| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2004 03:56:52 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill a
person ?
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the possible
child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about five/six months into
the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
Think the courts will start to buy that?
And once I thought you to have braincells
<snipped, old stuff>
.
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
11 Dec 2004 05:21:33 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill a
person ?
You don't mind if a human being is killed because the mother gives consent,
so what is the difference?
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th month
of her pregnancy?
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the possible
child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about five/six months
into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in the
pregnancy?
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain activity,
movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Think the courts will start to buy that?
And once I thought you to have braincells
It will be interesting to see if you have any.
Let's see if you can answer my questions without acting like a child and
name calling. So far in this thread I have not called you or anyone else any
names or tried to insult. You have. That puts me one up over you in the
area of maturity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 03:29:45 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill a
person ?
You don't mind if a human being is killed because the mother gives
consent, so what is the difference?
Where do you get your wierd ideas ? Of course I "mind if a human being is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder(unless her life is at risk, as the child to be receive
awareness in the 5th to 6th month, but such is NEVER done unless her doctor
has informed her that
continuing to carry it will kill her.
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the possible
child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about five/six months
into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain activity,
movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Does not happen until after the 5th to 6th month, by that time the mother
wants to go full-term, if she is still pregnant. Do you not agree that
*self-defense* should be allowed, if continuing the pregnancy is going to
kill her ? Or are you one of those kill the mother if it will *maybe* save
the child types ?
Think the courts will start to buy that?
And once I thought you to have braincells
It will be interesting to see if you have any.
Let's see if you can answer my questions without acting like a child and
name calling. So far in this thread I have not called you or anyone else
any names or tried to insult.
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I have
called it as I see it.
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 03:30:18 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ajjqljpun60@corp.supernews.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill a
person ?
You don't mind if a human being is killed because the mother gives
consent, so what is the difference?
Where do you get your wierd ideas ? Of course I "mind if a human being is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
It most certainly does. I can understand to the pro-abortionist they have a
need to ignore that the fetus is a human being.
The mother is giving consent for a human being to be killed. The
pro-abortionist has no problem with this.
The person(s) who are ignoring reality are those who think abortion is a
good thing. It is a non-intrinsic evil.
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder(unless her life is at risk, as the child to be
receive awareness in the 5th to 6th month, but such is NEVER done unless
her doctor has informed her that
continuing to carry it will kill her.
that is false, and professionals in the field of medicine have testified
that it is done when it is not an emergency.
Lets use some of your logic here.
You are saying that it is murder, unless her life is at risk.
Why isn't it murder if she gives consent?
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the possible
child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about five/six months
into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
That is not always true
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain activity,
movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Does not happen until after the 5th to 6th month,
Actually, the heart starts beating well before the 5th month.
The heart is forming within 18 days after conception
Foundations of the brain and nervous system are laid out in 20 days after
conception
By 24 days, the heart is beating (this is well before 5 months)
By 40 days, the Heart's energy output is 20percent of adult's
By 45 days, spontanious movement has begun
A few more facts
10 weeks: Body is sensitive to touch. Child squints, swallows, puckers up
brow and frowns.
11 weeks: Baby urinates, makes complex facial expressions - even smiles.
12 weeks: Vigorous activity shows distinct individuality. Child can kick,
turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn
head, open mouth and press lips tightly together. Breathing is practiced.
13 weeks: Face is prettier, facial expressions resembling parents'.
Movements are graceful, reflexes vigorous. Vocal chords are formed (but
without air baby cannot cry). Sex organs are apparent.
4 months: Child can grasp with hands, swim and turn somersaults.
4-5 months: Mother first feels baby's movements.
5 months: Sleeping habits appear, but a slammed door will provoke activity.
Child responds to sounds in frequencies too high or low for adults to hear.
6 months: Fine hair grows on eye brows & head. Eye-lash fringe appears.
Weight is about 640g (22 oz.), height 23 cm (9"). Babies born at this age
have survived.
7 months: Eye teeth are present. Eyelids open and close, eyes look around.
Hands grip strongly. Mother's voice is heard and recognized.
8 months: Weight increases by 1 kg. (over 2 lbs.) and baby's quarters get
cramped.
9 months: Child triggers labor and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days after
conception. Of 45 generations of cell divisions before adulthood, 41 have
taken place. Four more will come during the rest of childhood and
adolescence
by that time the mother
wants to go full-term, if she is still pregnant. Do you not agree that
*self-defense* should be allowed, if continuing the pregnancy is going to
kill her ?
I think ALL options should be considered and ALL opportunities to save both
mother and child should be taken.
Or are you one of those kill the mother if it will *maybe* save
the child types ?
Think the courts will start to buy that?
And once I thought you to have braincells
It will be interesting to see if you have any.
Let's see if you can answer my questions without acting like a child and
name calling. So far in this thread I have not called you or anyone else
any names or tried to insult.
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I have
called it as I see it.
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 05:58:12 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:O7idnXOWbOROMV3cRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ajjqljpun60@corp.supernews.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
Where do you get your wierd ideas ? Of course I "mind if a human being is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
It most certainly does. I can understand to the pro-abortionist they have
a need to ignore that the fetus is a human being.
Nothing to *ignor* as it isn't a human being. What is *ignored* is your out
of touch with reality *claim* that it is a "human being"
It becomes, legally, a "human being" at birth,
while I will agree, IMO that once it has awareness (anyway) it *should* be
classed as such (that is, depending on the individual fetus' development of
the ability to be aware, which happens anywhere from mid-way through the 5
month to the end of the 6th) IT ISN'T, and talking as if it is, won't change
the facts. A fetus is NOT a "human being"
The mother is giving consent for a human being to be killed.
As there does not yet exist a "human being" during her pregnancy, she is
giving no such consent
Try talking in ENGLISH
The pro-abortionist has no problem with this.
With things which only happen in your imagination ? Why should anyone, in
the real world have a problem with it ?
The person(s) who are ignoring reality are those who think abortion is a
good thing.
Only in *your* "reality"
It is a non-intrinsic evil.
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder(unless her life is at risk, as the child to be
receive awareness in the 5th to 6th month, but such is NEVER done unless
her doctor has informed her that continuing to carry it will kill her.
that is false, and professionals in the field of medicine have testified
that it is done when it is not an emergency.
After the 5th month ? Less than 1% are done, simply to avoid having a baby.
Now many "non-emergency" abortions are done in these months by mothers to be
who WANTED to have a baby.... to avoid an UNAVOIDABLE emergency later on
down the road, because their doctor had already told them that the mother
would be highly unlikely to survive their pregnancy.
Sorry, bud, but I support SELF-DEFENSE (even if done before the threat is
already killing the mother)
Lets use some of your logic here.
You are saying that it is murder, unless her life is at risk.
Yes
Why isn't it murder if she gives consent?
Because it is SELF-DEFENSE
Not all killings are murder, we have murder (1st / 2rd / 3rd degree)
manslaughter, etc. down to self-defense / accident
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the
possible child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about
five/six months into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
That is not always true
See above, it is 99 plus % true, which is plenty enough for me to see it as
not really important enough to debate.
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain activity,
movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Does not happen until after the 5th to 6th month,
Actually, the heart starts beating well before the 5th month.
The heart doesn't think
The heart is forming within 18 days after conception
Foundations of the brain and nervous system are laid out in 20 days after
conception
But no brain
By 24 days, the heart is beating (this is well before 5 months)
The heart doesn't think
By 40 days, the Heart's energy output is 20percent of adult's
By 45 days, spontanious movement has begun
Reflexs are not due to thought
A few more facts
10 weeks: Body is sensitive to touch. Child squints, swallows, puckers up
brow and frowns.
More spontanious reflexes
11 weeks: Baby urinates, makes complex facial expressions - even smiles.
more of the same, even after birth passing gas looks like a "smile"
12 weeks: Vigorous activity shows distinct individuality. Child can kick,
turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn
head, open mouth and press lips tightly together. Breathing is practiced.
Interesting as the brain is not yet connected to the spine (which doesn't
happen until during the 5th to 6th month), thus again such are reflexes
13 weeks: Face is prettier, facial expressions resembling parents'.
Movements are graceful, reflexes vigorous. Vocal chords are formed (but
without air baby cannot cry). Sex organs are apparent. 4 months: Child can
grasp with hands, swim and turn somersaults.
4-5 months: Mother first feels baby's movements.
5 months: Sleeping habits appear, but a slammed door will provoke
activity.
these are the first signs of the spinal connection, and activation of
awareness actually begins (many do not reach this stage until near the end
of the 6th month)
Child responds to sounds in frequencies too high or low for adults to
hear.
See above
Now, although not legally a "human being" IMO they *should be* considered
"human beings" at this point.
6 months: Fine hair grows on eye brows & head. Eye-lash fringe appears.
Weight is about 640g (22 oz.), height 23 cm (9"). Babies born at this age
have survived.
Which, to me, is God's way of saying that in His opinion they are "human
beings"
7 months: Eye teeth are present. Eyelids open and close, eyes look around.
Hands grip strongly. Mother's voice is heard and recognized.
8 months: Weight increases by 1 kg. (over 2 lbs.) and baby's quarters get
cramped.
9 months: Child triggers labor and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days
after conception. Of 45 generations of cell divisions before adulthood, 41
have taken place. Four more will come during the rest of childhood and
adolescence
by that time the mother
wants to go full-term, if she is still pregnant. Do you not agree that
*self-defense* should be allowed, if continuing the pregnancy is going to
kill her ?
I think ALL options should be considered and ALL opportunities to save
both mother and child should be taken.
I, guess unlike you, feel that the MOTHER should have the legal right to
decide when to initiate *self-defense* at the best, most survivable point of
pregnancy, once she is informed that she is most likely not going to survive
the pregnancy. (which means even before she is in the actual danger)
Or are you one of those kill the mother if it will *maybe* save
the child types ?
I believe you answered this above, you ARE
<snip>
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I have
called it as I see it.
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 06:01:43 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ja0iqo44a8@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:O7idnXOWbOROMV3cRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ajjqljpun60@corp.supernews.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
Where do you get your wierd ideas ? Of course I "mind if a human being
is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
It most certainly does. I can understand to the pro-abortionist they
have a need to ignore that the fetus is a human being.
Nothing to *ignor* as it isn't a human being.
Of course you "have" to view it like that in order to "support" your opinion
on abortion.
What is *ignored* is your out
of touch with reality *claim* that it is a "human being"
Not at all, I don't ignore the fact that we are all human beings from the
time of conception.
I do believe that universally, people agree that the fetus is a human being.
It becomes, legally, a "human being" at birth,
No, your lack of understanding on the difference between human being and
person is showing.
Also remember, "legal" is not universal
while I will agree,
Naturally, you have too in order to justify abortion
IMO that once it has awareness (anyway) it *should* be
classed as such (that is, depending on the individual fetus' development
of the ability to be aware, which happens anywhere from mid-way through
the 5 month to the end of the 6th) IT ISN'T, and talking as if it is,
won't change the facts. A fetus is NOT a "human being"
Too bad you can't understand that the fetus is.
The mother is giving consent for a human being to be killed.
As there does not yet exist a "human being" during her pregnancy, she is
giving no such consent
Try talking in ENGLISH
I am, it is just a shame you can't understand English.
The pro-abortionist has no problem with this.
With things which only happen in your imagination ? Why should anyone, in
the real world have a problem with it ?
The person(s) who are ignoring reality are those who think abortion is a
good thing.
Only in *your* "reality"
No, only in the truth.
It is a non-intrinsic evil.
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder(unless her life is at risk, as the child to be
receive awareness in the 5th to 6th month, but such is NEVER done unless
her doctor has informed her that continuing to carry it will kill her.
that is false, and professionals in the field of medicine have testified
that it is done when it is not an emergency.
After the 5th month ? Less than 1% are done, simply to avoid having a
baby.
Although I don't readily have the figures in front of me right now, your
"less than 1%" I can assure you is wrong.
Now many "non-emergency" abortions are done in these months by mothers to
be who WANTED to have a baby.... to avoid an UNAVOIDABLE emergency later
on down the road, because their doctor had already told them that the
mother would be highly unlikely to survive their pregnancy.
Sorry, bud, but I support SELF-DEFENSE (even if done before the threat is
already killing the mother)
Of course you do realize you are hiding behind your true agenda, (to support
the killing of innocent human beings) with "self - defense".
Lets use some of your logic here.
You are saying that it is murder, unless her life is at risk.
Yes
Why isn't it murder if she gives consent?
Because it is SELF-DEFENSE
Oh? Is the fetus holding a gun to her head?
Not all killings are murder, we have murder (1st / 2rd / 3rd degree)
manslaughter, etc. down to self-defense / accident
Yes, I am well aware of the different types.
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the
possible child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about
five/six months into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy,
thus ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be,
illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
That is not always true
See above, it is 99 plus % true, which is plenty enough for me to see it
as not really important enough to debate.
I am very confident your figures are off.
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain
activity, movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Does not happen until after the 5th to 6th month,
Actually, the heart starts beating well before the 5th month.
The heart doesn't think
So a fetus at 5 months is capable of thinking like an adult?
The heart is forming within 18 days after conception
Foundations of the brain and nervous system are laid out in 20 days after
conception
But no brain
By 24 days, the heart is beating (this is well before 5 months)
The heart doesn't think
By 40 days, the Heart's energy output is 20percent of adult's
By 45 days, spontanious movement has begun
Reflexs are not due to thought
A few more facts
10 weeks: Body is sensitive to touch. Child squints, swallows, puckers up
brow and frowns.
More spontanious reflexes
11 weeks: Baby urinates, makes complex facial expressions - even smiles.
more of the same, even after birth passing gas looks like a "smile"
12 weeks: Vigorous activity shows distinct individuality. Child can kick,
turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn
head, open mouth and press lips tightly together. Breathing is practiced.
Interesting as the brain is not yet connected to the spine (which doesn't
happen until during the 5th to 6th month), thus again such are reflexes
13 weeks: Face is prettier, facial expressions resembling parents'.
Movements are graceful, reflexes vigorous. Vocal chords are formed (but
without air baby cannot cry). Sex organs are apparent. 4 months: Child
can grasp with hands, swim and turn somersaults.
4-5 months: Mother first feels baby's movements.
5 months: Sleeping habits appear, but a slammed door will provoke
activity.
these are the first signs of the spinal connection, and activation of
awareness actually begins (many do not reach this stage until near the end
of the 6th month)
Child responds to sounds in frequencies too high or low for adults to
hear.
See above
Now, although not legally a "human being" IMO they *should be* considered
"human beings" at this point.
6 months: Fine hair grows on eye brows & head. Eye-lash fringe appears.
Weight is about 640g (22 oz.), height 23 cm (9"). Babies born at this age
have survived.
Which, to me, is God's way of saying that in His opinion they are "human
beings"
7 months: Eye teeth are present. Eyelids open and close, eyes look
around. Hands grip strongly. Mother's voice is heard and recognized.
8 months: Weight increases by 1 kg. (over 2 lbs.) and baby's quarters get
cramped.
9 months: Child triggers labor and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days
after conception. Of 45 generations of cell divisions before adulthood,
41 have taken place. Four more will come during the rest of childhood and
adolescence
by that time the mother
wants to go full-term, if she is still pregnant. Do you not agree that
*self-defense* should be allowed, if continuing the pregnancy is going
to
kill her ?
I think ALL options should be considered and ALL opportunities to save
both mother and child should be taken.
I, guess unlike you, feel that the MOTHER should have the legal right to
decide when to initiate *self-defense* at the best, most survivable point
of pregnancy, once she is informed that she is most likely not going to
survive the pregnancy. (which means even before she is in the actual
danger)
Or are you one of those kill the mother if it will *maybe* save
the child types ?
I believe you answered this above, you ARE
I believe I can answer for myself, and don't need pro-abortionist such as
yourself to try and answer for me. Experience in this newsgroup has taught
me that 99.999% of the time, pro-abortionist will answer wrong, or will
attempt to distort what others say or how they feel.
I support the life of both mother and child.
<snip>
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I
have
called it as I see it.
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
17 Dec 2004 07:41:33 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:8amdnYLTYsisTV3cRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ja0iqo44a8@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:O7idnXOWbOROMV3cRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ajjqljpun60@corp.supernews.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
Where do you get your wierd ideas ? Of course I "mind if a human being
is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
It most certainly does. I can understand to the pro-abortionist they
have a need to ignore that the fetus is a human being.
Nothing to *ignor* as it isn't a human being.
Of course you "have" to view it like that in order to "support" your
opinion on abortion.
I don't "have" to, anything, it is, what it is, and isn't, what it isn't.
What is *ignored* is your out
of touch with reality *claim* that it is a "human being"
Not at all, I don't ignore the fact that we are all human beings from the
time of conception.
An anti-abortion opinion, not based on fact
I do believe that universally, people agree that the fetus is a human
being.
That's nice, but your mere belief, doesn't make it so, now does it ?
It becomes, legally, a "human being" at birth,
No, your lack of understanding on the difference between human being and
person is showing.
Your idiocy is showing
Also remember, "legal" is not universal
It is reality when talking about, as we are, a *legal* issue.
while I will agree,
Naturally, you have too in order to justify abortion
I have to agree with you, in order to justify abortion ? Heck I have been
going about it all wrong...
IMO that once it has awareness (anyway) it *should* be
classed as such (that is, depending on the individual fetus' development
of the ability to be aware, which happens anywhere from mid-way through
the 5 month to the end of the 6th) IT ISN'T, and talking as if it is,
won't change the facts. A fetus is NOT a "human being"
Too bad you can't understand that the fetus is.
Hey, I am not the one having THAT problem :-), I am not the one trying to
call it a "human being"
The mother is giving consent for a human being to be killed.
As there does not yet exist a "human being" during her pregnancy, she is
giving no such consent
Try talking in ENGLISH
I am,
No, you aren't
(your turn)
it is just a shame you can't understand English.
I understand it quite well
The pro-abortionist has no problem with this.
With things which only happen in your imagination ? Why should anyone, in
the real world have a problem with it ?
The person(s) who are ignoring reality are those who think abortion is a
good thing.
Only in *your* "reality"
No, only in the truth.
I your mind.
<snip>
After the 5th month ? Less than 1% are done, simply to avoid having a
baby.
Although I don't readily have the figures in front of me right now, your
"less than 1%" I can assure you is wrong.
Such are the figures
Now many "non-emergency" abortions are done in these months by mothers to
be who WANTED to have a baby.... to avoid an UNAVOIDABLE emergency later
on down the road, because their doctor had already told them that the
mother would be highly unlikely to survive their pregnancy.
Sorry, bud, but I support SELF-DEFENSE (even if done before the threat is
already killing the mother)
Of course you do realize you are hiding behind your true agenda, (to
support the killing of innocent human beings) with "self - defense".
Nope, I am talking about self-defense, my wife is alive today because we
opted abortion over severely risking her life, being over-aged, and
suffering heart disease, as well as weak kidneys. She was six months along,
it was our "last chance" baby (as I had surgery, just after she became
pregnant, which rendered me impotant), it was a very hard choice to make.
And no, we didn't wait for her to need an emergency abortion, we had it done
while she was still in a non-emergency condition.
You really shouldn't voice things which you know next to nothing about.
I meant what I said, I had no such "agenda" of which you accuse me of.
Lets use some of your logic here.
You are saying that it is murder, unless her life is at risk.
Yes
Why isn't it murder if she gives consent?
Because it is SELF-DEFENSE
Oh? Is the fetus holding a gun to her head?
Yes ! In a real sense, yes !
Not all killings are murder, we have murder (1st / 2rd / 3rd degree)
manslaughter, etc. down to self-defense / accident
Yes, I am well aware of the different types.
Amazing !
<snip>
That is not always true
See above, it is 99 plus % true, which is plenty enough for me to see it
as not really important enough to debate.
I am very confident your figures are off.
That's nice
Even if the fetus has a beating heart, blood is pumping, brain
activity, movement of fingers and so forth, facial expressions.
Does not happen until after the 5th to 6th month,
Actually, the heart starts beating well before the 5th month.
The heart doesn't think
So a fetus at 5 months is capable of thinking like an adult?
Where has anyone suggested such ?
<snip>
I, guess unlike you, feel that the MOTHER should have the legal right to
decide when to initiate *self-defense* at the best, most survivable point
of pregnancy, once she is informed that she is most likely not going to
survive the pregnancy. (which means even before she is in the actual
danger)
Or are you one of those kill the mother if it will *maybe* save
the child types ?
I believe you answered this above, you ARE
I believe I can answer for myself, and don't need pro-abortionist such as
yourself to try and answer for me. Experience in this newsgroup has
taught me that 99.999% of the time, pro-abortionist will answer wrong, or
will attempt to distort what others say or how they feel. I support the
life of both mother and child.
And if you had to choose the life of one or the other, because only *one*
will survive ? Please imagine your *wife* in this situation, I have had to
face this, and choose *her*, thus she is still with me.
So far, you sound like the mother dies type
<snip>
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I
have
called it as I see it.
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 04:05:07 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill a
person ?
You don't mind if a human being is killed because the mother gives
consent, so what is the difference?
Where do you get your wierd ideas ?
Why by people like yourself and other pro-abortionist. You guys are the
one who thinks she can kill a human being just by giving her consent.
What "human being" are you talking about ? such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the charge
of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
Of course I "mind if a human being is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
Oh but it does, a fetus is a human being.
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue, much
like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
A person? No, not by law.
Until, women no longer want an abortion, anyway, it isn't a person
scientifically either.
A human being, yes.
No, just tessue with human DNA, it is no more a *human being* than your
fingernail
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent for
Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ? What do you mean by "viable" (as you already have some
wierd meaning for "human being"; I have to ask, before I can address your
question)...
BTW for me "viable" = having awareness
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder, as the child to be receive awareness in the 5th to
6th month, but such is NEVER done unless her doctor has informed her that
continuing to carry it will kill her.
but it happens all the time, where women do wait that long.
Extreamly RARE, less than 1 % according to the last figers which I have
seen, and in most States UNLESS the woman's life is in physical danger,
doctors will not do abortions (after the beginning of the 5th), and / or it
is illegal after the beginning of the 6th month
Such is why, for me, the abortion "debate" is one of beating a *dead horse*
(so I RARELY take part in them)
And your thought that it is never done...is a myth.
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's life
is in danger.
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the
possible child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about
five/six months into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy, thus
ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be, illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
It is??? So you are going to speak for all women?
YES ! There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
<snip>
It will be interesting to see if you have any.
Let's see if you can answer my questions without acting like a child and
name calling. So far in this thread I have not called you or anyone else
any names or tried to insult.
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I have
called it as I see it.
Just as I am calling it like I see it.
I call your comment about "braincells" unnecessary and childish.
Fine with me, personally, I find letting such statements to get your goat,
to be a bit childish, myself.
Besides, when you are as old as I, any amount of "immaturity" I may have, is
seen as a GOOD thing (You are only as "old" as you allow yourself to be)
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 04:02:19 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
You answered your own question, key word *consent*
So all we need now to justify killing any human being is a persons
"consent".
You are really wierd, who said anything about needing consent to kill
a person ?
You don't mind if a human being is killed because the mother gives
consent, so what is the difference?
Where do you get your wierd ideas ?
Why by people like yourself and other pro-abortionist. You guys are the
one who thinks she can kill a human being just by giving her consent.
What "human being" are you talking about ?
This is exactly what I am talking about. Pro-abortionist purposely ignore
the very fact, that a fetus is a human being.
They have too. If they didn't, they couldn't justify abortion. Abortion is
a non-intrinsic evil.
Death is an intrinsic evil. Abortion is a tool that leads to death.
such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the charge
of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
No, you know what I am talking about. You just have chosen to look the other
way so you can justify a woman's choice to abort.
Of course I "mind if a human being is
killed because the mother gives consent"
What planet are you from ?
Again, your question has nothing to do with reality.
Oh but it does, a fetus is a human being.
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue, much
like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
Yep, from the moment of conception.
The fetus doesn't "magically" become a human being based on some time clock.
A person? No, not by law.
Until, women no longer want an abortion, anyway, it isn't a person
scientifically either.
A human being, yes.
No, just tessue with human DNA, it is no more a *human being* than your
fingernail
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. You are demonstrating how a
pro-abortionist views a fetus, you have to view the fetus like that.
Or else you couldn't justify abortion.
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent for
Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ?
Why don't you ask the 12 juror's?
What do you mean by "viable" (as you already have some
wierd meaning for "human being"; I have to ask, before I can address your
question)...
BTW for me "viable" = having awareness
Do you think it is o.k. for her to give consent, say in the 7th or 8th
month of her pregnancy
Such would be murder, as the child to be receive awareness in the 5th to
6th month, but such is NEVER done unless her doctor has informed her
that continuing to carry it will kill her.
but it happens all the time, where women do wait that long.
Extreamly RARE, less than 1 % according to the last figers which I have
seen, and in most States UNLESS the woman's life is in physical danger,
doctors will not do abortions (after the beginning of the 5th), and / or
it is illegal after the beginning of the 6th month
Such is why, for me, the abortion "debate" is one of beating a *dead
horse* (so I RARELY take part in them)
And your thought that it is never done...is a myth.
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's life
is in danger.
Absolutely false.
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
BTW I know many women who worked in abortion clinic's as well, in fact, a
student in one of my classes was once an employee at an abortion clinic.
When she saw what abortions truly look like, she became anti-abortion.
As well as other women I have personally heard say the same exact thing.
So now what???
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
You mean, you choose to ignore and look the other way.
Except to save the mother's life, abortions are done before the
possible child to be is physically capable of awareness, (about
five/six months into the pregnancy)
The mother to be, has the right to complete, or end her pregnancy,
thus ending her pregnancy without her concent, is as it should be,
illegal.
So you don't see a problem with a mother giving consent at any stage in
the pregnancy?
By the time a woman is past the 5th to sixth month it is clear that she
WANTS to have a baby
It is??? So you are going to speak for all women?
YES !
Wow, what gall. You speaking for all women.
There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
<snip>
It will be interesting to see if you have any.
Let's see if you can answer my questions without acting like a child
and name calling. So far in this thread I have not called you or anyone
else any names or tried to insult.
I have not called you any names, nor have I *tried* to insult you, I
have called it as I see it.
Just as I am calling it like I see it.
I call your comment about "braincells" unnecessary and childish.
Fine with me, personally, I find letting such statements to get your goat,
to be a bit childish, myself.
Besides, when you are as old as I, any amount of "immaturity" I may have,
is seen as a GOOD thing (You are only as "old" as you allow yourself to
be)
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 06:17:34 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ELydnZbw1Y_SKV3cRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip; some of the snipped here, is covered in another post>
such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the
charge of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
No, you know what I am talking about.
You are talking non-sense, and attempting to call things what they aren't
<snip>
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue,
much like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
Yep, from the moment of conception.
If you want to go literal Bible, don't jack off, because it begins with your
SEED (sperm) and you 'murder' thousands in one stroke
The fetus doesn't "magically" become a human being based on some time
clock.
No, it doesn't, legally, it becomes one at birth, as for me, they *should be
called* such when awareness starts (but I would be talking your foriegn
language if I were to call them "human beings" before they legally ARE
"human beings")
A person? No, not by law.
Until, women no longer want an abortion, anyway, it isn't a person
scientifically either.
A human being, yes.
No, just tessue with human DNA, it is no more a *human being* than your
fingernail
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. You are demonstrating how a
pro-abortionist views a fetus, you have to view the fetus like that.
No, they are the facts, there is no "have to" about it
Or else you couldn't justify abortion.
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent for
Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ?
Why don't you ask the 12 juror's?
You lost me
<snip>
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's
life is in danger.
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true
(your turn)
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
BTW I know many women who worked in abortion clinic's as well, in fact, a
student in one of my classes was once an employee at an abortion clinic.
When she saw what abortions truly look like, she became anti-abortion.
Yeah, Barby Dolls look very human, ever hear the saying "Looks can be
deceiving" ??
As well as other women I have personally heard say the same exact thing.
So now what???
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
You mean, you choose to ignore and look the other way.
I meant what I said, abortions are done BEFORE there is aware fetuses, OR in
the self-defense of the mother, after awareness *may* be present in the
fetus, and extreamly rare are they ever done otherwise
<snip>
It is??? So you are going to speak for all women?
YES !
Wow, what gall. You speaking for all women.
When you know the facts...(like)...
There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
It doesn't take "gall" at all
<snip>
Fine with me, personally, I find letting such statements to get your
goat, to be a bit childish, myself.
Besides, when you are as old as I, any amount of "immaturity" I may have,
is seen as a GOOD thing (You are only as "old" as you allow yourself to
be)
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
15 Dec 2004 06:19:14 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ke8insist7c@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ELydnZbw1Y_SKV3cRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip; some of the snipped here, is covered in another post>
such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the
charge of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
No, you know what I am talking about.
You are talking non-sense, and attempting to call things what they aren't
No, I am talking "common sense", something every human being should be able
to understand.
However, we have people in this world who try to change definitions, normal,
behaviors, and so forth.
You just happen to be one of those, you think you can change "nature" to
help further your agenda, which is to
sponsor and support abortion.
<snip>
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue,
much like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
Yep, from the moment of conception.
If you want to go literal Bible, don't jack off, because it begins with
your SEED (sperm) and you 'murder' thousands in one stroke
A single sperm, is a human organism...alone. But combined with the egg, we
have a human being.
The fetus doesn't "magically" become a human being based on some time
clock.
No, it doesn't, legally,
legal is not universal
it becomes one at birth, as for me, they *should be
called* such when awareness starts (but I would be talking your foriegn
language if I were to call them "human beings" before they legally ARE
"human beings")
Nope, you have "person" confused with "human being"
A human being is just what it says...a "human"
A fetus is human
A person? No, not by law.
Until, women no longer want an abortion, anyway, it isn't a person
scientifically either.
A human being, yes.
No, just tessue with human DNA, it is no more a *human being* than your
fingernail
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. You are demonstrating how a
pro-abortionist views a fetus, you have to view the fetus like that.
No, they are the facts, there is no "have to" about it
No, they are "delusions". "mask" to disguise the truth.
A fetus is a human being.
Or else you couldn't justify abortion.
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent for
Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ?
Why don't you ask the 12 juror's?
You lost me
Why am I not surprised?
If you don't know who Conor is, go ask the 12 juror's who do.
<snip>
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's
life is in danger.
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true
No, absolutely false.
(your turn)
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
BTW I know many women who worked in abortion clinic's as well, in fact, a
student in one of my classes was once an employee at an abortion clinic.
When she saw what abortions truly look like, she became anti-abortion.
Yeah, Barby Dolls look very human, ever hear the saying "Looks can be
deceiving" ??
I have yet to see a Barbie Doll walk or talk on it's own.
As well as other women I have personally heard say the same exact thing.
So now what???
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
You mean, you choose to ignore and look the other way.
I meant what I said,
Yea and?
abortions are done BEFORE there is aware fetuses,
When is the last time you were in a womb to realize when you were aware?
Aware of what? Policital events? Weather? the war in Iraq?
You seem to think the fetus is an adult by the 5th month.
OR in
the self-defense of the mother, after awareness *may* be present in the
fetus, and extreamly rare are they ever done otherwise
Hiding behind that mask again eh?
<snip>
It is??? So you are going to speak for all women?
YES !
Wow, what gall. You speaking for all women.
When you know the facts...(like)...
You don't know the fact, you appear to like to make the facts up to support
your agenda.
There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
It doesn't take "gall" at all
It takes gall for you to think you can speak for others. You said you are
speaking for all women.
My wife is sitting right next to me right now and I can assure you, you
don't speak for her.
<snip>
Fine with me, personally, I find letting such statements to get your
goat, to be a bit childish, myself.
Besides, when you are as old as I, any amount of "immaturity" I may
have, is seen as a GOOD thing (You are only as "old" as you allow
yourself to be)
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
17 Dec 2004 07:09:30 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:b_OdnXmxHP3bSV3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ke8insist7c@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ELydnZbw1Y_SKV3cRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip; some of the snipped here, is covered in another post>
such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the
charge of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
No, you know what I am talking about.
You are talking non-sense, and attempting to call things what they aren't
No, I am talking "common sense",
"common sense" doesn't attempt to call things what they aren't, nor to
accuse others of things they aren't doing, nor having opinions which they
don't have, on the bases of calling things what they aren't. Which is what
you have attempted to do with me, I am NOT in favor of "human beings" being
killed by their mothers' consent, as you have accused me of being. If you
are going to accuse me of something that I may be actually doing, use the
CORRECT words to do so.
something every human being should be able to understand.
LOL, now THAT is F U N N Y, "every human being" ?
See even *you* know you talk non-sense, heck I even include children, and
babies way too young to comprehend this topic matter as "human beings"
However, we have people in this world who try to change definitions,
normal, behaviors, and so forth.
Like *yourself*
You just happen to be one of those, you think you can change "nature" to
help further your agenda, which is to sponsor and support abortion.
LOL, Pot, kettle, black
<snip>
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue,
much like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
Yep, from the moment of conception.
If you want to go literal Bible, don't jack off, because it begins with
your SEED (sperm) and you 'murder' thousands in one stroke
A single sperm, is a human organism...alone. But combined with the egg, we
have a human being.
Nope, we have fertilized egg, and nothing more.
The fetus doesn't "magically" become a human being based on some time
clock.
No, it doesn't, legally,
legal is not universal
Nor is your wierd usage of the English language, that is for sure
it becomes one at birth, as for me, they *should be
called* such when awareness starts (but I would be talking your foriegn
language if I were to call them "human beings" before they legally ARE
"human beings")
Nope, you have "person" confused with "human being"
A human being is a person, nothing more, nothing less. You are confused to
think otherwise
A human being is just what it says...a "human"
ROWL, So your fingernail is a human being
A fetus is human
Again, so is your hair, but it isn't a human being until it gains the
ability to be aware
<snip>
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. You are demonstrating how a
pro-abortionist views a fetus, you have to view the fetus like that.
No, they are the facts, there is no "have to" about it
No, they are "delusions". "mask" to disguise the truth.
So states the delusioned
A fetus is a human being.
Redundancy does not change anything, even if said it a million times it will
not become true
Or else you couldn't justify abortion.
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent for
Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ?
Why don't you ask the 12 juror's?
You lost me
Why am I not surprised?
If you don't know who Conor is, go ask the 12 juror's who do.
No, I am not aware of what you are talking about, nor how it ties into the
topic at hand.
Are you talking about someone who is thought to have been brain-dead ? If
so, viabilty is questionable
<snip>
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's
life is in danger.
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true
No, absolutely false.
Absolutely true
(your turn)
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
BTW I know many women who worked in abortion clinic's as well, in fact,
a student in one of my classes was once an employee at an abortion
clinic.
When she saw what abortions truly look like, she became anti-abortion.
Yeah, Barby Dolls look very human, ever hear the saying "Looks can be
deceiving" ??
I have yet to see a Barbie Doll walk or talk on it's own.
Same goes with an unaware fetus
As well as other women I have personally heard say the same exact thing.
So now what???
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
You mean, you choose to ignore and look the other way.
I meant what I said,
Yea and?
Nothing more
abortions are done BEFORE there is aware fetuses,
When is the last time you were in a womb to realize when you were aware?
Aware of what? Policital events? Weather? the war in Iraq?
You seem to think the fetus is an adult by the 5th month.
Are you so desirious(sp) to argue that you will even work against yourself ?
OR in the self-defense of the mother, after awareness *may* be present in
the
fetus, and extreamly rare are they ever done otherwise
Hiding behind that mask again eh?
You appear to have communication problems
<snip>
There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
It doesn't take "gall" at all
It takes gall for you to think you can speak for others. You said you are
speaking for all women.
Note "exceptions"
<snip>
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
17 Dec 2004 08:03:58 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s707rsuuglga9@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:b_OdnXmxHP3bSV3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ke8insist7c@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ELydnZbw1Y_SKV3cRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip; some of the snipped here, is covered in another post>
such is an absolute mystery. I do
NOT think that ANYONE can kill a "human being" (without risking the
charge of murder) just by giving their consent.
Either you are talking some foriegn language in which words sound like
English but have some unusually strange meanings, or you are imagining
things which were never claimed.
No, you know what I am talking about.
You are talking non-sense, and attempting to call things what they
aren't
No, I am talking "common sense",
"common sense" doesn't attempt to call things what they aren't, nor to
accuse others of things they aren't doing, nor having opinions which they
don't have, on the bases of calling things what they aren't. Which is what
you have attempted to do with me, I am NOT in favor of "human beings"
being killed by their mothers' consent, as you have accused me of being.
If you are going to accuse me of something that I may be actually doing,
use the CORRECT words to do so.
I am sorry that you have refused to look at things realistically.
something every human being should be able to understand.
LOL, now THAT is F U N N Y, "every human being" ?
See even *you* know you talk non-sense, heck I even include children, and
babies way too young to comprehend this topic matter as "human beings"
However, we have people in this world who try to change definitions,
normal, behaviors, and so forth.
Like *yourself*
I have not attempted to change any definitions, I don't need to play on
words like pro-abortionist do.
You just happen to be one of those, you think you can change "nature" to
help further your agenda, which is to sponsor and support abortion.
LOL, Pot, kettle, black
<snip>
Nope, up until the 5th to sixth month it is unthinking living tessue,
much like an insect eating plant (it has some reflexes, but no brains)
Yep, from the moment of conception.
If you want to go literal Bible, don't jack off, because it begins with
your SEED (sperm) and you 'murder' thousands in one stroke
A single sperm, is a human organism...alone. But combined with the egg,
we have a human being.
Nope, we have fertilized egg, and nothing more.
Nope, we have a human being with a complete genetic blueprint
The fetus doesn't "magically" become a human being based on some time
clock.
No, it doesn't, legally,
legal is not universal
Nor is your wierd usage of the English language, that is for sure
Sorry if the big words confused you.
it becomes one at birth, as for me, they *should be
called* such when awareness starts (but I would be talking your foriegn
language if I were to call them "human beings" before they legally ARE
"human beings")
Nope, you have "person" confused with "human being"
A human being is a person, nothing more, nothing less. You are confused to
think otherwise
Nope, a person is defined by law. Universally, a fetus is accepted as a
human being.
A human being is just what it says...a "human"
ROWL, So your fingernail is a human being
This is what I meant by pro-aborts trying to play with words.
A fetus is human
Again, so is your hair, but it isn't a human being until it gains the
ability to be aware
<snip>
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. You are demonstrating how a
pro-abortionist views a fetus, you have to view the fetus like that.
No, they are the facts, there is no "have to" about it
No, they are "delusions". "mask" to disguise the truth.
So states the delusioned
A fetus is a human being.
Redundancy does not change anything, even if said it a million times it
will not become true
Or else you couldn't justify abortion.
And Conor was a viable human being. Now if Laci had given consent
for Conor to die, would you have approved?
Who is "Conor" ?
Why don't you ask the 12 juror's?
You lost me
Why am I not surprised?
If you don't know who Conor is, go ask the 12 juror's who do.
No, I am not aware of what you are talking about, nor how it ties into the
topic at hand.
Are you talking about someone who is thought to have been brain-dead ? If
so, viabilty is questionable
<snip>
Never said it is never done, I said it isn't done unless the mother's
life is in danger.
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true
No, absolutely false.
Absolutely true
(your turn)
BTW my sister works in an abortion clinic (like me she *was* against
abortions until she learned what I had learned about it)
BTW I know many women who worked in abortion clinic's as well, in fact,
a student in one of my classes was once an employee at an abortion
clinic.
When she saw what abortions truly look like, she became anti-abortion.
Yeah, Barby Dolls look very human, ever hear the saying "Looks can be
deceiving" ??
I have yet to see a Barbie Doll walk or talk on it's own.
Same goes with an unaware fetus
As well as other women I have personally heard say the same exact
thing.
So now what???
Many doctors have come forth and testified the truth, that it does
happen.
Too rarely to piddle over.
You mean, you choose to ignore and look the other way.
I meant what I said,
Yea and?
Nothing more
abortions are done BEFORE there is aware fetuses,
When is the last time you were in a womb to realize when you were aware?
Aware of what? Policital events? Weather? the war in Iraq?
You seem to think the fetus is an adult by the 5th month.
Are you so desirious(sp) to argue that you will even work against yourself
?
OR in the self-defense of the mother, after awareness *may* be present in
the
fetus, and extreamly rare are they ever done otherwise
Hiding behind that mask again eh?
You appear to have communication problems
<snip>
There are alway exceptions to every rule, but 99 plus % who are still
pregnant by the 5th month are so because they WANT a baby !
It doesn't take "gall" at all
It takes gall for you to think you can speak for others. You said you
are speaking for all women.
Note "exceptions"
<snip>
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Peterson's Biblical Punishment |
17 Dec 2004 09:34:07 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:w_2dnQEpsZh-El7cRVn-qw@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s707rsuuglga9@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:b_OdnXmxHP3bSV3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1ke8insist7c@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ELydnZbw1Y_SKV3cRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10s1clvou3aue58@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d6WdnWmPEKoloSLcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rue3gmsv29e4@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OqWdnS_pQpOgHSbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rmsfm1u4he385@corp.supernews.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnc1nPck8UCTcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in
message news:10rjja9qmmiu748@corp.supernews.com...
<snip; some of the snipped here, is covered in another post>
<snip>
No, I am talking "common sense",
"common sense" doesn't attempt to call things what they aren't, nor to
accuse others of things they aren't doing, nor having opinions which they
don't have, on the bases of calling things what they aren't. Which is
what you have attempted to do with me, I am NOT in favor of "human
beings" being killed by their mothers' consent, as you have accused me of
being. If you are going to accuse me of something that I may be actually
doing, use the CORRECT words to do so.
I am sorry that you have refused to look at things realistically.
Translation; you are sorry that I refuse to buy into your strange
linguistics
something every human being should be able to understand.
LOL, now THAT is F U N N Y, "every human being" ?
See even *you* know you talk non-sense, heck I even include children, and
babies way too young to comprehend this topic matter as "human beings"
However, we have people in this world who try to change definitions,
normal, behaviors, and so forth.
Like *yourself*
I have not attempted to change any definitions,
True, you just did so.
I don't need to play on words
So why do you ?
<snip>
Yep, from the moment of conception.
If you want to go literal Bible, don't jack off, because it begins with
your SEED (sperm) and you 'murder' thousands in one stroke
A single sperm, is a human organism...alone. But combined with the egg,
we have a human being.
Nope, we have fertilized egg, and nothing more.
Nope, we have a human being with a complete genetic blueprint
Nope, we have fertilized egg, and nothing more.
(your turn)
<snip>
it becomes one at birth, as for me, they *should be
called* such when awareness starts (but I would be talking your foriegn
language if I were to call them "human beings" before they legally ARE
"human beings")
Nope, you have "person" confused with "human being"
A human being is a person, nothing more, nothing less. You are confused
to think otherwise
Nope, a person is defined by law.
So is a human being, they are one and the same.
Universally, a fetus is accepted as a human being.
Yeah in the "universe" of your mental ward.
A human being is just what it says...a "human"
ROWL, So your fingernail is a human being
This is what I meant by pro-aborts trying to play with words.
No, there are lots of things that are human, such as parts of our body,
sperm, eggs, fetuses, spit, etc
<snip>
No, I am not aware of what you are talking about, nor how it ties into
the topic at hand.
Are you talking about someone who is thought to have been brain-dead ? If
so, viabilty is questionable
Was my guess, even close ?
<snip>
<snip>
Or am I to lie ?
You have. That puts me one up over you in the area of maturity.
We all have our opinions.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |