| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 01:41:19 PM |
| Object: |
To the tiny brain of one Denny Loubert |
*****
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:04:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
*****
What you're visualizing in the tiny passages of your non-brain is not evident,
but this woman is the opposite of the butchery of abortion. She died so that
another, her child, may live.
The abortionist kills her own unborn for her own comfort and convenience.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: To the tiny brain of one Denny Loubert |
29 Jan 2005 01:57:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:41:19 -0600 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
*****
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:04:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
*****
What you're visualizing in the tiny passages of your non-brain is not evident,
but this woman is the opposite of the butchery of abortion. She died so that
another, her child, may live.
The abortionist kills her own unborn for her own comfort and convenience.
I'm unclear as to why the life of the unborn is apparently thought to
be worth more than that of the woman. Perhaps you could clarify this
for me, and following on from that, at what point and on what basis do
you think the value of their lives would be equal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: To the tiny brain of one Denny Loubert |
29 Jan 2005 02:18:17 PM |
|
|
In article <205nv0th9eg8p3i9tb872s3aruh6r834hr@4ax.com>, Therion Ware says...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:41:19 -0600 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
*****
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:04:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
*****
What you're visualizing in the tiny passages of your non-brain is not evident,
but this woman is the opposite of the butchery of abortion. She died so that
another, her child, may live.
The abortionist kills her own unborn for her own comfort and convenience.
I'm unclear as to why the life of the unborn is apparently thought to
be worth more than that of the woman. Perhaps you could clarify this
for me, and following on from that, at what point and on what basis do
you think the value of their lives would be equal.
I don't think the poster said the *life* of the mother is more important, merely
her own comfort and convenience.
--
Kurt Nicklas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: To the tiny brain of one Denny Loubert |
29 Jan 2005 03:03:18 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 06:18:17 -0800 in alt.atheism, Kurt Nicklas (Kurt
Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <205nv0th9eg8p3i9tb872s3aruh6r834hr@4ax.com>, Therion Ware says...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:41:19 -0600 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
*****
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:04:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
*****
What you're visualizing in the tiny passages of your non-brain is not evident,
but this woman is the opposite of the butchery of abortion. She died so that
another, her child, may live.
The abortionist kills her own unborn for her own comfort and convenience.
I'm unclear as to why the life of the unborn is apparently thought to
be worth more than that of the woman. Perhaps you could clarify this
for me, and following on from that, at what point and on what basis do
you think the value of their lives would be equal.
I don't think the poster said the *life* of the mother is more important, merely
her own comfort and convenience.
But in this particular case "comfort and convenience" is synonymous
with continued life. And so, again, why is the "comfort and
convenience" of the mother (explicitly in this instance her life)
thought to be of less value than the "comfort and convenience" of the
unborn (explicitly in this instance its life)?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: To the tiny brain of one Denny Loubert |
29 Jan 2005 03:58:10 PM |
|
|
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:ctg5v901j0i@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <205nv0th9eg8p3i9tb872s3aruh6r834hr@4ax.com>, Therion Ware
says...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:41:19 -0600 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
*****
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:04:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between
what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be
shut
off?
*****
What you're visualizing in the tiny passages of your non-brain is not
evident,
but this woman is the opposite of the butchery of abortion. She died so
that
another, her child, may live.
The abortionist kills her own unborn for her own comfort and convenience.
I'm unclear as to why the life of the unborn is apparently thought to
be worth more than that of the woman. Perhaps you could clarify this
for me, and following on from that, at what point and on what basis do
you think the value of their lives would be equal.
I don't think the poster said the *life* of the mother is more important,
merely
her own comfort and convenience.
Whatever you say, "Zepp".
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
