"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message news:<kgU6d.1189$DV3.1156@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjfoua$3qj$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Ray Fischer

from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never
know.

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Good verses to read.
Pay particular attention to the first two sentences.
Wanna judge unborn babies with that in mind?

Having an abortion is not okay,

because you are somewhat of a murder

taking life away from the unborn.

t's a religion thing also

and many
people have strong comments about it.

If you are pregnant at a young
age,

it's your responsibility, because you had control of having sex
or not,

so I see abortioning a baby is a sin.

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message news:<kgU6d.1189$DV3.1156@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjfoua$3qj$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Ray Fischer

from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never
know.

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Good verses to read.
Pay particular attention to the first two sentences.
Wanna judge unborn babies with that in mind?

Having an abortion is not okay, because you are somewhat of a murder
taking life away from the unborn. It's a religion thing also and many
people have strong comments about it. If you are pregnant at a young
age, it's your responsibility, because you had control of having sex
or not, so I see abortioning a baby is a sin.

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjfoua$3qj$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Ray Fischer

from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never
know.

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Good verses to read.

Pay particular attention to the first two sentences.

What a hypocrite you are.

Spare us the holier-than-thou *****. You obviously don't believe
it yourself, so stop trying to use it as a weapon.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

[....]

Once you accept that assumption, you are then forced to also accept that the
punishment for an abortion should be the same as for killing a teenager.
Mr. Ledford,

[....]

Josh, you can call me Jim.

I do not like the act of abortion. first I feel the
word abortion is nothing more than soft speak and a
replacement word for the mudering and killing of an
unborn child.

as for judgment, that God's job and not mine.

Josh,
I was asking if you believe in Lord Jesus as your Lord

Ray Fischer

from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never know.

Ray Fischer
from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never know.

Ray Fischer

from your limited carnal view in your limited carnal life you'll never know.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

[....]

Once you accept that assumption, you are then forced to also accept that the
punishment for an abortion should be the same as for killing a teenager.
Mr. Ledford,

[....]

Josh, you can call me Jim.

I do not like the act of abortion. first I feel the
word abortion is nothing more than soft speak and a
replacement word for the mudering and killing of an
unborn child.

as for judgment, that God's job and not mine.

Josh,
I was asking if you believe in Lord Jesus as your Lord
and Savior for the purpose of establishing a spiritual
discussion revolving around the love Jesus taught and
still teaches. with love there is always a path to the
light of God's righteousness were we as humans may gain
the spiritual understanding God would have us to obtain.

go in peace Josh as I'd rather remain focused on the
spiritual love of God and not the physical fornication
of ugly lost humans.

thank you and may God bless you in His ways,
Jim

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:p82kl0hc076hcl0rn4osbk477ootirpiao@4ax.com...

Looking beyond the words used the fact is that a fetus is using the
resources of the body of the woman, and without her ongoing permission
this is absolutely forbidden by society.

Again, not one single Supreme Court justice agrees with you. Are they

all

dense?

Not one court case supports taking any resources of the body of anyone
without consent. There are no forced blood transfusions or organ
donations.

Under the assumption that the fetus is a person,

The Court explicitly found
in Roe that the State can outlaw abortions even though the fetus is taking
the resources of the woman's body.

The line of reasoning that even if a
fetus is a person, abortion is nonetheless OK as an act of self defense, has
been accepted by exactly ZERO justices of the Supreme Court.

Of course, what would be really nice is if Mr. Ledford would answer my
question, "how should we punish the woman who has an abortion" in

light

of

his belief that the fetus is no different from a teenager (and

therefore

she

should be punished the same as if she hired someone to kill her

teenage

son). But, he won't answer that question. Could it be he can't

stomach

giving the woman the same punishment for an abortion as she gets for

killing

her teenage son? I wonder why?

The two subjects are entirely different and have so many differing
factors and so few common factors they cannot be equated.

How are they "entirely different" given the position that the moral

standing

of a fetus is exactly the same as a teenager?

Moral is irrelevant.

This part of our debate requires you to accept the pro-life assumption as
being true.

Namely, that a fetus (viable or not) is the moral equivalent of
a teenager. Yes, that is a moral judgement being made by pro-lifers. We
know you disagree with that assumption and you disagree that this is a moral
issue at all. But, your beliefs have no relevance to this part of the
discussion because we are establishing the implication of accepting the
pro-life assumption.

Once you accept that assumption, you are then forced to also accept that the
punishment for an abortion should be the same as for killing a teenager.
Mr. Ledford, Peter and Damian (all of whom believe the pro-life assumption)
cannot bring themselves to say what the punishment for an abortion should
be. I think they know in their hearts and souls that a woman who has an
abortion should not get the same punishment as a woman who kills her teenage
son. But, they cannot admit it. For if they do, they have also admitted
that the fetus is not a person with the same moral standing as a teenager.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:55:21 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<pJWdnWPhYJlHdsTcRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vlpjl0tgjg1r4aisfbof3cd0ajqgvhsvsd@4ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:46:10 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<JaadnWumSbw-RsTcRVn-pA@comcast.com> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:aeuil014vp1v2jl6hgee5cvcaiv6eefn1h@4ax.com...

Murder requires an illegal act (abortion is legal) and the killing of
a person. A fetus is not a person.

Bingo! That's the pro-choice argument.

That is not an argument. That is fact.

The moral status of a fetus is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Moral is irrelevant. A fetus is not a person. That is a fact.

No can we stop this silliness that
the pro-choice argument is that the fetus is a person but abortion is
nonetheless OK as an act of self defense even when the woman's life is

not

in danger?

Like all parts of culture and society everything is subject to change.
It would be possible to redefine what a person is to include a rock, a
cat, a tree, or a fetus. It's simply a matter of semantics.

No, it is matter of moral judgement.

Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".

Looking beyond the words used the fact is that a fetus is using the
resources of the body of the woman, and without her ongoing permission
this is absolutely forbidden by society.

Again, not one single Supreme Court justice agrees with you. Are they all
dense?

Not one court case supports taking any resources of the body of anyone
without consent. There are no forced blood transfusions or organ
donations.

Of course, what would be really nice is if Mr. Ledford would answer my
question, "how should we punish the woman who has an abortion" in light

of

his belief that the fetus is no different from a teenager (and
therefore

she

should be punished the same as if she hired someone to kill her teenage
son). But, he won't answer that question. Could it be he can't
stomach
giving the woman the same punishment for an abortion as she gets for

killing

her teenage son? I wonder why?

The two subjects are entirely different and have so many differing
factors and so few common factors they cannot be equated.

How are they "entirely different" given the position that the moral
standing
of a fetus is exactly the same as a teenager?

Moral is irrelevant.

A fetus is not an individual and is totally dependent on the host for
survival. It cannot survive independently.

None of this is true for a teenager.