| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Non scrivetemi" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2006 07:32:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, "John Rennie" <john@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4404dc1e.39374203@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 28 Feb 2006 12:40:56 -0800, wrote:
Unfortunately Roe v Wade is a hypocritical decision. We're allowed to
get an abortion, but not sell sex? Selling sex is just as much a
private decision.
Prostitutiion is commerce, a transaction between two persons.
Abortion is medical treatment involving one person.
Two people!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
FOUR are directly involved, and many more indirectly...
Directly, two parents, plus one abortionist (assuming
this to be someone other than either of said parents),
and of course, the victim, the aborted -- murdered --
unborn child. Murder is against the Ten Commandments.
Prostitution is adultery for hire. Adultery is against
the Ten Commandments. Prostitution, homosexual acts,
etc., these are abominably depraved forms of Adultery.
I.e., as if heterosexual adultery wasn't sinful enough!
________________________________________________________
I'M SURE GLAD that our moderate-to-conservative majority
of patriotic Republicans control ALL THREE main branches
of our beloved *United States Federal Government*. :-D
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRATu7pljD7YrHM/nEQJb2QCgvEwMcy2ZSmPubi9YhtAV4rHkDsoAn1DN
4kPdH88KpShEh5AogmqPqN28
=PZ6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 06:58:31 PM |
|
|
-- murdered --
unborn child. Murder is against the Ten Commandments.
Prostitution is adultery for hire. Adultery is against
the Ten Commandments. Prostitution, homosexual acts,
etc., these are abominably depraved forms of Adultery.
I.e., as if heterosexual adultery wasn't sinful enough!
________________________________________________________
]\
Then stop trying to murder people with your thoughts and words.
You are completely profane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
02 Mar 2006 12:37:23 PM |
|
|
He hasnt even read his own fucking bible. See Exodus 21:22; after a
woman 'looses her fruit', the husband *may* bring the matter to court
to have those who caused it fined. Its a *civil* case, not even
manslaughter, much less murder.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 02:09:59 PM |
|
|
Directly, two parents, plus one abortionist (assuming
this to be someone other than either of said parents),
and of course, the victim, the aborted -- murdered --
unborn child. Murder is against the Ten Commandments.
I read recently that more than 20% of all pregnancies miscarry.
That makes God the most prolific abortionist of all time!
Prostitution is adultery for hire. Adultery is against
the Ten Commandments. Prostitution, homosexual acts,
etc., these are abominably depraved forms of Adultery.
I.e., as if heterosexual adultery wasn't sinful enough!
According to the Catholic Dictionary, adultery is sexual
activity between two people when at least one is married.
Prostitution is only adultery if married individuals are involved.
You're thinking of fornication, for which there is no specific
commandment - nor, as far as I'm aware, any prohibition
against it in the bible, though I'm not a biblical scholar.
Regardless, we are a country of laws - a representative
democracy. Not a theocracy, which you seem to desire.
Maybe you'd be more happy in the new Iran.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
03 Mar 2006 02:19:40 PM |
|
|
Isn't it just a little bit strange that the Religious Reich controls
the House, Senate, and White House and they have never, repeat never,
put forth a constitutional admendment to overturn Roe?
Its almost like they don't want to end abortion. Like they have a
vested interest in keeping it legal.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
03 Mar 2006 05:23:10 PM |
|
|
Good point John. Its like the war on drugs. They're running it like a
speed trap. They dont want to win the war on drugs, they want to *milk*
it. Same deal now with the war on Terrorism.
For instance, it was Albert Hoffman of Sandoz labs, under contract for
the CIA to look for a "Truth Serum", who found LSD-25. He gave them
more truth than they could handle. Every time they tried it on an agent
or soldier, that individual quit working for them. Same deal with a
terrorist. Dose him will acid, and just like any hippie, he'll "see
god", and realize it *aint* Allah. Course, it aint Jesus either.
If they actually wanted to *win* the war in Iraq, they'd open up a
brothel in Bagdad and have the hookers dose the ragheads with acid
while having sex with them. Acid & Sex is memorable, I can tell you
that;-) and had she asked, I would have told her anything she wanted to
know.
How can you run a conspiracy without men being able to keep secrets?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
08 Mar 2006 08:05:58 PM |
|
|
Non scrivetemi wrote:
I'M SURE GLAD that our moderate-to-conservative majority
of patriotic Republicans control ALL THREE main branches
of our beloved *United States Federal Government*. :-D
Excerpt from:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/36a9a36d9ec9f8c7?as_umsgid=e58d56ae.0407120132.38405527@posting.google.com
Dated 2004 July 12
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
Kerry & Edwards are going down in FLAMES this November 2nd.
Bush-Cheney win in a LANDSLIDE victory. The slimy liberals
finally committed political suicide.
"Actually, they will win by a [sic] landslide. But the developed world
is already in the midsts of a massive pendulum shift toward the liberal
end of the spectrum --- the counterpart of the shift toward the right
that began in Scandinavia in the 1970's. In the US it will first show
up in 2006. But not along party lines; along another fault line, that
will make itself increasingly felt over time."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
28 Feb 2006 10:55:38 PM |
|
|
Non scrivetemi wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, "John Rennie" <john@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4404dc1e.39374203@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 28 Feb 2006 12:40:56 -0800, wrote:
Unfortunately Roe v Wade is a hypocritical decision. We're allowed to
get an abortion, but not sell sex? Selling sex is just as much a
private decision.
Prostitutiion is commerce, a transaction between two persons.
Abortion is medical treatment involving one person.
Two people!
....meanwhile, back on earth...
It is possible that one outcome of a reversal of Roe would be
the beginning of a real dialogue among all those concerned about
unwanted pregnancy.
I read that in Japan, a woman or couple that had an abortion
could go to a particular temple to mourn for the fetus. This is a
good idea, but is not one that is likely to get much traction in
our current, heavily polarized, society.
There are many issues that both pro-choice and pro-life folks
can work on, even in the face of their central disagreement
about abortion. Compassion for the pregnant women and their
dilemmas; care for those who have had abortions that isn't
political (doesn't suggest that help is conditioned on the woman
agreeing with a particular viewpoint); reducing the number of
unwanted pregnancies; etc.
I wonder whether there is any archaeological evidence for
intentional abortion; and if so, what we know of the culture.
I also wonder whether anyone is aware of any ethnography that
might show how abortion has been treated in other cultures, of
any age.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
28 Feb 2006 10:31:04 PM |
|
|
It's always interesting to look at how people segregate on the topic of
abortion, and then look at that same population and how they feel about
war.
There are many pro-war/anti-abortion, and many anti-war/pro-abortion.
Both of these groups are conflicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 12:05:30 AM |
|
|
<RadicalLibertarian@hotmail.com> wrote...
It's always interesting to look at how people segregate on the topic of
abortion, and then look at that same population and how they feel about
war.
There are many pro-war/anti-abortion, and many anti-war/pro-abortion.
Both of these groups are conflicted.
or just as interestingly: pro-capital punishment/anti-abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 02:13:05 AM |
|
|
<I also wonder whether anyone is aware of any ethnography that
might show how abortion has been treated in other cultures, of
any age. >
Well, you could read the Bible. in Exodus 21, vs 22... where a woman
"looses her fruit", the husband *may* bring the matter to court, and
the plaintiff "shall pay as the court decides". Its a *civil* case,
aint even manslaughter, much less murder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 10:00:45 AM |
|
|
Day Brown wrote:
<I also wonder whether anyone is aware of any ethnography that
might show how abortion has been treated in other cultures, of
any age. >
Well, you could read the Bible. in Exodus 21, vs 22... where a woman
"looses her fruit", the husband *may* bring the matter to court, and
the plaintiff "shall pay as the court decides". Its a *civil* case,
aint even manslaughter, much less murder.
The verse refers to a pregnant woman being accidentally struck
during a brawl by someone not her husband, and suffering a
miscarriage. This does not refer to intentional abortion, but to
property rights, as you intimated.
This is not the same attitude that most of todays pro-lifers
would take, I think. I'd be curious as to what those pro-lifers
do point to in the Bible, or elsewhere, to support their more
radical interpretation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 09:49:37 AM |
|
|
Just what we need in this country, another 30,000,000 people looking
for jobs....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernie Dunbar" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 02:13:38 PM |
|
|
Tedd Jacobs said:
or just as interestingly: pro-capital punishment/anti-abortion.
It's just not sporting unless you give them a head start. >:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals See 'Roe v Wade' Going *BYE-BYE* |
01 Mar 2006 01:24:53 PM |
|
|
Non scrivetemi wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, "John Rennie" <john@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
[snip]
Abortion is medical treatment involving one person.
Two people!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
FOUR are directly involved, and many more indirectly...
Directly, two parents, plus one abortionist (assuming
this to be someone other than either of said parents),
and of course, the victim, the aborted -- murdered --
unborn child. Murder is against the Ten Commandments.
Prostitution is adultery for hire. Adultery is against
the Ten Commandments.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ci.htm
"The Ten Commandments are a brief summary of certain basic rules of
behavior. They do not specifically address some of the most active of
today's moral controversies, such as abortion, corporal punishment of
children, the death penalty, equal rights for homosexuals, same-sex
marriage, physician assisted suicide, pre-marital sex, etc."
"Do Christians follow the Ten Commandments?
Although the Ten Commandments are held in high respect by many
Christians, two of them are routinely broken by some Christian
denominations -- at least if they are interpreted literally:
bullet The prohibition against "any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing...," if interpreted literally, would seem to forbid a wide
range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix,
or even to a photograph of a person. However, many denominations do not
interpret this passage in isolation or do not interpret it literally.
This allows Eastern Orthodox churches to display icons, Roman Catholic
churches to contains statues, and many Protestant churches to contain
drawings and/or photographs.
bullet Reserving the Sabbath (Saturday) as a day of rest. The vast
majority of churches have their main services on Sunday. Only
Sabbaterian denominations, like the Seventh Day Adventists and Seventh
Day Baptists, follow celebrate on Saturday."
"Should everyone follow the Ten Commandments:
The U.S. is the most religiously diverse country in the world. Southern
Ontario in Canada is regarded as the most religiously diverse region of
any country in the world. Both nations share a legacy of religious
freedom and religious tolerance. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted
the Constitution as requiring a complete separation of church and
state. Canadian culture largely separates church and state by
tradition. However, the Ten Commandments were created within an
entirely different culture with very different expectations of its
citizens. It was a theocracy where church and state were blended.
Everyone was expected to follow the state religion. A person following
a different religion or proselytizing a different faith could find
themselves sentenced to death.
This culture clash has produced criticisms of some commandments within
the Decalogue:
bullet The first commandment requires that no god other than Yahweh is
to be worshipped. This is in open conflict with the "first freedom" in
the U.S. and Canada -- religious freedom.
bullet The second commandment, interpreted literally, punishes a man's
children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and perhaps even
great-great grandchildren if the man has sinned by serving other Gods.
Spreading the responsibility for one person's sin onto innocent
descendents was common in the ancient Middle East. However, most
contemporary ethical systems -- both secular and religious -- hold a
person responsible only for their own actions. Punishing innocent
children widely considered a seriously immoral act.
bullet The fifth commandment requires that children honor their
parents. Many would feel that it is unreasonable to expect a child to
honor a parent who was a sexual molester, a physical abuser or was
guilty of neglect.
bullet There are two problems associated with the tenth commandment:
bullet It treats women as pieces of property
bullet It condones slavery. The terms "manservant" and "maidservant" in
the King James Version of the Bible refer to male and female slaves.
Equal treatment for men and women form an integral part of many
religious groups' beliefs. Almost all North American religious groups
reject the concept of owning another human being in a state of
slavery."
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
