Religions > Bible > Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
18 Feb 2004 06:23:09 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The fact is, we draw the line somewhere and for a Christian, aiding
a murder is where we must draw the line.
The woman was raped for Christ's sake!
Where the heck does the moron get "murder" from?
Preventing a blob of cells from implanting itself into the uteran
wall is considered murder by the cell-worshippers out there. That
little blob of cells is a potential human being, even though it
doesn't have a brain or heart or lungs or any other organs that
most people consider necessary to be human.
I guess that's the bottom line in this whole thing, isn't it?
Some people, like the pharmacists who got fired believe that, and
many, or maybe even most people disagree with them.
Nevermind that the woman was raped, or that naturally, not
all fertilized eggs manage to implant themselves and become
viable fetuses.
By supporting the denial of a "morning after" pill for rape victims,
people like Pastor Dave are ignoring all the horrors of being raped
in the first place. They seem to have no compassion at all for the
women involved. It's pitiful, really, in my opinion.
The potential baby which might have come about because of the
rape which God didn't feel necessary to stop, might grow up to
think of itself as a "gift from God," or might even become President
some day, championing the benefits of rape. Or it might follow in its
own father's footsteps, if it happens to be a male child, raping more
women in the future. If it's a female child, then the little girl can
thank her daddy for raping her mother. Yeah boy!
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
25 Feb 2004 08:31:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:36:52 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:40:32 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:17:50 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn, unless you're the
mother and her doctor.
No, not the mother and her doctor, just the mother. ;-) If the
doctor performs an abortion on the woman (assuming she's capable of
providing legal consent), then he will be charged for murder the same
as the other kinds of cases I think you're referring to, here.
I'm not sure everyone understands what you're talking about, but I
think I do - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :-) There are
places where an individual can be charged and convicted for murder if
their actions lead to the termination of another person's pregnancy,
even if that wasn't necessarily what they were trying to do (drunk
drivers who cause miscarriages in those they hit, for instance, or the
Scott Peterson fiasco - he's not just being charged for Laci's death
as I understand it, but also for the death of their unborn son). That
does seem like judicial hypocrisy. So much so, that it's a bit hard
for me to say that it only "seems" like judicial hypocrisy. But
ultimately, it all boils down to one thing - whether the mother wanted
to keep the child or not. Up to a certain point of gestation in the
case of most pregnancies, that is the only consideration. I consider
it a valid deciding factor, though I assume from your use of the terms
that you do not. I do, however, feel that some charge other than
"murder" should apply to foetus if the law wishes to be consistent.
But for now it seems to be about the only one we can come up with.
:-?
BTW, thanks for the tone of your post. It was a civil
response.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish He didn't trust me so much.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
28 Feb 2004 12:35:39 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:17 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
BTW, thanks for the tone of your post. It was a civil
response.
Certainly. "Thanks" shouldn't be necessary, though, it should really
be the norm. No matter how much two people disagree.
:-\
I fail.
:-###
Quite often.
{=-###
And if my failures aren't enough to curl your toes, consider that I
used to be much, much worse.
{8-####
When I'm being an @$$ for no real good reason, feel free to let me
know. I never get angry at that. Also tends to bring about
"civility" like nobody's business. ;-)
--
L8r,
Bill
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
Bill's Dictionary of Daffy-nitions
"geneaology (jeen-ee-ALL-uh-gee)
- (noun) The study of Barbara Eden."
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
25 Feb 2004 08:30:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:36:52 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:40:32 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:17:50 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn, unless you're the
mother and her doctor.
No, not the mother and her doctor, just the mother. ;-) If the
doctor performs an abortion on the woman (assuming she's capable of
providing legal consent), then he will be charged for murder the same
as the other kinds of cases I think you're referring to, here.
I'm not sure everyone understands what you're talking about, but I
think I do - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :-) There are
places where an individual can be charged and convicted for murder if
their actions lead to the termination of another person's pregnancy,
even if that wasn't necessarily what they were trying to do (drunk
drivers who cause miscarriages in those they hit, for instance, or the
Scott Peterson fiasco - he's not just being charged for Laci's death
as I understand it, but also for the death of their unborn son). That
does seem like judicial hypocrisy. So much so, that it's a bit hard
for me to say that it only "seems" like judicial hypocrisy. But
ultimately, it all boils down to one thing - whether the mother wanted
to keep the child or not. Up to a certain point of gestation in the
case of most pregnancies, that is the only consideration. I consider
it a valid deciding factor, though I assume from your use of the terms
that you do not. I do, however, feel that some charge other than
"murder" should apply to foetus if the law wishes to be consistent.
But for now it seems to be about the only one we can come up with.
:-?
I think the law hit it right on the head. What else
can the taking of a life be considered, but murder?
The law recognizes that what we are talking about here,
is life. It should never be okay to kill your
children.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
www.drdino.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
24 Feb 2004 08:59:17 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately. You're just wishing for the past again, perhaps
even believing that stillborn babies are better off if they're
baptized by your church before they're buried and returned
to dust?
unless you're the mother and her doctor.
Is that the only people you really consider involved in such a
situation?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
25 Feb 2004 08:24:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:59:17 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately.
Uh, yea, it is.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes tow features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
26 Feb 2004 07:35:50 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately.
Uh, yea, it is.
Where? Give some examples if you don't mind.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
27 Feb 2004 06:27:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:35:50 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Can you think of any cases of a woman being tried for murder
for taking a morning after pill? If you can find any, I'd like to see
them.
Does it matter?
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately.
Uh, yea, it is.
Where? Give some examples if you don't mind.
California, Penal Code Section 187, Subdivision A.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human
being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
There are more.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
27 Feb 2004 07:34:04 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
<snip>
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately.
Uh, yea, it is.
Where? Give some examples if you don't mind.
California, Penal Code Section 187, Subdivision A.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human
being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
When was the last time that was interpreted to mean that abortion
is murder and stood up in a case which went to trial?
There are more.
Let's see them!
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
27 Feb 2004 08:51:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:34:04 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
<snip>
Of course it matters. If such a case ever happens here and the
prosecutor wins, I think I might just have to leave the country,
while laughing my ***** off and sighing at the same time.
Isn't that an interesting position the law takes here.
It's murder to kill the unborn,
Not lately.
Uh, yea, it is.
Where? Give some examples if you don't mind.
California, Penal Code Section 187, Subdivision A.
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human
being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
When was the last time that was interpreted to mean that abortion
is murder and stood up in a case which went to trial?
More word twisting. I didn't say that abortion was
legally considered murder. I said that killing the
unborn was legally considered murder, which only shows
the hypocrisy of the law. Or did you think that a
fetus was a child that has already been born?
There are more.
Let's see them!
There are more, but I've proved my point already.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
24 Feb 2004 06:14:22 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Here in the USA, teenage girls can get birth control without
their parents being notified. I assume you want to put a stop
to that?
Absolutely.
What about male birth control?
You wanna put a stop to that as well?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
25 Feb 2004 08:24:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:21 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:30:57 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:39:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
You're right - I confused the two Daves - I meant Dave Raymond.
How would he feel if it had been his daughter who had been raped?
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else. This is obviously a foreign
concept to people like you, who want to murder the
innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
We were talking about senseless blobs of cells with no mind, no
nerves, no feelings. You murder more than that when you brush your
teeth in the morning (assuming you do, of course).
That is your opinion. Leave it alone and what happens?
Oh, that's right, a baby comes out.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your
own image when it turns out that God hates all the same
people you do. - Anne Lamott
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
28 Feb 2004 12:26:48 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:21 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:30:57 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:39:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
You're right - I confused the two Daves - I meant Dave Raymond.
How would he feel if it had been his daughter who had been raped?
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else. This is obviously a foreign
concept to people like you, who want to murder the
innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
We were talking about senseless blobs of cells with no mind, no
nerves, no feelings. You murder more than that when you brush your
teeth in the morning (assuming you do, of course).
That is your opinion.
No, it's real world fact based on all available evidence. You have
evidence that a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings is more
than a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings? Feel free to
present it. Opinion is all *you* happen to have in the matter, no
facts. Your opinion alone doesn't count when it comes to making
decisions for other people.
Leave it alone and what happens?
Oh, that's right, a baby comes out.
True. Same as if you take a cloned embryo from the blob of cells
you'd normally flush and leave them develop. Oops! Can't have it
both ways... ;-)
--
L8r,
Bill
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
Bill's Dictionary of Daffy-nitions
"geneaology (jeen-ee-ALL-uh-gee)
- (noun) The study of Barbara Eden."
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
29 Feb 2004 10:32:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:26:48 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:21 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:30:57 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:39:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
You're right - I confused the two Daves - I meant Dave Raymond.
How would he feel if it had been his daughter who had been raped?
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else. This is obviously a foreign
concept to people like you, who want to murder the
innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
We were talking about senseless blobs of cells with no mind, no
nerves, no feelings. You murder more than that when you brush your
teeth in the morning (assuming you do, of course).
That is your opinion.
No, it's real world fact based on all available evidence. You have
evidence that a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings is more
than a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings? Feel free to
present it. Opinion is all *you* happen to have in the matter, no
facts. Your opinion alone doesn't count when it comes to making
decisions for other people.
You ignore whatever doesn't suit your argument. The
claim was that more is murdered by brushing our teeth.
Does what's in our mouths become a baby in nine months?
Didn't think so. Nite, nite.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.douknow.net/ev_evolution_test.htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
29 Feb 2004 10:55:01 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:32:42 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:26:48 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:21 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:30:57 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:39:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
You're right - I confused the two Daves - I meant Dave Raymond.
How would he feel if it had been his daughter who had been raped?
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else. This is obviously a foreign
concept to people like you, who want to murder the
innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
We were talking about senseless blobs of cells with no mind, no
nerves, no feelings. You murder more than that when you brush your
teeth in the morning (assuming you do, of course).
That is your opinion.
No, it's real world fact based on all available evidence. You have
evidence that a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings is more
than a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings? Feel free to
present it. Opinion is all *you* happen to have in the matter, no
facts. Your opinion alone doesn't count when it comes to making
decisions for other people.
You ignore whatever doesn't suit your argument. The
claim was that more is murdered by brushing our teeth.
Does what's in our mouths become a baby in nine months?
Didn't think so. Nite, nite.
Understood. We're not going to convince each other, so onto the next
thing, I s'pose. :-)
--
L8r,
Bill
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
Bill's Dictionary of Daffy-nitions
"geneaology (jeen-ee-ALL-uh-gee)
- (noun) The study of Barbara Eden."
/.-+-/,\-*+.\-/--,*/-\+.--\*/,+--/.\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
29 Feb 2004 04:49:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:55:01 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:32:42 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:26:48 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:24:01 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:21 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:30:57 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:39:36 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
You're right - I confused the two Daves - I meant Dave Raymond.
How would he feel if it had been his daughter who had been raped?
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else. This is obviously a foreign
concept to people like you, who want to murder the
innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
We were talking about senseless blobs of cells with no mind, no
nerves, no feelings. You murder more than that when you brush your
teeth in the morning (assuming you do, of course).
That is your opinion.
No, it's real world fact based on all available evidence. You have
evidence that a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings is more
than a blob of cells with no mind, nerves or feelings? Feel free to
present it. Opinion is all *you* happen to have in the matter, no
facts. Your opinion alone doesn't count when it comes to making
decisions for other people.
You ignore whatever doesn't suit your argument. The
claim was that more is murdered by brushing our teeth.
Does what's in our mouths become a baby in nine months?
Didn't think so. Nite, nite.
Understood. We're not going to convince each other, so onto the next
thing, I s'pose. :-)
But we haven't argued into futility yet. :)
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
20 Feb 2004 04:04:54 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else.
Maybe she'd conclude that there isn't really anything resembling
a child until at least a few weeks, and that the morning after pill
doesn't really kill a child, like you think it does.
This is obviously a foreign concept to people like you, who want to
murder the innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
Oh, I definitely agree that the rapist should be punished.
Severely, in fact. If he's raped more than once and shows a
pattern of doing it over and over, then the punishment should be
even more severe, maybe even castration or sterilization. I take
rape pretty seriously because I know how horrible it is for a woman
to go through, and if she doesn't wanna have the rapists baby and
decides to take a morning after pill, then that's her choice. I would
gladly sell her one, if I were a pharmacist.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
21 Feb 2004 08:42:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:04:54 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else.
Maybe she'd conclude that there isn't really anything resembling
a child until at least a few weeks, and that the morning after pill
doesn't really kill a child, like you think it does.
I know it is hard or you to understand real love.
This is obviously a foreign concept to people like you, who want to
murder the innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
Oh, I definitely agree that the rapist should be punished.
Severely, in fact. If he's raped more than once and shows a
pattern of doing it over and over, then the punishment should be
even more severe, maybe even castration or sterilization. I take
rape pretty seriously because I know how horrible it is for a woman
to go through, and if she doesn't wanna have the rapists baby and
decides to take a morning after pill, then that's her choice. I would
gladly sell her one, if I were a pharmacist.
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents and not
caring, as long as you promote your agenda. Give
control to the children and then wonder why the parents
are helpless to control them, when they run wild.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the
universe without concluding that there must be design
and purpose behind it all... The better we understand
the intracacies of the universe and all it harbors,
the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent
design upon which it is based... To be forced to
believe only one conclusion --- that everything in the
universe happened by chance --- would violate the very
objectivity of science itself... What random process
could produce the brains of man or the system of the
human eye? They (evolutionists) challenge science to
prove the existence of God. But must we really light
a candle to see the Sun? ... They say they cannot
visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualize
an electron? ...What strange rationale makes some
physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real
while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on
the ground that they cannot conceive Him?"
- Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries
of Creation, Vol 1
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
21 Feb 2004 03:51:20 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:3gre3094megssiihg2vj9utlj2vij08egk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:04:54 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else.
Maybe she'd conclude that there isn't really anything resembling
a child until at least a few weeks, and that the morning after pill
doesn't really kill a child, like you think it does.
I know it is hard or you to understand real love.
Yes, it is, if 'real love' is defined as forcing your daughter to not only
avoid eliminating the possibility of pregnancy after a rape, but also
selling that daughter to her attacker for some silver.
I would have to guess at this point that you support this belief because you
have come to the conclusion that this is the only way that you will attain a
wife, by raping her and then paying off her 'real love' father.
How much silver have you saved up?
<spit>
This is obviously a foreign concept to people like you, who want to
murder the innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
Oh, I definitely agree that the rapist should be punished.
Severely, in fact. If he's raped more than once and shows a
pattern of doing it over and over, then the punishment should be
even more severe, maybe even castration or sterilization. I take
rape pretty seriously because I know how horrible it is for a woman
to go through, and if she doesn't wanna have the rapists baby and
decides to take a morning after pill, then that's her choice. I would
gladly sell her one, if I were a pharmacist.
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents and not
caring, as long as you promote your agenda. Give
control to the children and then wonder why the parents
are helpless to control them, when they run wild.
I guess you support the biblical law of taking 'run wild' children to the
city gates and stoning them?
Why do I even ask.. Of course you do. God said so.
MrD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
21 Feb 2004 10:00:59 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Very simple. I would want the criminal punished and
love my daughter and the child.
What do you think your daughter might want? Or did that thought
never enter your mind?
My daughter would be raised in a home in which she
understood the difference between punishing the guilty
and punishing the innocent. She would be raised to
understand that the child is not responsible for the
acts of someone else.
Maybe she'd conclude that there isn't really anything resembling
a child until at least a few weeks, and that the morning after pill
doesn't really kill a child, like you think it does.
I know it is hard or you to understand real love.
Real love?
You seem to love the idea of a blob of cells more than you might
love your own daughter. What's the deal?
This is obviously a foreign concept to people like you, who want to
murder the innocent child, when your anger should be focused on
the rapist.
Oh, I definitely agree that the rapist should be punished.
Severely, in fact. If he's raped more than once and shows a
pattern of doing it over and over, then the punishment should be
even more severe, maybe even castration or sterilization. I take
rape pretty seriously because I know how horrible it is for a woman
to go through, and if she doesn't wanna have the rapists baby and
decides to take a morning after pill, then that's her choice. I would
gladly sell her one, if I were a pharmacist.
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents
Absolutely. I would hope that the parents would support their
daughter's wishes whatever she decided to do. If a girl/woman is at
the age of being able to get pregnant, then she's in charge of her own
body. Her parent's wishes are irrelevant. That's my opinion, maybe
you disagree.
and not caring, as long as you promote your agenda. Give
control to the children and then wonder why the parents
are helpless to control them, when they run wild.
How old a child do you think you should be able to control
with your own agendas? Even after they move out of your house,
you would still try to control them?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
22 Feb 2004 10:02:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents
Absolutely.
So you admit that you don't care what the parents want.
I would hope that the parents would support their
daughter's wishes whatever she decided to do. If a girl/woman is at
the age of being able to get pregnant, then she's in charge of her own
body. Her parent's wishes are irrelevant. That's my opinion, maybe
you disagree.
So let the 12 year old girl do whatever she wants and
to Hell with the parents. Of course, we should hold
them responsible for the child's actions, should they
be illegal.
How old a child do you think you should be able to control
with your own agendas?
Isn't it funny, that when we're talking about
pedophiles, you claim that the child is not able to
consent. Yet, a child the same age should be able to
run her own life. No, no hypocrisy there. (:
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
22 Feb 2004 10:41:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:02:10 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
Isn't it funny, that when we're talking about
pedophiles, you claim that the child is not able to
consent. Yet, a child the same age should be able to
run her own life. No, no hypocrisy there. (:
Very correct, and very hypocrite. Unfortunately.... the hypocrite is
you.
You follow the bible, but only for those selective quotes you approve
of. The other one you simply ignore or brush aside.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
22 Feb 2004 12:17:29 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents
Absolutely.
So you admit that you don't care what the parents want.
Not if the girl or woman considers herself to be an adult, responsible
for her own body. She's free to ask her parents advice, and if she
doesn't feel capable of making a decision, she can leave it up to them
if she wants to, but if she speaks up and says she wants to abort the
baby, that's up to her, and her decision should be respected.
I would hope that the parents would support their
daughter's wishes whatever she decided to do. If a girl/woman is at
the age of being able to get pregnant, then she's in charge of her own
body. Her parent's wishes are irrelevant. That's my opinion, maybe
you disagree.
So let the 12 year old girl do whatever she wants and
to Hell with the parents.
Not always. Each case has to be dealt with individually, taking all
the circumstances into account.
I can't imagine putting a 12-year-old girl through an unplanned
and unwanted pregnancy, especially in the case of rape.
Of course, we should hold them responsible for the child's actions,
should they be illegal.
That's a good talking point, and I'm open to talking about it.
How old a child do you think you should be able to control
with your own agendas?
Isn't it funny, that when we're talking about
pedophiles, you claim that the child is not able to
consent. Yet, a child the same age should be able to
run her own life. No, no hypocrisy there. (:
The world and such cases aren't black and white, Dave. That's
what our court systems are all about.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
22 Feb 2004 01:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:17:29 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> spake thusly:
Thereby circumventing the wishes of the parents
Absolutely.
So you admit that you don't care what the parents want.
Not if the girl or woman considers herself to be an adult, responsible
for her own body.
Children think of themselves as being able to live on
their own long before they're ready to. That's a
ridiculous criteria and once again, you support
children disobeying parents.
She's free to ask her parents advice, and if she
doesn't feel capable of making a decision, she can leave it up to them
if she wants to, but if she speaks up and says she wants to abort the
baby, that's up to her, and her decision should be respected.
And what is she decides she wants to do drugs? After
all, it's her body and she feels that she's old enough
to make that decision.
I would hope that the parents would support their
daughter's wishes whatever she decided to do. If a girl/woman is at
the age of being able to get pregnant, then she's in charge of her own
body. Her parent's wishes are irrelevant. That's my opinion, maybe
you disagree.
So let the 12 year old girl do whatever she wants and
to Hell with the parents.
Not always. Each case has to be dealt with individually, taking all
the circumstances into account.
You just made a hypocrite of yourself. You said that
you agree with children disobeying their parents, "if
the girl or woman considers herself to be an adult,
responsible for her own body.". Now you claim that
it's okay to step in and take control. Of course,
that's only if it's something that you don't agree with
doing. So basically, it boils down to you thinking
that it's okay for children to do what they want,
unless you disagree with it. Hmmmm... I guess you're
the only good parent around, since after all, it all
boils down to what Elroy agrees and disagrees with.
I can't imagine putting a 12-year-old girl through an unplanned
and unwanted pregnancy, especially in the case of rape.
And there we have it. Good parenting is determined by
what you can or cannot imagine.
How old a child do you think you should be able to control
with your own agendas?
Isn't it funny, that when we're talking about
pedophiles, you claim that the child is not able to
consent. Yet, a child the same age should be able to
run her own life. No, no hypocrisy there. (:
The world and such cases aren't black and white, Dave. That's
what our court systems are all about.
I'm sorry, you don't get to resort to the law. The law
says that a child is not a responsible adult, until the
age of 18. And before you argue about how there are
irresponsible adults, that is irrelevant. You brought
"the law" into it. That's what the law says. And your
own argument has defeated you. You shot yourself in
the foot.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_creation.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
22 Feb 2004 07:42:29 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:11:42 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
<snip>
Children think of themselves as being able to live on
their own long before they're ready to.
I'm curious how you judge that particular matter. Technically, humans
in general are perfectly capable of living independantly by age 12.
It's happened at around that age for a far larger portion of our
history than it's ever been postponed to some age like 21, 18 or 16.
Something about our society these days basically cripples our
children's ability to be independant. It may technically be due to a
good thing - that being the fact that we aren't required to mature as
rapidly to deal with life as we used to be. That's a good thing, in
my book. But our bodies haven't adjusted to this relatively recent
change, and so at around those ages where we used to be free, all we
have are urges and not nearly enough knowledge to deal with them
effectively.
I'm not suggesting that this be done, mind you. I don't honestly
believe that it should. Part of the dilema is that kids in this day
and age _aren't_ ready, and I freely admit this. I understand the
reasoning behind "age of consent laws" and such protections as child
labor laws, and feel these things are vital to a healthy society in
this day and age. It's just that part about "long before they're
ready to" that has me wondering about your take on the matter. Does
it ever strike you as incongruous how in the modern world, we're not
ready to handle the challenges of life until we're 18 or so, but how
for most of our history, we'd already be having families, running
kingdoms and operating the daily affairs of the world by that age?
Does that incongruety ever get under your skin, even just a little?
Because kids could be "ready to" by the time they're pubic, but
something beyond their (and our) control makes this impossible. So in
one sense, I consider the remark incorrect because of the simple fact
that while enough pre-teen children run away, by and large most of
them don't feel they're ready to. Yet in the context of the modern
world and the fairly recent slowdown of our psycho-emotive
development, I also consider your remark correct.
Just an attempt at some legit, friendly dialog. Hope you don't mind.
I can spew some bile if its absence freaks you out too much - I have
plenty of it in store. ;-)
--
L8r,
Bill
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
The early bird gets the worm. The early worm,
on the other hand, just gets eaten.
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
23 Feb 2004 05:49:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:42:29 GMT,
(Bill, The Avender) spake thusly:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:11:42 -0500, Pastor Dave
<nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote:
<snip>
Children think of themselves as being able to live on
their own long before they're ready to.
I'm curious how you judge that particular matter. Technically, humans
in general are perfectly capable of living independantly by age 12.
It's happened at around that age for a far larger portion of our
history than it's ever been postponed to some age like 21, 18 or 16.
Something about our society these days basically cripples our
children's ability to be independant. It may technically be due to a
good thing - that being the fact that we aren't required to mature as
rapidly to deal with life as we used to be. That's a good thing, in
my book. But our bodies haven't adjusted to this relatively recent
change, and so at around those ages where we used to be free, all we
have are urges and not nearly enough knowledge to deal with them
effectively.
I'm not suggesting that this be done, mind you. I don't honestly
believe that it should. Part of the dilema is that kids in this day
and age _aren't_ ready, and I freely admit this. I understand the
reasoning behind "age of consent laws" and such protections as child
labor laws, and feel these things are vital to a healthy society in
this day and age. It's just that part about "long before they're
ready to" that has me wondering about your take on the matter. Does
it ever strike you as incongruous how in the modern world, we're not
ready to handle the challenges of life until we're 18 or so, but how
for most of our history, we'd already be having families, running
kingdoms and operating the daily affairs of the world by that age?
Does that incongruety ever get under your skin, even just a little?
Because kids could be "ready to" by the time they're pubic, but
something beyond their (and our) control makes this impossible. So in
one sense, I consider the remark incorrect because of the simple fact
that while enough pre-teen children run away, by and large most of
them don't feel they're ready to. Yet in the context of the modern
world and the fairly recent slowdown of our psycho-emotive
development, I also consider your remark correct.
Bear in mind, that my remarks were intended to show the
hypocrisy of the other poster, because he may not even
have realized it.
As for my own feelings, I agree with you that men and
women used to get married a lot younger and in some
countries, they still do. I also agree that women are
ready at ages younger than 18, to get married and be
part of making a home. My point was simply that at
that point, the parents are no longer legally
responsible for her. But while she is unmarried as of
yet, that makes her parents legally responsible for her
and making her own life changing decisions is not
proper, considering that she should obey her parents.
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is
right." - Ephesians 6:1
Today's world is different. It's not like you can just
go out, put a stake in the ground and declare it your
land and live off of it. Now, you've got to get a job
and there's legal paperwork to be done, etc.. It's a
whole different, much more complex world and frankly,
with all of the violence and perversion out there,
today's teens just aren't ready for it. That's why
there are so many teenage prostitutes out there. It's
the only thing they can do, without worrying about many
of the legalities that surround trying to make it
legitimately.
Just an attempt at some legit, friendly dialog. Hope you don't mind.
I can spew some bile if its absence freaks you out too much - I have
plenty of it in store. ;-)
No problem. :)
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes tow features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
23 Feb 2004 11:59:13 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
As for my own feelings, I agree with you that men and
women used to get married a lot younger and in some
countries, they still do. I also agree that women are
ready at ages younger than 18, to get married and be
part of making a home. My point was simply that at
that point, the parents are no longer legally
responsible for her. But while she is unmarried as of
yet, that makes her parents legally responsible for her
and making her own life changing decisions is not
proper, considering that she should obey her parents.
There's obviously some uncomfortable overlap for you,
don't you think?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
23 Feb 2004 01:35:37 PM |
|
|
In article <bpfk30t0qnctucjgupabp4k3uksdft78mv@4ax.com>, Elroy Willis says...
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
As for my own feelings, I agree with you that men and
women used to get married a lot younger and in some
countries, they still do. I also agree that women are
ready at ages younger than 18, to get married and be
part of making a home. My point was simply that at
that point, the parents are no longer legally
responsible for her. But while she is unmarried as of
yet, that makes her parents legally responsible for her
and making her own life changing decisions is not
proper, considering that she should obey her parents.
There's obviously some uncomfortable overlap for you,
don't you think?
Is he saying that parents should be able to have total control over their
daughters if they're below legal age and unmarried or just unmarried in general?
Because I was 34 when I got married and if my parents had tried to control what
I did at that age, I would have told them to get bent! ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
24 Feb 2004 06:43:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:35:37 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> spake thusly:
In article <bpfk30t0qnctucjgupabp4k3uksdft78mv@4ax.com>, Elroy Willis says...
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
As for my own feelings, I agree with you that men and
women used to get married a lot younger and in some
countries, they still do. I also agree that women are
ready at ages younger than 18, to get married and be
part of making a home. My point was simply that at
that point, the parents are no longer legally
responsible for her. But while she is unmarried as of
yet, that makes her parents legally responsible for her
and making her own life changing decisions is not
proper, considering that she should obey her parents.
There's obviously some uncomfortable overlap for you,
don't you think?
Is he saying that parents should be able to have total control over their
daughters if they're below legal age and unmarried or just unmarried in general?
Don't act stupid.
Because I was 34 when I got married and if my parents had tried to control what
I did at that age, I would have told them to get bent! ;)
Is that the same as being a minor living in your
parents' home? No, I didn't think so, so what's your
point?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose
you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD. - Joshua 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
24 Feb 2004 08:16:57 AM |
|
|
In article <cmhm30hbdi7s7skpov3i5rs9n6kk9lgpo0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave says...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:35:37 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> spake thusly:
snip
Is he saying that parents should be able to have total control over their
daughters if they're below legal age and unmarried or just unmarried in general?
Don't act stupid.
And don't be such a dishonest jerkoff. Why is the question so difficult for you
to answer?
Because I was 34 when I got married and if my parents had tried to control what
I did at that age, I would have told them to get bent! ;)
Is that the same as being a minor living in your
parents' home? No, I didn't think so, so what's your
point?
My point is that you're dishonest and refuse to answer questions.
Care to try again or does it go against your dishonest nature?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Eckerd Pharmacist Fired For Refusing To Dispense Day After Pill To a Rape Victim |
25 Feb 2004 08:34:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:16:57 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> spake thusly:
In article <cmhm30hbdi7s7skpov3i5rs9n6kk9lgpo0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave says...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:35:37 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> spake thusly:
snip
Is he saying that parents should be able to have total control over their
daughters if they're below legal age and unmarried or just unmarried in general?
Don't act stupid.
And don't be such a dishonest jerkoff. Why is the question so difficult for you
to answer?
The question was not directed at me.
Because I was 34 when I got married and if my parents had tried to control what
I did at that age, I would have told them to get bent! ;)
Is that the same as being a minor living in your
parents' home? No, I didn't think so, so what's your
point?
My point is that you're dishonest and refuse to answer questions.
See above.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
