"slate" <slate1947@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:srgsb3hggrlp5j4tb7eht5pgvf9j34512d@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:55:53 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"slate" <slate1947@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:br6sb3d1fvnukm49dpbvljc0h2dc9iorv9@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:47:49 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"slate" <slate1947@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pcmrb3t1ff5vrmvn2638ggo8nefakf5m7h@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:02:38 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <I-ydnZ5jL_lXPyDbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-C8DB61.07200311082007@individual.net...

In article <PqidnaoF0LSd4SDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186806564.954242.157030@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote
republican.

ha ha. it's good to see you lied about having me in your
killfile
for
ages. why don't you tell readers how many times you have posted
that
you don't read my posts.

See, that's what this is all about to you.

over the years, your lies are what many posts from many people
have
been about. i don;t think your lies about having me in a killfile
are
particularly significant other than that they are your lies.

If you wish to talk about lies

haven't i pointed out several hundred of your lies over the years? i
don't really want to talk about them. i just like to point them out,
and if i am bored, taunt you about them.

i see you are still responding to my posts too; even though you
concurrently claim i have been in your killfile for ages. *smirk*

Hi Jim. I've been in and out of this ng on and off for years now,
and I'm sure you have seen me around, as you have been here
as well. In the past few weeks, I've asked Osprey [Robert]
two or three questions, that he never replied to. It's certainly
his prerogative not to answer them, however they were very
respectful and relevant to the topic(s) at hand. The only thing
I can conclude from his lack of response, is that he is intimidated
by me. Maybe I'M the one in his killfile. It's obvious you're not. <G>

Slate

Intimidated by you?

Puh-lease...

What reason would anyone have to be intimidated by you or anyone else in
this newsgroup.

No particular reason, I only said it because I know how predictable
you are,

You know little to nothing about me.

and knew you would respond to it.

Oh, so should we bow to you?

I really didn't know if

I was in your 'killfile' or not, and this was the only way I could
find out.

Why would it matter?

Are you all that insecure and that childish to make up these ridiculous
statements simply because people don't pay attention to you?

I don't care if you do or do not respond to me or anyone else.
As I said, it's your prerogative to reply if you wish. I used to give
you a more credit than some others do, but when you said something
extremely hurtful to me (which I won't get into now), you lost major
points with me. That however, is in the past and I'd prefer leaving it
there.

I know what you are talking about and I apologized to you for that.
Now, if you wish to continue to hold a grudge, especially after I had
apologized to you, then that's totally on you.
I don't owe you any explanations or any more apologies. The first time
should have been enough and we should have buried the hatchet.

What part of "in the past and I'd prefer leaving it there" didn't you
understand?

Well obviously you didn't prefer it since you mentioned it.

You got some problems if you are still holding on to a grudge, especially
when I apologized to you for that.

I hold no "grudge", and I excepted yoru apology. Ok?

What questions did you ask?

Ok, fair enough. Here we go. In a prior post, you stated:

I'm sitting here reading an article on Michael Vick, pro quarterback for
the
Atlanta Falcons, and his alleged crimes of animal abuse. As I'm reading
the
article, I'm appalled at the vicious, cruel, sadistic, and unnecessary
treatment of these dogs...but more so, I'm reminded of an argument many
in
the pro-choice camp use to defend the vicious, cruel, sadistic, and
unnecessary killing of our unborn.
Before I begin my opinion piece, I want to make a few things clear.
First
I
do not condone nor support anyone who abuses animals. My opinion is not
to
be taken as defending Vick for his alleged actions. Second, I realize
that
many in this newsgroup are going to start foaming at the mouths,
resorting
to many personal attacks, and trying to avoid the issue and not actually
take into account my opinion. I want it to be known that my opinion is
intended to draw out the lowest of the low in this newsgroup, just so
anyone
else might see that many in the pro-choice camp are not willing to
actually
take into consideration other peoples opinions and will resort to
anything
in their disposal to defend the vicious, cruel, sadistic, and
unnecessary
killing of millions of unborn.
Mickael Vick and his co-defendant can be facing many years in prison, if
they are convicted of these crimes against animals..specifically dogs;
as
they should be if they are found guilty. For years, I have listened to
the
arguments of the radical pro-choicer, defending abortion and saying it's
alright because a fetus isn't a person defined by law. Some will even
say
the fetus is not a human being, yet they have failed to show the fetus
to
be
anything else but a human being. Using the constitution, specifically
the
14th amendment, we do see that the fetus by law is not a citizen nor a
"person" by law. Yet, no where do I see anything in our constitution,
bill
of rights, or any other law that says a dog or any animal in the U.S. is
a
citizen or has a "right to life". We have laws, as we should, that
defend
the lives of our animals. People go to prison, fined, or both for
abusing
and killing animals, such as our two defendants might be, in this
particular
issue.

Where are the animals defined as "citizens"? Where is it written that
animals should be protected and afforded a right to life, as "people"
are
given, in the United States?

Nowhere.

My point is this people, animals have more rights than a fetus. Some
people
will care more about an animal and want to lock someone up for abusing
an
animal, than they do for someone who abuses and kills their unborn. The
unborn do not have rights and no where are they given any protection in
our
constitution. Animals do not have rights either, and no where is it
written
in our constitution, bill of rights, or federal laws that they are
citizens
or have rights. Yet, a person goes to jail, fined, or both for abusing
animals...and nothing is said to the millions of people who do worse, to
our
unborn children.

Humans are animals too. Would you agree to that statement?

I did respond to you. I told you that if you want to compare yourself to
animals, that's on you.

I never saw that message, and you are wrong. We ARE animals.
Unless you consider yourself a 'plant'.

I do not consider ourselves on the same level as animals. Period.

I think humans are a little bit higher than animals. I believe we have
"souls", animals do not.
No, I do not compare us on the same level as animals.

Intellectually, you are correct. We are higher than the other animals
as far as 'brains' are concerned, however we are still animals none
the less. There are two kingdoms on this planet, animal and plant.
Where do you place yourself in the scheme of things?

I consider us to be human beings, not primates, not amphibians, birds, fish,
insects, mammals, reptiles, ect..

Here is a link for you, I don't see "human beings" included

http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/animals/intro1.html

Again, do not take this to mean I am defending animal abuse. If these
two
are found guilty, I hope they receive the maximum punishment allowed.
As
one who owns, trains, and has a deep passion for dogs, I do not support
nor
condone anyone who abuses them. I have two beautiful German Sheppard's,
both highly trained and used in law enforcement duties, they are like
family.
I'm simply thinking about this case, reflecting on the arguments by the
pro-choice camp, and how they can defend abortion and use laws and the
constitution in their arguments...and give animals more rights, value
and
importance over unborn human beings.

It's not about "abortion", it's about the right of a woman to choose
to have an abortion regardless of her reasons. As for "value", that's
purely subjective. An embryo is a potential human being, and may
or my not have value to the society it's born into. If I've understood
you correctly in your past posts, you believe that life starts at
conception, and it's a gift from God. You are free to believe that.
You speak of your dogs above, and claim they are "highly trained"
and "are like family". Speaking to "value", let me ask you a
hypothetical question:

If a woman approached you and said:
"I won't get an abortion if you give me your dogs".
What would your answer be?

I wouldn't care what she did, if she isn't a part of my life. It's her
choice. I simply wouldn't help or support her on any choice to abort.

In other words, you would let the embryo die, to save your dogs.
Don't feel bad though, as I would do the very same thing.
I don't have dogs, but I have a 'dog', an 'African gray parrot', and
two 'cats'. (the cats are my wife's) they too are a part of my family.
So apparently we agree. Our 'pets' have more value than some
embryo we care little about.

Would you put more value on

the unborn embryo and give up your dogs? Or would you
place more value on your dogs than the embryo?

Read what I said above.

I did, and you wouldn't sacrifice you dogs for an embryo. I get it.
Again I agree, neither would I. However, you state above that "I
believe we have souls, animals do not. No, I do not compare us
on the same level as animals." That's where we differ Robert.
I can prove we (you and I) are animals, but you have no proof
that we have "souls". Now that's not a problem from my standpoint,
but it's a major problem for your position. If you consider humans
'above other animals' because we have "souls", then why would
you even think twice about sacrificing your dogs to save an
embryo that you freely admit has a "soul" and therefore is
superior (in some way) to lesser animals (like your dogs for example)
in your view?

The point I'm trying to make is that pro-life supporters have
nothing to gain or loose in regards to the choice a woman
makes in relation to an abortion. Their position is overwhelmingly
driven by religious belief, and they have a total disregard as to the
consequences of the woman involved once a baby is born.