die, you just might get it right and become an actual Christian
instead of the hate-filled and murderous liar that you are now.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
02 Sep 2003 11:31:39 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:bj3q5t$u79$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
I have repeatedly stated openly for the past
3 or 4 years that I am a practicing Christian.
And if senility doesn't render you completely incompetent before you
die, you just might get it right and become an actual Christian
instead of the hate-filled and murderous liar that you are now.
Well, the old fool did admit that he was a "practicing" xtian. Maybe if he
practices long enough, he might get it right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Article |
31 Aug 2003 04:58:59 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
The Culture of Death crowd has a problem with the
concept of "soul."
Indeed? I see you pro-lie death-mongers bleat about souls all of the
time even as you cheer then deaths of thousands and millions.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
