| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mike D." |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 08:59:15 PM |
| Object: |
Question |
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual, and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life. If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt, or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them, since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here, judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills). By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you all?
Mike.
.
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:00:49 PM |
|
|
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>, says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:09:39 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>, says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:12:22 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <> writes:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>, says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
....and you obviously will claim that your alleged god won't allow you to know.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
14 Mar 2005 02:55:03 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>, says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
Even Pat probably doesn't know. She's probably so used to contradicting
whatever the opposition states that her posts have no meaning even to
her.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:20:37 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>,
says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible,
and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than
your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct
physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's
body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's
body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care
of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your
own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
It is simple. Adoption cannot happen until AFTER birth. It is not a
remedy for abortion since it does not relieve the woman of the
pregnancy now.
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
Currently, a pregnant woman has two choices, continue the pregnancy or
get an abortion. There are no other choices currently available. If
you think that you know of any, then please explain it completely.
include an explanation of how it relieves the pregnant woman of having
to continue her unwanted pregnancy to termination/childbirth.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:25:32 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110583237.053577.112740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>,
says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible,
and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than
your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct
physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's
body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that person's
body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary care
of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than your
own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
It is simple. Adoption cannot happen until AFTER birth. It is not a
remedy for abortion since it does not relieve the woman of the
pregnancy now.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 06:53:35 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110583237.053577.112740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9c337aafc8009898c2c2@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <vTfYd.6481$ju.165@okepread07>,
says...
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded,
sensible,
and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther
than
your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
Please describe exactly how someone (else) can take over direct
physical
care of an embryo/foetus that has implanted itself in a person's
body
without the embryo/foetus being first separated from that
person's
body
to make it available for adoption?
IOW, how, exactly can you legally adopt and take over primary
care
of an
embryo or foetus whilst it is in some other person's body than
your
own?
Please enlighten us all! :-)
I still don't know exactly what you're asking.
It is simple. Adoption cannot happen until AFTER birth. It is not
a
remedy for abortion since it does not relieve the woman of the
pregnancy now.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws. Is
there ANY circumstance where are person must be forced to suffer
physically, emotionally, and financially, including allowing another
use their body without their consent, that does not include a criminal
trial with a guilty verdict, when there is a simple, effective, and
inexpensive recourse available to relieve that person of their
suffering? I have not found any such law, and I have found many laws
that prevent it.
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder. Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long. If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does, and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not), then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will. Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
[Replace snipped text]
Currently, a pregnant woman has two choices, continue the pregnancy or
get an abortion. There are no other choices currently available. If
you think that you know of any, then please explain it completely.
include an explanation of how it relieves the pregnant woman of having
to continue her unwanted pregnancy to termination/childbirth.
[End return of snipped text]
I see that you could not answer that very pertinent question. No
surprise there. The anti-choice people often show that they do not
have any solutions for the problems that they want to create.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 07:26:06 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's body.
and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the mother's
relief.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defense.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will.
What about the baby's will?
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:54:47 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
....in your opinion. You keep overlooking that annoying little detail.
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's body.
--once it's born. You keep "forgetting" that, too.
and when, and she can withdraw that consent at any time. This principle
can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
When you can get him elected to Congress, maybe he'll have a say. Break a
leg, eh?
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the mother's
relief.
You really should spend some time in reality. (It's available even in
Wichita.)
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply because
she wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
Your opinion apparently isn't shared by very many other people, and even your
alleged god doesn't bother with it when it's not convenient for him.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
So, if she doesn't want it, why aren't you demanding the mother give it to
some other woman who might want it?
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting and torturing her in the same
manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
"Woman? What woman?"
and the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defense.
Yeah, no one will ever accuse YOU of being a cafeteria Christian, will they?
I guess the Big Guy wasn't talking to you in that "thou shalt not kill"
advice.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
Obviously, Exodus 20:16 isn't obligatory to you, is it?
then it has no right to use the woman's body against her will.
What about the baby's will?
When it's able to have a will -- which situation doesn't exist in 99-plus
percent of all abortions done in this country -- you may have a point.
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights to have it removed and
allow it to try to live without her unsolicited help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
Get back to us when he can post. He didn't appoint a feeb like you to speak
for him.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:11:07 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07...
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
Animals sometimes reject their young when their instincts tell them that
they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. That could be seen as the
animal equivalent of abortion.
It's seems that abortion might not be that unnatural after all.
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's
body.
The baby doesn't exactly have a vote yet at that stage, nor a will for such.
and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the
mother's relief.
It's a bad world we live in. The baby isn't really missing much.
In fact we might be doing it a favour.
You never know. The apocalypse might be just around the corner.
You don't want to put an innocent baby through that do you?
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
Correct. It's a natural product of the mother's body.
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defence.
Nor can we do the same to the bible god who frequently does the same to us.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
It's life but only in the sense of being a cell division driven organism.
then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will.
What about the baby's will?
Baby's don't have any will yet.
They haven't yet made any plans for their future in the world.
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
The one who gave the baby life was the mother.
Whether or not there is a soul at that point is indeterminable and thus a
futile argument.
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:44:44 AM |
|
|
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42326bdb$0$12026$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07...
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
Animals sometimes reject their young when their instincts tell them that
they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. That could be seen as
the animal equivalent of abortion.
It's seems that abortion might not be that unnatural after all.
Are you lowering yourself to the instincts of an animal?
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's
body.
The baby doesn't exactly have a vote yet at that stage, nor a will for
such.
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot think
for themselves, huh?
and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible. Is it right
next to the verse that says "God helps those who help themselves?"
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the
mother's relief.
It's a bad world we live in. The baby isn't really missing much.
In fact we might be doing it a favour.
So let's kill all the severely brain damaged people that are confined to
wheelchairs because we might just be doing those people a favor, huh?
You never know. The apocalypse might be just around the corner.
You don't want to put an innocent baby through that do you?
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
Correct. It's a natural product of the mother's body.
Wrong. It is a living human being that is being nourished by the mother's
body.
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
And how so?
and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defence.
Nor can we do the same to the bible god who frequently does the same to
us.
God doesn't kill us. Death is a consequence of our disobedience to Him.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
It's life but only in the sense of being a cell division driven organism.
You have no proof of that. The proof points to the baby as being a human
life form.
then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will.
What about the baby's will?
Baby's don't have any will yet.
They haven't yet made any plans for their future in the world.
Neither have severely brain damaged people confined to wheelchairs. So do
we kill them too?
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
The one who gave the baby life was the mother.
Boy is that a one sided ignorant statement. The father has no involvement at
all? The mother just woke up one day and BAM she was preggo?
Whether or not there is a soul at that point is indeterminable and thus a
futile argument.
You mean because humans have not been able to determine whether this baby
has a soul or not means that it is undeterminable?
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:42:53 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7_xYd.7219$ju.5617@okepread07...
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42326bdb$0$12026$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07...
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Animals sometimes reject their young when their instincts tell them that
they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. That could be seen as
the animal equivalent of abortion.
It's seems that abortion might not be that unnatural after all.
Are you lowering yourself to the instincts of an animal?
Animals are in tune with nature. They're not so stupid as to abuse their
young by trying to raise them without full and proper care and love. We can
learn something from their example. It's not by accident that they've
survived for millions of years.
How many spastic or delinquent animals do you see around? Virtually none.
Their genetic lines are still close to perfect.
We can't say they same for humans because most humans believe in a god so
they want to keep every single unfortunate child just because they think
that their god might get angry if we don't raise every single child for him.
Such child abuse is an abomination to nature and the creator, unless of
course he actually prefers having abused and sickly children around him.
With the callous christian god I wouldn't be surprised.
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot
think for themselves, huh?
It's too late for them. They've already grown up and experienced life.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible.
What difference does it make where they are in the bible?
Do you not you know your own bible?
Is it right next to the verse that says "God helps those who help
themselves?"
Actually, that is a good example of the many contradictions in the bible.
In one place it says the above, and in another it say something like we must
trust in the Lord to do everything for us.
It's the same with killing and many other things.
Why do you insist on worshiping such a confused deity?
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
And how so?
Because your god loves to see his creatures suffer.
Want proof of that? What was the first thing your god did to humans? He put
a deadly tree right in front of them, issued them a terse warning and then
disappeared and left them to their own devices, knowing full well that they
are curious and forgetful as all humans are. But that wasn't enough. He made
a serpent able to talk and put it on a tree right in front of them to
mislead them on purpose.
If a human parent were to do such a wicked thing then he/she would be locked
up and the children would be taken away from them.
Your god doesn't deserve children.
Nor can we do the same to the bible god who frequently does the same to
us.
God doesn't kill us. Death is a consequence of our disobedience to Him.
I see you believe that old christian totalitarian lie.
It's life but only in the sense of being a cell division driven organism.
You have no proof of that. The proof points to the baby as being a human
life form.
A human life form that in many cases is not going to get all the care and
love that it deserves, thus it will be abused.
Whether or not there is a soul at that point is indeterminable and thus a
futile argument.
You mean because humans have not been able to determine whether this baby
has a soul or not means that it is undeterminable?
Do *you* have any suggestions for how we can find out for sure?
Your god doesn't look like he's about to tell us, otherwise he would have by
now and we wouldn't be at each others throats.
I think your god loves seeing little creatures argue and kill each other.
There's no other explanation for him not communicating with us globally for
2000 years. Actually he never communicated with us globally at all, only to
some stupid Jews. With their record there's a good chance they made it all
up, actually I'm being too kind by saying that.
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:02:54 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42335454$0$5596$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Animals are in tune with nature. They're not so stupid as to abuse their
young by trying to raise them without full and proper care and love.
Yet they are stupid enough to walk out in front of a moving car.
We can learn something from their example.
Lots of people have.
It's not by accident that they've survived for millions of years.
I've never known an animal to survive for even one million years.
How many spastic or delinquent animals do you see around?
As many that will walk out in front of a moving car.
Virtually none.
You've never seen a dog or a deer in your headlights?
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot
think for themselves, huh?
It's too late for them. They've already grown up and experienced life.
Ok, then let's kill all the newborn babies who are deformed. They have not
grown up and experienced life.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible.
What difference does it make where they are in the bible?
Do you not you know your own bible?
You're claiming that these are God's laws. Now you say it doesn't matter if
it's in the Bible or not. You're just being combative.
Is it right next to the verse that says "God helps those who help
themselves?"
Actually, that is a good example of the many contradictions in the bible.
In one place it says the above, and in another it say something like we
must trust in the Lord to do everything for us.
It's the same with killing and many other things.
Why do you insist on worshiping such a confused deity?
LOL!! You fell right into my trap! NOWHERE in the Bible does it say "God
helps those who help themselves." It aint in there! And since you didn't
even know that most basic fallacy, your credibility with the Bible is now
ZERO!!
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
And how so?
Because your god loves to see his creatures suffer.
Credibility, ZERO!!
Want proof of that? What was the first thing your god did to humans? He
put a deadly tree right in front of them, issued them a terse warning and
then disappeared and left them to their own devices, knowing full well
that they are curious and forgetful as all humans are. But that wasn't
enough. He made a serpent able to talk and put it on a tree right in front
of them to mislead them on purpose.
So you blame God for Adam and Eve's concious decision to disobey God's
direct command. That's just like a Liberal. Always blaming everybody but
themselves for their own concious mistakes. What else do you blame God for?
God doesn't kill us. Death is a consequence of our disobedience to Him.
I see you believe that old christian totalitarian lie.
Prove it's a lie.
You have no proof of that. The proof points to the baby as being a human
life form.
A human life form that in many cases is not going to get all the care and
love that it deserves, thus it will be abused.
And is that also God's fault?
Whether or not there is a soul at that point is indeterminable and thus
a futile argument.
You mean because humans have not been able to determine whether this baby
has a soul or not means that it is undeterminable?
Do *you* have any suggestions for how we can find out for sure?
Your god doesn't look like he's about to tell us, otherwise he would have
by now and we wouldn't be at each others throats.
But he has told us.
There is a scripture that goes something like "Before I placed you in your
mother's womb, I knew you." It's very popular with Pro-Lifers and I will
find it for you. However, since you don't believe in the Bible, it probably
will do no good.
I think your god loves seeing little creatures argue and kill each other.
You think?
There's no other explanation for him not communicating with us globally
for 2000 years.
He's communicated with me. Not with an audible voice but with things that
happen in my life. Things that have left no doubt.
Actually he never communicated with us globally at all, only to
some stupid Jews.
You're wrong.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:45:12 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oGJYd.7272$ju.4283@okepread07...
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42335454$0$5596$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Animals are in tune with nature. They're not so stupid as to abuse their
young by trying to raise them without full and proper care and love.
Yet they are stupid enough to walk out in front of a moving car.
Cars are not part of their natural environment. They are accustom to other
animals going around them instead of over them.
Actually, humans sometimes walk out in front of cars too.
In their own kingdom animals are actually quite smart. For one thing they
don't destroy and pollute their environment like humans do.
We can learn something from their example.
Lots of people have.
Yes, and there should be more of it.
For one thing we can learn something about animal's lack of dumb religious
traditions.
How many animals do you see going around looking up at the sky and
worshipping an invisible master and worrying about whether they will be
punished in a hell or get a big reward in a place called heaven just for
believing in a barbaric blood sacrifice ritual 2000 years earlier?
Animals actually live their lives as they were designed to do, instead of
wasting it like we do on stupid barbaric blood sacrificing traditions.
It's not by accident that they've survived for millions of years.
I've never known an animal to survive for even one million years.
I was referring to their species.
How many spastic or delinquent animals do you see around?
As many that will walk out in front of a moving car.
Lol. How can you expect an animal to automatically know the "look left, look
right" rule. That rule has to be taught.
Like I said before, animals, when they run they instinctively go around each
other and that's what all animals are used to.
Virtually none.
You've never seen a dog or a deer in your headlights?
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot
think for themselves, huh?
It's too late for them. They've already grown up and experienced life.
Ok, then let's kill all the newborn babies who are deformed. They have
not grown up and experienced life.
They've already been born. No one is going to kill a child once it's already
born.
It's far more humane to do it before it has fully developed it's nervous
system because then it will likely feel less pain.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible.
What difference does it make where they are in the bible?
Do you not you know your own bible?
You're claiming that these are God's laws. Now you say it doesn't matter
if it's in the Bible or not. You're just being combative.
I didn't say that it doesn't matter *if* they are in the bible or not, I
said it doesn't matter *where* they are in the bible.
Do you not recognise your own god's demands? They may not be word for word
but they are essentially what he is demanding.
Is it right next to the verse that says "God helps those who help
themselves?"
Actually, that is a good example of the many contradictions in the bible.
In one place it says the above, and in another it say something like we
must trust in the Lord to do everything for us.
It's the same with killing and many other things.
Why do you insist on worshiping such a confused deity?
LOL!! You fell right into my trap! NOWHERE in the Bible does it say "God
helps those who help themselves." It aint in there! And since you didn't
even know that most basic fallacy, your credibility with the Bible is now
ZERO!!
That may not be one of the contradictions but there are many that are
similar to it.
Here is just one website that lists the hundreds of contradictions in the
bible.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
And how so?
Because your god loves to see his creatures suffer.
Credibility, ZERO!!
Many atheists actually know the bible better than many christians.
Want proof of that? What was the first thing your god did to humans? He
put a deadly tree right in front of them, issued them a terse warning and
then disappeared and left them to their own devices, knowing full well
that they are curious and forgetful as all humans are. But that wasn't
enough. He made a serpent able to talk and put it on a tree right in
front of them to mislead them on purpose.
So you blame God for Adam and Eve's concious decision to disobey God's
direct command.
He led them into a trap. Can you not see that?
That's just like a Liberal. Always blaming everybody but themselves for
their own concious mistakes. What else do you blame God for?
Have you ever considered the possibility that the god of the bible is
actually the god of this world - the god of darkness?
God doesn't kill us. Death is a consequence of our disobedience to Him.
I see you believe that old christian totalitarian lie.
Prove it's a lie.
Ok. Why would a benevolent god set a trap for his creatures so that they
immediately rebel against him?
Would this rebellion not have been part of his plan?
If it wasn't then his perfect plan has failed miserably.
If it was then he has no right to punish us because we were only carrying
out *his* plan and will, because nothing happens without him first planing
and wanting it to happen.
We wouldn't have been able to do it any other way.
And don't try to say that he gave us a choice, because if he has a desire
for a particular outcome and has set forth a plan then there can be no free
choice.
In order to give us free choice, he would have to be willing to accept both
outcomes, but he clearly wasn't because he got very angry and threatened to
punish and kill us.
He was clearly only prepared to accept *one* outcome. That means *no*
choice.
The main tenets of christianity are therefore lies.
You have no proof of that. The proof points to the baby as being a
human life form.
A human life form that in many cases is not going to get all the care and
love that it deserves, thus it will be abused.
And is that also God's fault?
Yes, for not telling his people what is right in this situation.
Your god has serious communication problems.
Imagine what would happen to a nation if it's president was as
uncommunicative as the christian god.
You mean because humans have not been able to determine whether this
baby has a soul or not means that it is undeterminable?
Do *you* have any suggestions for how we can find out for sure?
Your god doesn't look like he's about to tell us, otherwise he would have
by now and we wouldn't be at each others throats.
But he has told us.
There is a scripture that goes something like "Before I placed you in your
mother's womb, I knew you." It's very popular with Pro-Lifers and I will
find it for you. However, since you don't believe in the Bible, it
probably will do no good.
Verses in the bible regarding this issue are extremely vague and open to
interpretation.
If they weren't then we would all know by now, but after 2000 years we still
don't.
I think your god loves seeing little creatures argue and kill each other.
You think?
Yep.
2Thessalonians 2:11 - "And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Delusions and lies lead to arguments and slaughter.
There's no other explanation for him not communicating with us globally
for 2000 years.
He's communicated with me. Not with an audible voice but with things that
happen in my life. Things that have left no doubt.
That was probably just your spirit guide assisting you.
It wasn't the bible god that's for sure. See above 2Thessalonians 2:11
again.
Also JER 13:14 "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers
and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have
mercy, but destroy them."
Oh, and regarding the bible god being a god of war, try this one - EXO 15:3
"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Actually he never communicated with us globally at all, only to
some stupid Jews.
You're wrong.
Really? What other countries in other parts the world did the christian god
communicate with?
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:55:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:02:54 -0600, "Bill Gamelson"
<bgamelson@cox.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<oGJYd.7272$ju.4283@okepread07> wrote:
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42335454$0$5596$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Animals are in tune with nature. They're not so stupid as to abuse their
young by trying to raise them without full and proper care and love.
Yet they are stupid enough to walk out in front of a moving car.
As many people do?
We can learn something from their example.
Lots of people have.
It's not by accident that they've survived for millions of years.
I've never known an animal to survive for even one million years.
Crocodiles? Sharks? Cockroaches?
Man is a relative newcomer.
How many spastic or delinquent animals do you see around?
As many that will walk out in front of a moving car.
As many people do.
Virtually none.
You've never seen a dog or a deer in your headlights?
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot
think for themselves, huh?
It's too late for them. They've already grown up and experienced life.
Ok, then let's kill all the newborn babies who are deformed. They have not
grown up and experienced life.
Society will not support that viewpoint even though it is genetically
beneficial.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible.
What difference does it make where they are in the bible?
Do you not you know your own bible?
You're claiming that these are God's laws. Now you say it doesn't matter if
it's in the Bible or not. You're just being combative.
But since you have not proved your bible is valid any reference to it
can be ignored.
Speculation trimmed
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
in article oGJYd.7272$ju.4283@okepread07, Bill Gamelson at
wrote on 3/12/05 5:02 PM:
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42335454$0$5596$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Animals are in tune with nature. They're not so stupid as to abuse their
young by trying to raise them without full and proper care and love.
Yet they are stupid enough to walk out in front of a moving car.
We can learn something from their example.
Lots of people have.
It's not by accident that they've survived for millions of years.
I've never known an animal to survive for even one million years.
How many spastic or delinquent animals do you see around?
As many that will walk out in front of a moving car.
Virtually none.
You've never seen a dog or a deer in your headlights?
And you never had a happy surge in your groin just thinking about
hitting them?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 03:38:04 PM |
|
|
In article <7_xYd.7219$ju.5617@okepread07>, says...
Animals sometimes reject their young when their instincts tell them that
they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. That could be seen as
the animal equivalent of abortion.
It's seems that abortion might not be that unnatural after all.
Are you lowering yourself to the instincts of an animal?
Every one of us posting here is a member of the animal kingdom. You are
an animal too! ;-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:42:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:44:44 -0600, "Bill Gamelson"
<bgamelson@cox.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7_xYd.7219$ju.5617@okepread07> wrote:
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:42326bdb$0$12026$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07...
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
Animals sometimes reject their young when their instincts tell them that
they don't
have the means to properly raise their offspring. That could be seen as
the animal equivalent of abortion.
It's seems that abortion might not be that unnatural after all.
Are you lowering yourself to the instincts of an animal?
Man is an animal with his own instincts and reactions.
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's
body.
The baby doesn't exactly have a vote yet at that stage, nor a will for
such.
So let's kill all the people who are severely brain damaged and cannot think
for themselves, huh?
Those are human beings with rights and protections. Such actions
would be illegal.
and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
Among the first of your God's supposed laws are -
'believe in me only!'
'love me above all others!'
'worship me and no other!'
'obey me only!'
'seek me and give up all your own pleasures!'
'give me your will or die!'
Me!, me!, me!, me!, me!
Yet you can't tell me where any of these exist in the Bible. Is it right
next to the verse that says "God helps those who help themselves?"
Until your bible is validated what difference does what it says or
does not say make?
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the
mother's relief.
It's a bad world we live in. The baby isn't really missing much.
In fact we might be doing it a favour.
So let's kill all the severely brain damaged people that are confined to
wheelchairs because we might just be doing those people a favor, huh?
Those are human beings with rights and protections. Such actions
would be illegal.
You never know. The apocalypse might be just around the corner.
You don't want to put an innocent baby through that do you?
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
Correct. It's a natural product of the mother's body.
Wrong. It is a living human being that is being nourished by the mother's
body.
All human beings have been born. It is a fetus.
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
Bringing it into this awful world would be a bigger punishment.
And how so?
and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defence.
Nor can we do the same to the bible god who frequently does the same to
us.
God doesn't kill us. Death is a consequence of our disobedience to Him.
Prove any god exists. Then prove your second statement.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
It's life but only in the sense of being a cell division driven organism.
You have no proof of that. The proof points to the baby as being a human
life form.
So is my toe. So what?
then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will.
What about the baby's will?
Baby's don't have any will yet.
They haven't yet made any plans for their future in the world.
Neither have severely brain damaged people confined to wheelchairs. So do
we kill them too?
Those are human beings with rights and protections. Such actions
would be illegal.
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
The one who gave the baby life was the mother.
Boy is that a one sided ignorant statement. The father has no involvement at
all? The mother just woke up one day and BAM she was preggo?
Irrelevant. Once pregnant the role of the father in the process is
finished and he is no longer involved. He can only become involved in
a support function if and after live birth occurs.
Whether or not there is a soul at that point is indeterminable and thus a
futile argument.
You mean because humans have not been able to determine whether this baby
has a soul or not means that it is undeterminable?
Prove a soul exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 03:36:23 PM |
|
|
In article <TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07>, says...
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's body.
There is no baby when she is pregnant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 09:36:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:26:06 -0600, "Bill Gamelson"
<bgamelson@cox.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<TyrYd.7165$ju.458@okepread07> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110588815.846388.76350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder,
Yes it is.
You have been shown to be wrong yet you continue in the same tired
comments. Why is that?
and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body,
But she doesn't have the right to define what she does with the baby's body.
There is no baby and the 'body' is simply a mass of cells.
and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time. This principle can be found throughout our laws.
Not God's laws.
Prove any god exists.
Adoption relieves the woman of having to care for the newborn. It
does
nothing for ending her unwanted pregnancy.
The baby being murdered is a high price for the baby to pay for the mother's
relief.
There is no baby, and abortion is not murder. As has been
demonstrated.
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she
wants to relieve herself of her unwanted pregnancy?
First, it is not murder.
Yes it is. You just don't see it as murder but it is.
No it is not. Murder is illegal and abortion is legal.
Second, there is no reason for a woman to
give up the right to define how her body is used, by whom, in what
manner, and for how long.
The baby is not the mother's body.
There is no baby and the woman has the decision on how her body is
used.
If a woman kills someone that is assaulting
and torturing her in the same manner as an unwanted pregnancy does,
Why punish the baby because of an unwanted pregnancy?
Irrelevant.
There is no baby.
and
the only way for her to stop the assault is to kill the attacker, then
it is not murder. It is self-defense.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot kill the abortion doctor in self-defense.
Irrelevant.
There is no baby.
It is very simple. If you insist on defining an embryo/fetus as a
person (which it is not),
Yes it is and it has been proven that life begins at conception. Your
pro-murder buddy John Kerry even admitted this.
Irrelevant. It simply does not matter.
then it has no right to use the woman's body
against her will.
What about the baby's will?
Irrelevant.
There is no baby.
Therefore, the woman is perfectly within her rights
to have it removed and allow it to try to live without her unsolicited
help.
Not according to the one who gave that baby life.
Nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tamagotchi" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:13:20 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:slo4311drgipn5n8et39n07kc635j8aeo9@4ax.com...
Prove any god exists.
In order for one to provide evidence, you'll first need to define what it is
that you mean by "god".
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:19:05 PM |
|
|
In article <oN-dnfCWS5iADq7fRVn-2g@adelphia.com>, Tamagotchi
<tamagotchi56@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:slo4311drgipn5n8et39n07kc635j8aeo9@4ax.com...
Prove any god exists.
In order for one to provide evidence, you'll first need to define what it is
that you mean by "god".
If you have some proof ANY God exists, you should begin by explaining
what YOU mean by God - don't you think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 09:59:34 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051719057014%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <oN-dnfCWS5iADq7fRVn-2g@adelphia.com>, Tamagotchi
<tamagotchi56@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:slo4311drgipn5n8et39n07kc635j8aeo9@4ax.com...
Prove any god exists.
In order for one to provide evidence, you'll first need to define what it
is
that you mean by "god".
If you have some proof ANY God exists, you should begin by explaining
what YOU mean by God - don't you think?
A god is basically a being that is extremely powerful.
Any reasonably sophisticated extraterrestrial visitor could easily fit this
criteria.
Even a mafia boss can be referred to as a god.
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 05:34:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:59:34 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4233baa7$0$5598$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051719057014%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <oN-dnfCWS5iADq7fRVn-2g@adelphia.com>, Tamagotchi
<tamagotchi56@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:slo4311drgipn5n8et39n07kc635j8aeo9@4ax.com...
Prove any god exists.
In order for one to provide evidence, you'll first need to define what it
is
that you mean by "god".
If you have some proof ANY God exists, you should begin by explaining
what YOU mean by God - don't you think?
A god is basically a being that is extremely powerful.
Any reasonably sophisticated extraterrestrial visitor could easily fit this
criteria.
Even a mafia boss can be referred to as a god.
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
The same can be true for gods. After all, weren't the invading
European explorers considered gods by many of the native Americans?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tamagotchi" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 10:01:39 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mr8831tpirvebbojgtgeb309radeehs7ku@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:59:34 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4233baa7$0$5598$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051719057014%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <oN-dnfCWS5iADq7fRVn-2g@adelphia.com>, Tamagotchi
<tamagotchi56@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:slo4311drgipn5n8et39n07kc635j8aeo9@4ax.com...
Prove any god exists.
In order for one to provide evidence, you'll first need to define what
it
is
that you mean by "god".
If you have some proof ANY God exists, you should begin by explaining
what YOU mean by God - don't you think?
A god is basically a being that is extremely powerful.
Any reasonably sophisticated extraterrestrial visitor could easily fit
this
criteria.
Even a mafia boss can be referred to as a god.
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
The same can be true for gods. After all, weren't the invading
European explorers considered gods by many of the native Americans?
This relativity is exactly the reason why I was asking for your definition
of "god". You probably don't want proof for European explorers, mafia
bosses or extraterrestrials, do you? More likely, you want a definition of
a powerful being who created the universe...am I right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 10:34:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:01:39 -0500, "Tamagotchi"
<tamagotchi56@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IdSdnZ7-Y_8d_qnfRVn-ow@adelphia.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mr8831tpirvebbojgtgeb309radeehs7ku@4ax.com...
On | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
