*Phew!*
Jeff Zimmerman
and longer, it seems, after I post this message. But for now I just want to
observe some things.
First of all, though this is probably biased, I've noticed that the ones
taking all the personal and below-the-belt shots are the ones fighting for
abortion. Personally, I've done my best to regulate my comments to strictly
replies to other comments. I don't judge the moral character of anyone,
Catholic or not, but I do debate on these boards.
Why do we debate? In my opinion, to try and formulate a greater understanding
of the evaluations of actions, and to develope a novel moral insight into
issues that are difficult to see past.
Unfortunately (and I am guilty of this as well), the participants of the
debate have polarized, and all of the "I don't knows" are turning into "I'm
right and your wrongs."
What I hope doesn't continue much more are the "I'm right and you're stupid,
sick, retarded, immoral, uncaring, evil, hegemonistic bastards." Personally I
don't see why these folk have any moral purpose at all in crusading on these
boards. It sickens me.
What I do notice is that this debate is wide-spread, literally, by each post
finding its way to the other political and religious boards, so I am strongly
inclined to respectfully replay to other posts in an objective, non-degrading,
and faithful manner.
I unfortunately cannot say the same for the blatant anti-Catholics who seek
not to rebuke arguments but to proffer shame and disgrace. How dare you.
Alan Sindler
>
> Good Lord. :) I had no IDEA this message would've proved to grow this long,
> and longer, it seems, after I post this message. But for now I just want to
> observe some things.
>
> First of all, though this is probably biased, I've noticed that the ones
> taking all the personal and below-the-belt shots are the ones fighting for
> abortion. Personally, I've done my best to regulate my comments to strictly
> replies to other comments. I don't judge the moral character of anyone,
> Catholic or not, but I do debate on these boards.
Perhaps in this particular thread, although I know I have not personally done
so. I have noticed that it's often the "pro-life" folks that do the name
calling, such as "baby killers", or "you condone murder".
> Why do we debate? In my opinion, to try and formulate a greater understanding
> of the evaluations of actions, and to develope a novel moral insight into
> issues that are difficult to see past.
>
> Unfortunately (and I am guilty of this as well), the participants of the
> debate have polarized, and all of the "I don't knows" are turning into "I'm
> right and your wrongs."
The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic, yet these
same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical approach to
the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground when one
doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married couples.
2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have agreed to abide by
the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the woman to make
the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
> What I hope doesn't continue much more are the "I'm right and you're stupid,
> sick, retarded, immoral, uncaring, evil, hegemonistic bastards." Personally I
> don't see why these folk have any moral purpose at all in crusading on these
> boards. It sickens me.
I personally am friends with a number of people who are "pro-life", and I
would no sooner call them those names than I would strangers on the internet.
Yes, there are some who do so, but I hear it coming from both sides.
> What I do notice is that this debate is wide-spread, literally, by each post
> finding its way to the other political and religious boards, so I am strongly
> inclined to respectfully replay to other posts in an objective, non-degrading,
> and faithful manner.
>
> I unfortunately cannot say the same for the blatant anti-Catholics who seek
> not to rebuke arguments but to proffer shame and disgrace. How dare you.
Once again I can only speak for myself. I've heard the pro-lifer's chanting
"baby killer" to women walking into family planning clinics, even when they
aren't necessarily there for an abortion. I also haven't noticed any
"pro-life" buildings getting bombed, nor have a seen a hit list posted on the
internet of the names, addresses, and family members of "pro-life" activists,
like their have been of the pro-choice ones.
Just some observations.
Alan S.
--
-Any point of view is too small for the whole truth.
Kevin Workman
Alan Sindler wrote:
> Jeff Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > Good Lord. :) I had no IDEA this message would've proved to grow this long,
> > and longer, it seems, after I post this message. But for now I just want to
> > observe some things.
> >
> > First of all, though this is probably biased, I've noticed that the ones
> > taking all the personal and below-the-belt shots are the ones fighting for
> > abortion. Personally, I've done my best to regulate my comments to strictly
> > replies to other comments. I don't judge the moral character of anyone,
> > Catholic or not, but I do debate on these boards.
>
> Perhaps in this particular thread, although I know I have not personally done
> so. I have noticed that it's often the "pro-life" folks that do the name
> calling, such as "baby killers", or "you condone murder".
I agree, Alan, you have been very polite while firm in your beliefs. I have tried
to do the same in return and hope no one has taken anything I have said as an
insult.
Probably in a debate such as this people get frustrated because people have such
strong and differing opinions. You're probably not going to change anyone's mind
without coming face to face with them. I feel the only "baby killer" involved in an
abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to call that
person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more abortions just
to get back at you.
>
>
> > Why do we debate? In my opinion, to try and formulate a greater understanding
> > of the evaluations of actions, and to develope a novel moral insight into
> > issues that are difficult to see past.
> >
> > Unfortunately (and I am guilty of this as well), the participants of the
> > debate have polarized, and all of the "I don't knows" are turning into "I'm
> > right and your wrongs."
>
> The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
> 1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic, yet these
> same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical approach to
> the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground when one
> doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married couples.
I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care what the
Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth control, but they
don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it. If you follow the
teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control. However, there
are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth control. The
only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do anything. It's
all a matter of choice.
The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see banned are the ones
that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There is a human life at
stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
> 2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have agreed to abide by
> the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the woman to make
> the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked in a
crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for pregnancy
tests.
Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or what
their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average they were
four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of a four
month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to have that
baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical procedure?
They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond that.
>
>
> > What I hope doesn't continue much more are the "I'm right and you're stupid,
> > sick, retarded, immoral, uncaring, evil, hegemonistic bastards." Personally I
> > don't see why these folk have any moral purpose at all in crusading on these
> > boards. It sickens me.
>
> I personally am friends with a number of people who are "pro-life", and I
> would no sooner call them those names than I would strangers on the internet.
> Yes, there are some who do so, but I hear it coming from both sides.
Good for you. Names never get you anywhere.
>
>
> > What I do notice is that this debate is wide-spread, literally, by each post
> > finding its way to the other political and religious boards, so I am strongly
> > inclined to respectfully replay to other posts in an objective, non-degrading,
> > and faithful manner.
> >
> > I unfortunately cannot say the same for the blatant anti-Catholics who seek
> > not to rebuke arguments but to proffer shame and disgrace. How dare you.
>
> Once again I can only speak for myself. I've heard the pro-lifer's chanting
> "baby killer" to women walking into family planning clinics, even when they
> aren't necessarily there for an abortion. I also haven't noticed any
> "pro-life" buildings getting bombed, nor have a seen a hit list posted on the
> internet of the names, addresses, and family members of "pro-life" activists,
> like their have been of the pro-choice ones.
Bad things happen on both sides because you'll always have good and bad on both
sides.A pro-life woman was on the sidewalk in front of our local abortion clinic. A
car came over the curb attempting to run her over. Fortunately, someone saw it
coming and pulled her out of the way. It's pretty rare on both sides, but it does
happen. I don't condone any violence.
Julie
Alan Sindler
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:59:05 -0700, Jeff Zimmerman
> <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
>
> >Good Lord. :) I had no IDEA this message would've proved to grow this long,
> >and longer, it seems, after I post this message. But for now I just want to
> >observe some things.
> >First of all, though this is probably biased, I've noticed that the ones
> >taking all the personal and below-the-belt shots are the ones fighting for
> >abortion. Personally, I've done my best to regulate my comments to strictly
> >replies to other comments. I don't judge the moral character of anyone,
> >Catholic or not, but I do debate on these boards.
> >of the evaluations of actions, and to develope a novel moral insight into
> >issues that are difficult to see past.
> >Unfortunately (and I am guilty of this as well), the participants of the
> >debate have polarized, and all of the "I don't knows" are turning into "I'm
> >right and your wrongs."
> >sick, retarded, immoral, uncaring, evil, hegemonistic bastards." Personally I
> >don't see why these folk have any moral purpose at all in crusading on these
> >boards. It sickens me.
> >finding its way to the other political and religious boards, so I am strongly
> >inclined to respectfully replay to other posts in an objective, non-degrading,
> >and faithful manner.
> >
> >I unfortunately cannot say the same for the blatant anti-Catholics who seek
> >not to rebuke arguments but to proffer shame and disgrace. How dare you.
And how dare him get tweaked when he's posting his drivel to alt.agnosticism?
Alan
> Yawn.
I'll second that yawn.
Alan S.
Kalle Helenius
Kevin Workman <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:371C80BA...@fortwayne.infi.net...
Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they could
not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions (what, is
the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into having
abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
> > > Why do we debate? In my opinion, to try and formulate a greater
understanding
> > > of the evaluations of actions, and to develope a novel moral insight
into
> > > issues that are difficult to see past.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately (and I am guilty of this as well), the participants of
the
> > > debate have polarized, and all of the "I don't knows" are turning into
"I'm
> > > right and your wrongs."
> >
> > The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
> > 1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic, yet
these
> > same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical
approach to
> > the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground
when one
> > doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married couples.
>
> I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care
what the
> Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
control, but they
> don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I understand she
had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press she
got.
If you follow the
> teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control.
However, there
> are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth
control. The
> only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do
anything. It's
> all a matter of choice.
Then the RCC could just issue a formal ruling on the matter, and *leave it
to the followers to decide*, eh? Why the fuss?
> The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see banned are
the ones
> that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There is a
human life at
> stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
Then why are all forms of contraceptives not allowed for catholics?
> > 2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have agreed to
abide by
> > the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the woman
to make
> > the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
>
> My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked
in a
> crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for
pregnancy
> tests.
> Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or
what
> their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average
they were
> four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of
a four
> month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to
have that
> baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical
procedure?
You mean appeal to their emotions with the pictures of what the baby *could*
look like? The US is a hotbed of teenage pregnancy, because theists keep
getting fits over sex ed, and no sex ed means people don't know about the
facts. Why doesn't the RCC advance sex ed more vigorously then?
> They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond
that.
Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite until
it's born.
Ah well...
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
kalle.h...@907.aldata.fi , EAC Comfy chair and fluffy pillows
administrator.
remove a.a# to reply...BAAWA!
taxman.
Kalle Helenius <Kalle.H...@907.aldata.fi> wrote in message
news:ze5T2.334$Ln....@read2.inet.fi...
do doctors still take the hippocratic oath?
Because she didn't hand out condoms she was somehow forcing hindus to
avoid using them?
I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
> > They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond
> that.
>
> Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite until
> it's born.
And when its born it stops being a parasite? Doesn't a baby still depend
on others for food, shelter, etc ...?
Gary
FVF wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:19:09 -0400, "taxman." <taxm...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> <snipper>
>
> >I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
>
> The inquisition.
>
> "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and
> punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our
> own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I
> believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
> souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculious egotism".
> ---Einstein
Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
accept the idea of a God.
Alan Sindler
>
> FVF wrote:
<snip>
> > "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and
> > punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our
> > own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I
> > believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
> > souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculious egotism".
> > ---Einstein
>
> Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
> accept the idea of a God.
He accepted the idea of God, but not the fundamentalist idea. Read his other
writings on the subject.
Alan S.
--
Gary
Yes I know. that is why I said "the idea of a God".
Kevin Workman
Kalle Helenius wrote:
> Kevin Workman <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:371C80BA...@fortwayne.infi.net...
> >
> >
>
> > Probably in a debate such as this people get frustrated because people
> have such
> > strong and differing opinions. You're probably not going to change
> anyone's mind
> > without coming face to face with them. I feel the only "baby killer"
> involved in an
> > abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to
> call that
> > person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more
> abortions just
> > to get back at you.
>
> Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they could
> not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions (what, is
> the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into having
> abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
As a matter of fact, there are some doctors who would do this. Are you naive
enough to think that all doctors have ethics? I didn't namecall either. I put
the word babykiller in quotes so that you would realize that I don't use that
word to describe anyone. I don't throw insults around in that way.
> > I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care
> what the
> > Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
> control, but they
> > don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I understand she
> had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press she
> got.
Quote to me where this information was given. You will even bash someone who
tries to help people. Where were you when she was helping the poor?
>
>
> If you follow the
> > teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control.
> However, there
> > are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth
> control. The
> > only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do
> anything. It's
> > all a matter of choice.
>
> Then the RCC could just issue a formal ruling on the matter, and *leave it
> to the followers to decide*, eh? Why the fuss?
The formal ruling is NO. The fuss is that you are coming between God and his
creations. If you aren't Catholic, the Church's decision makes no difference to
you.
>
>
> > The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see banned are
> the ones
> > that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There is a
> human life at
> > stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
>
> Then why are all forms of contraceptives not allowed for catholics?
I already explained that.
> > My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked
> in a
> > crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for
> pregnancy
> > tests.
> > Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or
> what
> > their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average
> they were
> > four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of
> a four
> > month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to
> have that
> > baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical
> procedure?
>
> You mean appeal to their emotions with the pictures of what the baby *could*
> look like? The US is a hotbed of teenage pregnancy, because theists keep
> getting fits over sex ed, and no sex ed means people don't know about the
> facts. Why doesn't the RCC advance sex ed more vigorously then?
No not what the baby "could" look like. What the baby does look like. There
are ACTUAL pictures of babies in the mother's womb at all different stages in
the pregnancy. If you choose to turn a blind eye to them, that is your choice,
but you are missing out. I would never tell someone something that wasn't the
truth when it comes to a pregnancy.
NO SEX ED? You have got to be kidding! We are sex ed-ing the kids to death and
show me where it has gotten them. You give them free condoms. Does the
pregnancy rate go down? NO! The facts are that if you show a kid how to have
sex, he or she will. Show me one school where sex ed has helped. You won't be
able to. They are nonexistent. Where are these children's parents? They can
have sex, but they can't explain it and why they shouldn't have it (because they
could get pregnant or cause a pregnancy?) to them.
> > They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond
> that.
>
> Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite until
> it's born.
That's a new one. Everyone else has been arguing that it's the woman's body;
therefore, it's her right to choose. A parasite, hah! BTW, do you have any
children?
Julie
>
>
Kevin Workman
FVF wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:14:23 GMT, "Kalle Helenius"
> <Kalle.H...@907.aldata.fi> wrote:
>
> >
> >Kevin Workman <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
> >news:371C80BA...@fortwayne.infi.net...
> >> strong and differing opinions. You're probably not going to change
> >anyone's mind
> >> without coming face to face with them. I feel the only "baby killer"
> >involved in an
> >> abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to
> >call that
> >> person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more
> >abortions just
> >> to get back at you.
> >
> >Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they could
> >not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions (what, is
> >the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into having
> >abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
>
> This is an example of what I call 'shearing'. What religious leaders
> (shepherds) do to their near mindless minions (sheep).
>
> Isn't a mindset like this hard to believe? Put on a flowing white robe
> with gold threaded inlays, a large pointy hat, speak in polish, and
> WHAM, tell 'em what to think.
>
> >> I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care
> >what the
> >> Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
> >control, but they
> >> don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it.
> >
> >Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I understand she
> >had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press she
> >got.
> >
>
> The 'Truth' changes to best fit the circumstances. Thus speaketh the
> Kevin.
Nope, you're wrong. It's Julie. And thank you for the compliment.
>
>
>
Kevin Workman
FVF wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:19:09 -0400, "taxman." <taxm...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> <snipper>
>
> >I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
>
> The inquisition.
Wow, that was funny.
Kevin Workman
Shell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:27:22 -0500, Kevin Workman
> <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> But you see, this is what I object to. Your particular religion makes
> a claim that a fertilized egg is to be considered a human being, a
> *baby*. But others don't subscribe to the religion, nor to the claim.
> Still, you'd like to legislate what sort of birth control *I use* on
> the basis of your beliefs. I understand that you are between a rock
> and a hard place because you really do believe that a zygote is a
> child...but you don't have any right to legislate for me on that
> basis, because *I don't.* I feel for you in your dilemma, but not
> enough to let you legislate your (from my point of view) peculiar
> superstitions.
Where were all these Catholics when abortion was made legal? If you argue that I don't
have the right to legislate for you on that, then you shouldn't have legislated for the
Catholics either. When abortion became legal, I became an outcast. I have seven
children and I can't count the number of times someone has walked up to me and said,
"Don't you know what causes that?" or "WHY would you want seven children?" or even "What
makes you think you should be able to have seven children?" There are more. They just
sicken me to repeat them. I am legislated to every day by these people and they are
everywhere. It may not have been you. I am not accusing you. It's just a fact. I
don't know where people think they have the right to dictate to me, but they criticize me
because I try to defend the life of a helpless baby. You're right, I do believe it's a
life and always will. Therefore, it will do us no good to debate that issue.
>
>
> >
> >> 2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have agreed to abide by
> >> the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the woman to make
> >> the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
> >
> >My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked in a
> >crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for pregnancy
> >tests.
> >Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or what
> >their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average they were
> >four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of a four
> >month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to have that
> >baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical procedure?
> >They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond that.
>
> On *average* four months!?? Oh, okay, you didn't specify that of women
> who actually got abortions, the average was four months. The average
> is of all women who came into the "crisis pregancy" clinic.
>
> Indeed, the fact that they were four months along or so might have
> been the reason that this was now a "crisis" to them.
>
> And...you know that people *are* told of what an abortion consists of,
> even in straightforward "abortion clinics?" The information is fairly
> complete and accurate, as far as I can tell, at all the clinics I know
> of. It's not surprising that people making first contact for a
> pregnancy test wouldn't have that information in advance, though. Why
> would that make you think that these women were therefore making an
> uninformed choice?
Then why do abortion clinics and women's rights groups always fight legislation requiring
informed consent?
Julie
Alan Sindler
>
> Alan Sindler wrote:
>
> > Jeff Zimmerman wrote:
> > > First of all, though this is probably biased, I've noticed that the ones
> > > taking all the personal and below-the-belt shots are the ones fighting for
> > > abortion. Personally, I've done my best to regulate my comments to strictly
> > > replies to other comments. I don't judge the moral character of anyone,
> > > Catholic or not, but I do debate on these boards.
> >
> > Perhaps in this particular thread, although I know I have not personally done
> > so. I have noticed that it's often the "pro-life" folks that do the name
> > calling, such as "baby killers", or "you condone murder".
>
> I agree, Alan, you have been very polite while firm in your beliefs. I have tried
> to do the same in return and hope no one has taken anything I have said as an
> insult.
Thank you. I haven't taken offense at what you've said. Obviously you know I
don't necessarily agree, but no offense taken.
> Probably in a debate such as this people get frustrated because people have such
> strong and differing opinions. You're probably not going to change anyone's mind
> without coming face to face with them. I feel the only "baby killer" involved in an
> abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to call that
> person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more abortions just
> to get back at you.
Well, I was with you up until your last statement. Do you really believe
doctors will try to perform more abortions just to get back at you? Really
believe that??
<snip>
> > The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
> > 1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic, yet these
> > same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical approach to
> > the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground when one
> > doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married couples.
>
> I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care what the
> Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth control, but they
> don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it. If you follow the
> teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control. However, there
> are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth control. The
> only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do anything. It's
> all a matter of choice.
I just find it disingenuous to be against birth control *and* abortion. What
you believe is certainly your business, but since this is a public debate, the
irony hasn't been lost on me, I was hoping the irony of this stance would dawn
on you. I'm just perplexed how you can be against birth control, though, as I
said, it's your business...unless you try legislating it, then it becomes mind
as well.
<snip>
> My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked in a
> crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for pregnancy
> tests.
> Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or what
> their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average they were
> four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of a four
> month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to have that
> baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical procedure?
> They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond that.
I'm all for woman being fully informed. I'm not for blocking the entrance to a
clinic, or yelling at women who enter, or legislating against their right to choose.
I'm not at all implying this is what you condone, just making a observation here.
<snip>
> > > I unfortunately cannot say the same for the blatant anti-Catholics who seek
> > > not to rebuke arguments but to proffer shame and disgrace. How dare you.
> >
> > Once again I can only speak for myself. I've heard the pro-lifer's chanting
> > "baby killer" to women walking into family planning clinics, even when they
> > aren't necessarily there for an abortion. I also haven't noticed any
> > "pro-life" buildings getting bombed, nor have a seen a hit list posted on the
> > internet of the names, addresses, and family members of "pro-life" activists,
> > like their have been of the pro-choice ones.
>
> Bad things happen on both sides because you'll always have good and bad on both
> sides.A pro-life woman was on the sidewalk in front of our local abortion clinic. A
> car came over the curb attempting to run her over. Fortunately, someone saw it
> coming and pulled her out of the way. It's pretty rare on both sides, but it does
> happen. I don't condone any violence.
>
> Julie
Julie, with all due respect, the violence on the "pro-life" side is much more
prevalent. How many clinics have been bombed or vandalized? How many doctors
have been murdered or at least threatened, compared to the other way around? I
am glad to hear you don't condone any violence, we certainly agree on this.
I know Catholics take a different stance on this issue, and as such, you will
hold to your views. As you noted previously, I'm not Catholic, so I don't
share that point of view.
Regards,
Deslea R. Judd
> abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to
call that
> person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more
>abortions just to get back at you.
>
>Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they
could
>not care less about your namecalling,
I agree that this idea is not well-thought-out; but it does raise an
interesting issue, that of the practices of abortion service providers.
>let alone do more abortions (what, is
>the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into having
>abortions?)
Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
to the end of getting the woman to abort. Why? Two reasons.
(1) An abortion = income for abortion service providers.
(2) Fetal tissue = income for abortion service providers (by selling it to
researchers).
An interesting note is that abortion proponents and also researchers (who
use fetal tissue) are actively lobbying at a political level to legislate
against *therapeutic* surgery on the foetus (such as those innovative
surgeries in utero to correct heart defects, etc). Why? The debates in
academic/medical journals explicitly state that once there is a widespread
acceptance of the foetus as a *patient* (rather than a bunch of cells) women
will cease to view abortion as their right. Abortion will probably remain
legal but a large proportions of women will not use it, who previously would
have. Not only do abortionists kill the foetuses on the operating table,
they try to deny life-saving surgery to wanted foetuses. It is not true
that abortionists have no vested interest in women aborting. The abortion
industry is *huge*.
Deslea
Michael Painter
Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>
> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
Name and sources of these testimonies please.
On a side note what happens to the "souls" of these "children" if they are
imbibed with one at the moment of creation?
Can they go to heaven?
How do these souls differ from the soul of anyone not saved?
How do these souls differ from someone who experienced life?
If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven is
infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
Why oppose abortion in that case?
If they do get to heaven that means that for every human that is born and
gets to heaven there will be way more than 5 souls that got there for free?
Will you feel out of place?
Shell
<kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Alan Sindler wrote:
>> The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
>> 1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic, yet these
>> same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical approach to
>> the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground when one
>> doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married couples.
>
>I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you care what the
>Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth control, but they
>don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it. If you follow the
>teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control. However, there
>are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth control. The
>only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do anything. It's
>all a matter of choice.
But Catholics do move around in the world, and make demands of its
school boards, and elect its members to positions where they can make
both abortion and birth control less available to people in other
countries, far away, awash in overpopulation. It's not only Catholics,
though...although Baptists and Pentecostalists can theoretically use
birth control, the fundamentalist lobby tends to frown on *funding* it
about as much as they frown on abortion. I dunno why.
>The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see banned are the ones
>that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There is a human life at
>stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
But you see, this is what I object to. Your particular religion makes
a claim that a fertilized egg is to be considered a human being, a
*baby*. But others don't subscribe to the religion, nor to the claim.
Still, you'd like to legislate what sort of birth control *I use* on
the basis of your beliefs. I understand that you are between a rock
and a hard place because you really do believe that a zygote is a
child...but you don't have any right to legislate for me on that
basis, because *I don't.* I feel for you in your dilemma, but not
enough to let you legislate your (from my point of view) peculiar
superstitions.
>
>> 2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have agreed to abide by
>> the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the woman to make
>> the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
>
>My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I worked in a
>crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for pregnancy
>tests.
>Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an abortion or what
>their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the average they were
>four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a picture of a four
>month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly wanted to have that
>baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical procedure?
>They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes beyond that.
On *average* four months!?? Oh, okay, you didn't specify that of women
who actually got abortions, the average was four months. The average
is of all women who came into the "crisis pregancy" clinic.
Indeed, the fact that they were four months along or so might have
been the reason that this was now a "crisis" to them.
And...you know that people *are* told of what an abortion consists of,
even in straightforward "abortion clinics?" The information is fairly
complete and accurate, as far as I can tell, at all the clinics I know
of. It's not surprising that people making first contact for a
pregnancy test wouldn't have that information in advance, though. Why
would that make you think that these women were therefore making an
uninformed choice?
Shell
OldguyTeck
Deslea R. Judd wrote in message <7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au>...
>>I feel the only "baby killer" involved in an
>> abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good
to
>call that
>> person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform more
>>abortions just to get back at you.
>>
>>Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they
>could
>>not care less about your namecalling,
>
>interesting issue, that of the practices of abortion service providers.
>
>>the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into
having
>>abortions?)
>
understand
>from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once
they
>come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is
directed
would seem
Ed................(Oldgyteck) †
Shell
<kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Shell wrote:
>> But you see, this is what I object to. Your particular religion makes
>> a claim that a fertilized egg is to be considered a human being, a
>> *baby*. But others don't subscribe to the religion, nor to the claim.
>> Still, you'd like to legislate what sort of birth control *I use* on
>> the basis of your beliefs. I understand that you are between a rock
>> and a hard place because you really do believe that a zygote is a
>> child...but you don't have any right to legislate for me on that
>> basis, because *I don't.* I feel for you in your dilemma, but not
>> enough to let you legislate your (from my point of view) peculiar
>> superstitions.
>
>Where were all these Catholics when abortion was made legal? If you argue that I don't
>have the right to legislate for you on that, then you shouldn't have legislated for the
>Catholics either.
It was a Supreme Court decision. It was not legislated. That would be
why legislation would be required to make abortion illegal again. The
Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to make these decisions
for herself. It did not change the law, it interpreted it. If it
reversed its decision tomorrow, I couldn't say anyone had "legislated"
for me on this matter.
> When abortion became legal, I became an outcast. I have seven
>children and I can't count the number of times someone has walked up to me and said,
>"Don't you know what causes that?" or "WHY would you want seven children?" or even "What
>makes you think you should be able to have seven children?" There are more. They just
>sicken me to repeat them. I am legislated to every day by these people and they are
>everywhere. It may not have been you. I am not accusing you. It's just a fact. I
>don't know where people think they have the right to dictate to me, but they criticize me
>because I try to defend the life of a helpless baby. You're right, I do believe it's a
>life and always will. Therefore, it will do us no good to debate that issue.
No. I am always optimistic enough to think that there might be some
play at the extreme ends (sure, a five month fetus is a human, but a
fertilized egg isn't) but that's obviously misplaced.
I don't think anyone could possibly be suggesting that you should have
aborted any of your children. It's more likely a birth control thing,
not an abortion thing. The Pill became widely available around that
time, eh?
And anyway, commenting, especially condemning, someone for the number
of children she has is about the rudest of personal comments. Tell 'em
to eat a peach.
snip
>> And...you know that people *are* told of what an abortion consists of,
>> even in straightforward "abortion clinics?" The information is fairly
>> complete and accurate, as far as I can tell, at all the clinics I know
>> of. It's not surprising that people making first contact for a
>> pregnancy test wouldn't have that information in advance, though. Why
>> would that make you think that these women were therefore making an
>> uninformed choice?
>
>Then why do abortion clinics and women's rights groups always fight legislation requiring
>informed consent?
Got any cites? I'd have to read the legislation before I'd venture a
guess.
Shell
Gary
FVF wrote:
<snip>
> >Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
> >accept the idea of a God.
>
> Perhaps your understanding is flawed? What is your source of this
> information? Perhaps the person that 'shared' this with you had a
> vested interest in YOUR belief?
It was from a book about the major discoveries of our century. Einstein
felt that the Big Bang, if proven, would be evidence of the existance of
God. As you may know, he opposed this theory in the beginning; what you
may not know is that he opposed it for the very reason I stated above.
that is, he felt that proving the Big Bang would lend credence to the
belief in God. He eventually accepted the Big Bang theory, of course,
and he also came to accept at least the possiblity of the existance of
God. However, he never accepted the idea of a "personal" God such as
Christ conveys.
> And combine that, with the knowledge that belief in something does
> not necessarily make it a 'fact'. Otherwise the koran would be your
> bible of choice as the muslims outnumber the catholics.
Lack of belief in something does not make it cease to exist either.
> Double and, the winners write the history, and since the christians
> were the most savage and the bloodiest, they won. And were in charge
> of writing the history.
So I've heard. At least, I keep hearing this from people who can't prove
what they want to prove from history.
Gary
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:22:19 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >FVF wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
> >> >accept the idea of a God.
> >>
> >> Perhaps your understanding is flawed? What is your source of this
> >> information? Perhaps the person that 'shared' this with you had a
> >> vested interest in YOUR belief?
> >
> >It was from a book about the major discoveries of our century. Einstein
> >felt that the Big Bang, if proven, would be evidence of the existance of
> >God. As you may know, he opposed this theory in the beginning; what you
> >may not know is that he opposed it for the very reason I stated above.
> >that is, he felt that proving the Big Bang would lend credence to the
> >belief in God. He eventually accepted the Big Bang theory, of course,
> >and he also came to accept at least the possiblity of the existance of
> >God. However, he never accepted the idea of a "personal" God such as
> >Christ conveys.
>
The same place you're universe without a God came from
> >> And combine that, with the knowledge that belief in something does
> >> not necessarily make it a 'fact'. Otherwise the koran would be your
> >> bible of choice as the muslims outnumber the catholics.
> >
> >Lack of belief in something does not make it cease to exist either.
>
> Eh, ah, sure it could, if everybody lacked the belief. Of course what
> you said doesn't make sense, because if it doesn't exist to begin
> with, then you are correct, it can't cease to exist.
If you and I and everyone in the world decided we did not want to
believe in other planets since we can't see them with our own eyes
(lacking a telescope), would then cease to exist because we decided not
to believe in them? Of course not. Similarly, if the whole world stops
believing in God when He really does exist then that means nothing other
than we don't have a grasp on reality since He does exist.
The reverse is also true, of course.
> Hee.
>
> >> Double and, the winners write the history, and since the christians
> >> were the most savage and the bloodiest, they won. And were in charge
> >> of writing the history.
> >
> >So I've heard. At least, I keep hearing this from people who can't prove
> >what they want to prove from history.
>
> Depends upon what you WANT to find out. You want your version of
> history, go to school. You want an unbiased version of history, turn
> to musty and dusty old academia.
To some extent thesis often true. However, speaking for myself, I didn't
start out being a devout christian and I had no intention of becoming
one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
biblically, and morally. I, like you, have my biases of course; however,
I didn't start out being biased for Catholicism. Academia is not an
unbiased version of history since every individual sees things through
their own biases. This doesn't mean that it is impossible to have an
idea of true events and how they occurred. It just means you have to
realize that every writer has their shortcoming's.
Del
> FVF wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:22:19 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >FVF wrote:
> > ><snip>
> > >> >Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
> > >> >accept the idea of a God.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps your understanding is flawed? What is your source of this
> > >> information? Perhaps the person that 'shared' this with you had a
> > >> vested interest in YOUR belief?
> > >
> > >It was from a book about the major discoveries of our century. Einstein
> > >felt that the Big Bang, if proven, would be evidence of the existance of
> > >God. As you may know, he opposed this theory in the beginning; what you
> > >may not know is that he opposed it for the very reason I stated above.
> > >that is, he felt that proving the Big Bang would lend credence to the
> > >belief in God. He eventually accepted the Big Bang theory, of course,
> > >and he also came to accept at least the possiblity of the existance of
> > >God. However, he never accepted the idea of a "personal" God such as
> > >Christ conveys.
> >
> > So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
>
> The same place you're universe without a God came from
Wow. God came from the BB.
> > >> And combine that, with the knowledge that belief in something does
> > >> not necessarily make it a 'fact'. Otherwise the koran would be your
> > >> bible of choice as the muslims outnumber the catholics.
> > >
> > >Lack of belief in something does not make it cease to exist either.
> >
> > Eh, ah, sure it could, if everybody lacked the belief. Of course what
> > you said doesn't make sense, because if it doesn't exist to begin
> > with, then you are correct, it can't cease to exist.
>
> If you and I and everyone in the world decided we did not want to
> believe in other planets since we can't see them with our own eyes
> (lacking a telescope),
False.
would then cease to exist because we decided not
> to believe in them? Of course not. Similarly, if the whole world stops
> believing in God when He really does exist then that means nothing other
> than we don't have a grasp on reality since He does exist.
Another theist abuses analogy. I can show that the
planets exist. Do the same for your god instead of
merely feigning certainty that he exists.
> The reverse is also true, of course.
>
>
> > Hee.
> >
> > >> Double and, the winners write the history, and since the christians
> > >> were the most savage and the bloodiest, they won. And were in charge
> > >> of writing the history.
> > >
> > >So I've heard. At least, I keep hearing this from people who can't prove
> > >what they want to prove from history.
> >
> > Depends upon what you WANT to find out. You want your version of
> > history, go to school. You want an unbiased version of history, turn
> > to musty and dusty old academia.
>
> To some extent thesis often true. However, speaking for myself, I didn't
> start out being a devout christian
No one did. We all started out as atheists.
and I had no intention of becoming
> one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
> biblically, and morally.
And yet I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
to such claims (except as straw men, offered as
easy targets by the proponents of your religion).
Deslea R. Judd
>
Who's pushing a Borg idea of Catholics now? LOL!
Seven Of Nine (aka Deslea, in a silly mood)
Deslea R. Judd
>>
>>Seven Of Nine (aka Deslea, in a silly mood)
>
*best Seven voice* Acronyms are irrelevant.
Deslea, who should be writing her research paper
Richard E Reboulet
>
>
>FVF wrote:
><snip>
>> >Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
>> >accept the idea of a God.
>>
Einstein NEVER accepted the idea of a personal god who had any
interest in us.
He DID believe that the universe was the result of some intelligence.
That is why he, INCORRECTLY, never could accept Niehls Bohr's quantum
theory which posits that components of matter are in motion in
complete randomness. See quantum theory for a better explanation.
Ths cause Einstein's famous quote, "God does not play dice."
Shell
<drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>to the end of getting the woman to abort. Why? Two reasons.
>
>(1) An abortion = income for abortion service providers.
>(2) Fetal tissue = income for abortion service providers (by selling it to
>researchers).
I would like a cite for the testimonies of staff, if you've got one.
And...is there a money-based market for "fetal tissue"? Have you got a
cite for that?
I'd like to know, it's not really a "prove it!" kinda thing.
>
>An interesting note is that abortion proponents and also researchers (who
>use fetal tissue) are actively lobbying at a political level to legislate
>against *therapeutic* surgery on the foetus (such as those innovative
>surgeries in utero to correct heart defects, etc). Why? The debates in
>academic/medical journals explicitly state that once there is a widespread
>acceptance of the foetus as a *patient* (rather than a bunch of cells) women
>will cease to view abortion as their right.
I'd like to propose another possible reason why surgery on fetuses
might be problematic. Surgery on the fetus necessarily implies some
sort of surgical procedure on the mother, I'm assuming. What would be
the legal/moral status of a woman who declined to have the procedure?
Could someone be constrained to undergo surgery on behalf of a fetus?
How would you feel about that?
>Abortion will probably remain
>legal but a large proportions of women will not use it, who previously would
>have. Not only do abortionists kill the foetuses on the operating table,
>they try to deny life-saving surgery to wanted foetuses. It is not true
>that abortionists have no vested interest in women aborting. The abortion
>industry is *huge*.
These conspiracy theories! So unlikely...is there some monolithic
"abortionists" all of whom only have the best interests of abortion
itself in mind? I must admit that I doubt it.
Dare I ask for...evidence?
Shell
Kalle Helenius
>
>
> Kalle Helenius wrote:
>
> > Kevin Workman <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
> > news:371C80BA...@fortwayne.infi.net...
> > >
> > >
> >
people
> > have such
> > > strong and differing opinions. You're probably not going to
change
> > anyone's mind
> > > without coming face to face with them. I feel the only "baby
killer"
> > involved in an
> > > abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any
good to
> > call that
> > > person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to perform
more
> > abortions just
> > > to get back at you.
> >
> > Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you,
they could
> > not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions
(what, is
> > the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into
having
> > abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
>
Names please. And better have your facts straight, or you might commit
slander.
Are you naive
> enough to think that all doctors have ethics? I didn't namecall
either. I put
> the word babykiller in quotes so that you would realize that I don't
use that
> word to describe anyone. I don't throw insults around in that way.
I'm not naive enough to think that all doctors have impeccable work
ethics, but the profession is rather tightly controlled, and offenses
such as i described would result in the dismissing the doctor and their
license being revoked in rather short order. I didn't accuse you of
namecalling. Try reading a bit more carefully next time, i was referring
to your statement: "I feel the only "baby killer" involved in an
abortion is the one performing the abortion, and it won't do any good to
call that person names. It will only strengthen their resolve to
perform more abortions just to get back at you."
> > > I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do
you care
> > what the
> > > Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
> > control, but they
> > > don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it.
> >
> > Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I
understand she
> > had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press
she
> > got.
>
> Quote to me where this information was given. You will even bash
someone who
> tries to help people. Where were you when she was helping the poor?
The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice By
Christopher Hitchens. Read it. Very enlightening. She would hold medical
treatment from pregnant women until they would agree to have the baby,
amongst other things, like refusing to administer pain killers, because
suffering was beautiful. And you are about to saint this woman. LOL!
Helping the poor? She managed to help amazingly few people considering
the amount of funds and publicity she gained. She received huge
donations of which very little money *ever* were put to use helping the
poor. I do my share, BTW.
> >
> >
> > If you follow the
> > > teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth
control.
> > However, there
> > > are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use
birth
> > control. The
> > > only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do
> > anything. It's
> > > all a matter of choice.
> >
> > Then the RCC could just issue a formal ruling on the matter, and
*leave it
> > to the followers to decide*, eh? Why the fuss?
>
> The formal ruling is NO. The fuss is that you are coming between God
and his
> creations. If you aren't Catholic, the Church's decision makes no
difference to
> you.
It does when *all* aid to you is held back because of this. And i'm not
coming between a man and something that doesn't exist. Why does the damn
pro-life camp try to push god into an issue that has diddly to do with
him? You try to get laws in effect so that everbody, regardless of your
faith, creed, or indeed opinions are dictated to you by church policy.
Pfeh.
> >
> >
> > > The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see
banned are
> > the ones
> > > that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There
is a
> > human life at
> > > stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
> >
> > Then why are all forms of contraceptives not allowed for catholics?
>
> I already explained that.
Yes, even the possibility of a life is more important to you than a life
already in your pocket. Tell me, why was the catholic church criticized
against very strongly in the Kairo population conference? If the planet
was catholic, we'd have 20 billion humans and catastrophy in our hands
already.
> No not what the baby "could" look like. What the baby does look like.
It's hardly possible to show pictures of a fetus in the future, now is
it? It's someone elses baby, not the mothers. Are you showing any
pictures of deformed babies to the mothers? Thought not.
There
> are ACTUAL pictures of babies in the mother's womb at all different
stages in
> the pregnancy. If you choose to turn a blind eye to them, that is
your choice,
> but you are missing out.
On what?
I would never tell someone something that wasn't the
> truth when it comes to a pregnancy.
The whole truth, and nothing but the truth? It is very true that a baby
elicits emotional responses to it, especially from someone who has lots
of hormones geared towards having one. It's somewhat a part of us.
Emotions however, have nothing to do with reason. Are you showing her
graphs of the average income of the average single mother? Are you
showing her the percentages of single mothers abandoning the child? In
short, are you giving any facts with the emotional BS?
> NO SEX ED? You have got to be kidding! We are sex ed-ing the kids to
death and
> show me where it has gotten them.
Are you? When i graduated from an US highschool, i never received even
*one* lecture on sex-ed. Why was that? The only proven way of reducing
unwanted pregnancies and population boom is education.
You give them free condoms. Does the
> pregnancy rate go down? NO! The facts are that if you show a kid how
to have
> sex, he or she will.
Show a kid how to have sex? Oh deary me. Don't you ever think that kids
are that stupid, that you need to show them about sex for them to know
about it. Oh, they know alright. I'm not talking about only the
mechanical education, they need to educated about responsibility as
well. Only your school system is about as irresponsible as can be,
turning out droves and droves of people who can hardly read, or point
out canada on the map. Why is it, that there is a direct correlation
between literacy and unwanted pregnancy numbers? Nobody is stupid to
begin with, they are allowed to become stupid.
Personal sideissue. I was a somewhat precocious kid. I had my first
sexual experience when i was 11, and by the time i was 13, i was having
sex regularly. I never got nobody pregnant. I've never had an STD. Why?
Because our school system recognises this and starts giving out sex
education to people beginning on 3rd grade. I seem to remember that you
don't start until people are in their junior year in highschool. LOL!
There are probably no virgins left in junior grade. If you try to
repress or ignore the sexuality of your kids, it's going to come back
and bite you on the ass. Too bad that the kids will suffer as well.
> Show me one school where sex ed has helped. You won't be
> able to.
It's not the quantity, but the quality and timing.
They are nonexistent. Where are these children's parents? They can
> have sex, but they can't explain it and why they shouldn't have it
(because they
> could get pregnant or cause a pregnancy?) to them.
Que? That sentence does not seem to make sense.
> > > They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes
beyond
> > that.
> >
> > Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite
until
> > it's born.
>
> That's a new one. Everyone else has been arguing that it's the
woman's body;
> therefore, it's her right to choose. A parasite, hah! BTW, do you
have any
> children?
It is a parasite. It fills every description of parasite. It is exactly
that. A woman can choose not to use her body to house this parasite. And
no, i don't have any children, nor do i plan to ever have any. Seems to
me that now you are going to say that because i don't have any kids, i
can't know what i'm talking about. Well, maybe it's you that mixes
emotions in with the reasoning.
--
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Kalle Helenius
>
>
> Shell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:27:22 -0500, Kevin Workman
> > <kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > But you see, this is what I object to. Your particular religion
makes
> > a claim that a fertilized egg is to be considered a human being, a
> > *baby*. But others don't subscribe to the religion, nor to the
claim.
> > Still, you'd like to legislate what sort of birth control *I use* on
> > the basis of your beliefs. I understand that you are between a rock
> > and a hard place because you really do believe that a zygote is a
> > child...but you don't have any right to legislate for me on that
> > basis, because *I don't.* I feel for you in your dilemma, but not
> > enough to let you legislate your (from my point of view) peculiar
> > superstitions.
>
> Where were all these Catholics when abortion was made legal? If you
argue that I don't
> have the right to legislate for you on that, then you shouldn't have
legislated for the
> Catholics either.
But we did! Show me a catholic that was made to have an abortion against
her will! *That's* the whole point! People have a *choice*, for crying
out loud! You can try to change a persons mind, but you shouldn't try to
make their mind *for* them. *That* is the crux of the issue!
When abortion became legal, I became an outcast. I have seven
> children and I can't count the number of times someone has walked up
to me and said,
> "Don't you know what causes that?" or "WHY would you want seven
children?" or even "What
> makes you think you should be able to have seven children?" There are
more. They just
> sicken me to repeat them. I am legislated to every day by these
people and they are
> everywhere.
What law legislates against you? Frankly, i don't understand a need to
have seven children myself. It's your prerogative, of course, but to me
it seems a little irresponsible. My opinion of course. Heh, by the way,
the "they are everywhere" comment is actually right. It's the majority
that gets to have it their way, and the majority apparently wanted
abortion.
It may not have been you. I am not accusing you. It's just a fact.
I
> don't know where people think they have the right to dictate to me,
but they criticize me
> because I try to defend the life of a helpless baby. You're right, I
do believe it's a
> life and always will. Therefore, it will do us no good to debate that
issue.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> 2) Abortion is legal. Whether folks like it or not, we have
agreed to abide by
> > >> the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the
woman to make
> > >> the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
> > >
> > >My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I
worked in a
> > >crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come
for pregnancy
> > >tests.
> > >Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an
abortion or what
> > >their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the
average they were
> > >four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a
picture of a four
> > >month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly
wanted to have that
> > >baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this
surgical procedure?
> > >They call cutting out wisdom teeth surgical. Certainly this goes
beyond that.
> >
> > On *average* four months!?? Oh, okay, you didn't specify that of
women
> > who actually got abortions, the average was four months. The average
> > is of all women who came into the "crisis pregancy" clinic.
> >
> > Indeed, the fact that they were four months along or so might have
> > been the reason that this was now a "crisis" to them.
> >
> > And...you know that people *are* told of what an abortion consists
of,
> > even in straightforward "abortion clinics?" The information is
fairly
> > complete and accurate, as far as I can tell, at all the clinics I
know
> > of. It's not surprising that people making first contact for a
> > pregnancy test wouldn't have that information in advance, though.
Why
> > would that make you think that these women were therefore making an
> > uninformed choice?
>
> Then why do abortion clinics and women's rights groups always fight
legislation requiring
> informed consent?
Because underaged mothers can't give one, and the biggest risk group
16-21 falls into that category.
Deslea R. Judd
FVF wrote in message <37350226....@news.alt.net>...
>
>Ahhh, come on seven, just one kiss.....
*best Seven voice* Doctor, I do not understand these strange mating rituals
engaged in by the crew. What is this "kissing"? It has no inherent
reproductive quality. It is irrelevant.
*best Doctor voice* Allow me to introduce you to the writings of St
Augustine, Seven. You may find yourself on common ground.
Deslea, who is Catholic, so can joke at our own expense
Gary
FVF wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>
> >> So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
> >
> >The same place you're universe without a God came from
>
> And where is that?
From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
going to expand forever.
Gary
Del wrote:
<snip>
> and I had no intention of becoming
> > one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
> > biblically, and morally.
>
> And yet I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
> to such claims (except as straw men, offered as
> easy targets by the proponents of your religion).
Your arrogance is underwhelming. The typical atheistic response, usually
by an atheist who hasn't done much reading in philosophy or theology, is
"you haven't even opened your mind to reality" or "your brainwashed and
therefore can't be thinking right" or some other garbage. It is arrogant
because it assumes anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid,
ignorant, or brainwashed.
Richard E Reboulet
>From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
>being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
>going to expand forever.
From SECRET MELODY by Trinh Xuan Thuan, Professor of Astronomy at the
University of Virginia.
A SPACE IN CREATION
Space did not exist before the Big Bang. You must not ask where, in
this unchanging space, you can find the famous point from which
everything was born, the location of the primordial explosion. This
question which could be asked in a Newtonian universe, is devoid of
meaning in the Big Bang universe. Space did not exist before the Big
Bang. Since the primordial explosion, it is constantly being created.
Michael Painter
Kalle Helenius <kalle.h...@907.aldata.fi> wrote in message
news:iFDT2.132$l34...@read2.inet.fi...
> > >
> > > Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you,
> they could
> > > not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions
> (what, is
> > > the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into
> having
> > > abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
> >
> > As a matter of fact, there are some doctors who would do this.
>
> Names please. And better have your facts straight, or you might commit
> slander.
Names are neveer withcoming with statements like this. "I heard it from a
friend who..." is the usual answer.
> > > > I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do
> you care
> > > what the
> > > > Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
> > > control, but they
> > > > don't force anyone (not even Catholics) to avoid using it.
They use the same force that most religions use. Do it and you go to hell.
> > > Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I
> understand she
> > > had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press
> she
> > > got.
> >
> > Quote to me where this information was given. You will even bash
> someone who
> > tries to help people. Where were you when she was helping the poor?
>
> The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice By
> Christopher Hitchens. Read it. Very enlightening. She would hold medical
> treatment from pregnant women until they would agree to have the baby,
> amongst other things, like refusing to administer pain killers, because
> suffering was beautiful. And you are about to saint this woman. LOL!
> Helping the poor? She managed to help amazingly few people considering
> the amount of funds and publicity she gained. She received huge
> donations of which very little money *ever* were put to use helping the
> poor. I do my share, BTW.
> > > > The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see
> banned are
> > > the ones
> > > > that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There
> is a
> > > human life at
> > > > stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
> > >
> > > Then why are all forms of contraceptives not allowed for catholics?
> >
> > I already explained that.
If the explanation was based on a one liner in the bible when Onan dumped
his seed on the ground and god killed him for it then you got the right
explanation.
>
> > > > My biggest problem is that she rarely makes an informed choice. I
> worked
> > > in a
> > > > crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come
> for
> > > pregnancy
> > > > tests.
> > > > Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an
> abortion or
> > > what
> > > > their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the
> average
> > > they were
> > > > four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a
> picture of
> > > a four
> > > > month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly
> wanted to
> > > have that
> > > > baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this
> surgical
> > > procedure?
Crisis pregnacy centers are usually code works for fundamentalists trying to
talk someone out of an abortion. These are the same fundies who voted for
cutting welfare of all kinds.
This means the woman will probably never be able toproperly support the
child and medical attention will be poor to none.
The right to life ends at birth for these people.
***************
> >
> > That's a new one. Everyone else has been arguing that it's the
> woman's body;
> > therefore, it's her right to choose. A parasite, hah! BTW, do you
> have any
> > children?
It's not a new one, your ignorance of the truth is not new either.
One of your good christian cohorts accused me of crawling out from under a
rock when I asked what happened to a "soul" between the time of
fertizalation and birth if it died.
He said it was damned and inferred this was true until the child could be
"saved".
What's the view of others? If true this means 83% plus of all souls are
damned just by being created by god.
Since you are ignorant of a fetus being a parasite you probably are ignorant
of the fact that 5 out of 6 fertilized eggs never make it past the embryo
stage.
js...@juno.com
FvsF wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:03:50 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >FVF wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
> >> >
> >> >The same place you're universe without a God came from
> >>
> >> And where is that?
> >
> >From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
> >being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
> >going to expand forever.
>
> If your god came form no where and nothing, how can it exist?
That is a good question. In the case of God it is a spiritual question
and so our understanding of the physical universe does not help us.
However, for those of you that are atheists, this is exactly what you
should be asking about the existance of the universe. Because, right now
the theory is that it came from no where and from nothing, and that
flies in the face of the physical laws of the universe as we understand
them.
If you can't believe God can always exist or come from nothing how can
you believe the universe did?
js...@juno.com
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
>
> In <371F8F04...@juno.com>
> js...@juno.com etched into the ether:
>
> >If you can't believe God can always exist or come from nothing how can
> >you believe the universe did?
>
> If you can believe god always existed or had no cause, why can't you believe
> the universe did?
Because science indicates to us that matter must have an origin. It is
illogicial to think matter came into existance from nothing or always
existed. Science says no such thing about the spiritual relm since it is
not
Alan Sindler
Science says nothing about the spiritual realm, period. It's no more illogical
to think that matter came into existence from nothing than to believe a
spiritual being came into existence from nothing. First you have to prove the
spiritual. Can you?
taxman.
Alan Sindler <als...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:371FC137...@earthlink.net...
I can try. In order to prove the supernatural I suppose we would need a
well
documented case with numerous credible witnesses. Does Fatima fall into
that category? I haven't done very much research into Fatima but I know the
general story of 70,000 people seeing the "dance of the sun". I have been
trying to find skeptic articles concerning Fatima which are online but I
haven't
been able to find one yet that was very in depth. The closest I came was
one
article on apparitions in general which alluded to a book which made the
claim of "mass hallucination". I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a
"mass hallucination" or how the determination is made. If you can find
anything online or offline which could explain Fatima from a skeptic's point
of view I would love to read it.
Here is that page I found: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/app-shrine.htm
taxman.
Deslea R. Judd
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:23:23 +1000, "Deslea R. Judd"
><drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>>from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>>come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>>to the end of getting the woman to abort. Why? Two reasons.
>>
>>(1) An abortion = income for abortion service providers.
>>(2) Fetal tissue = income for abortion service providers (by selling it to
>>researchers).
>
>I would like a cite for the testimonies of staff, if you've got one.
>And...is there a money-based market for "fetal tissue"? Have you got a
>cite for that?
I have several. The Laboratory for Embryology, at the University of
Washington, Seattle (which has funding from the National Institute of
Health) was desceibed by its founder as a collection program for the
efficient procurement and distribution of fresh embryonic and foetal human
specimens - a 24-hour collection service. (Dr Thomas Hill Shepherd, NIH
grant progress report, Apr 10, 1978, pp 14-15). The Washington Poat
revealed in 1976 that the District of Columbia General Hospital had made
$88,000 from commercial sales of aborted foetuses. In Wilmington,
California in 1992, a container of 16,500 foetuses was found in the
possession of pathologist Mel Weisberg. They were tagged with points of
origin, doctors and clinics in California and Missouri. (Rex Dalton,
"Fetuses, Medical Waste Found In Shipping Carton", Daily Breeze, Torrance
CA, 6 Feb 1982; confirmed by subsequent investigation by Los Angeles DA
Robert Philibosian). In 1973 and 1976 the Journal of Endocrinology and
Metabolism reported that 54 babies between 10 and 25 weeks gestation were
delivered alive by hysterotomy, cut open, sex organs and adrenal glands
extracted, and in some cases hearts punctured while still alive. (Note the
immediate collaboration between abortionist and researcher necessary for
this). Steven Goode, president of RITA Organics, which supplies the
cosmetic industry with placentas and fetal sacs collected routinely at a
cost from hospitals across the USA. Cosmetic manufacturers pay $3500 to
$5000 a pound for the distilled protein from these. In 1992 the NIH
successfully lobbied President Clinton to repeal the ban on federal funding
on the use of tissue from aborted foetuses.
>I'd like to know, it's not really a "prove it!" kinda thing.
Fair enough.
>>An interesting note is that abortion proponents and also researchers (who
>>use fetal tissue) are actively lobbying at a political level to legislate
>>against *therapeutic* surgery on the foetus (such as those innovative
>>surgeries in utero to correct heart defects, etc). Why? The debates in
>>academic/medical journals explicitly state that once there is a widespread
>>acceptance of the foetus as a *patient* (rather than a bunch of cells)
women
>>will cease to view abortion as their right.
>
>I'd like to propose another possible reason why surgery on fetuses
>might be problematic. Surgery on the fetus necessarily implies some
>sort of surgical procedure on the mother, I'm assuming. What would be
>the legal/moral status of a woman who declined to have the procedure?
>Could someone be constrained to undergo surgery on behalf of a fetus?
>How would you feel about that?
Good point; but surgery on foetuses is still considered extraordinary means.
There's no danger of that at this stage.
>>Abortion will probably remain
>>legal but a large proportions of women will not use it, who previously
would
>>have. Not only do abortionists kill the foetuses on the operating table,
>>they try to deny life-saving surgery to wanted foetuses. It is not true
>>that abortionists have no vested interest in women aborting. The abortion
>>industry is *huge*.
>
>These conspiracy theories! So unlikely...is there some monolithic
>"abortionists" all of whom only have the best interests of abortion
>itself in mind? I must admit that I doubt it.
No; but as with all medical industries there are academic leaders who appear
prominently in the journals and in the sphere of commenting on public
policy, whose activities play a large part in decisions regarding them.
>Dare I ask for...evidence?
Sure. Dr John C Fletcher, an "ethicist" at NIH, said in 1985 that prenatal
surgery should be abandoned because it could endanger the legality of
abortion. This is IMO the most damning example.
Deslea
Deslea R. Judd
>>Augustine, Seven. You may find yourself on common ground.
>>
>>Deslea, who is Catholic, so can joke at our own expense
>
>
>Now that, makes sense. 0:/
Touche.
;-) Deslea
Del
> Del wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > and I had no intention of becoming
> > > one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
> > > biblically, and morally.
> >
> > And yet I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
> > to such claims (except as straw men, offered as
> > easy targets by the proponents of your religion).
>
> Your arrogance is underwhelming. The typical atheistic response, usually
> by an atheist who hasn't done much reading in philosophy or theology, is
> "you haven't even opened your mind to reality" or "your brainwashed and
> therefore can't be thinking right" or some other garbage.
That is a much more pliable straw man than what I said, now
isn't it?
It is arrogant
> because it assumes anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid,
> ignorant, or brainwashed.
What I said was I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
to such claims as you accepted.
If I am wrong it would be no trick for you to demonstrate as
much by simply naming some of the counterpoint tomes you've
read and or show that you know the counterpoint arguments.
Instead of doing this you evaded my point with your
irrelevant ad hominem attack/straw man reply.
But sometimes avoiding an issue is more revealing than if you
had addressed it.
Al Klein
>FVF wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>> >> So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
>> >The same place you're universe without a God came from
>> And where is that?
>From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
>being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
>going to expand forever.
Another theist who doesn't know the difference between "theory" and
"conjecture".
"being put forth for the Universe now that" - It was "put forth" long
before anyone was "pretty sure that it [the Universe] is not
going to expand forever". BTW, no one is "pretty sure" of that.
---
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
wrote:
>In order to prove the supernatural I suppose we would need a well
>documented case with numerous credible witnesses.
Numbers prove nothing, except a lack of familiarity with the rules of
logic.
EVERYONE, prior to about 10,000 years ago, knew that the Sun moved and
the Earth stood still. 100% of the population for hundreds of
thousands of years. Guess what? 50 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.
Now, as to some objective evidence (proof) of the supernatural?
Michael Painter
Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
news:7fqsvs$5j$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
> >Rats. The internet is SOOOOO bizarre. I pleaded and begged and
> >cajoled Air News to carry alt.agnosticism, thinking that they would
> >get all the posts made.
>
> *gasp* There are almost-reliable news servers? Where do I find them? (I
> often find replies to myself missing, and get bits of them later quoted in
> people's reply to *them*. Most annoying...)
If your browser is set to display only unread messages and you mark
everything read when you exit that is frequently the problem, especially on
busy groups.
You post a reply to some one and go on with reading. Before you are finished
your browser updates the list and your new message is "up there" someplace.
You close and mark everything read so you miss seeing your response, but the
next person does.
This usually does not happen on slow groups since you've read everything and
exited rapidly.
Switch to alt.athiesm (if I misspelled it right) to slow down a bit.
taxman.
Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
news:372bdc4e...@news.villagenet.com...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:01:36 -0400, "taxman." <taxm...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In order to prove the supernatural I suppose we would need a well
> >documented case with numerous credible witnesses.
>
> Numbers prove nothing, except a lack of familiarity with the rules of
> logic.
>
> EVERYONE, prior to about 10,000 years ago, knew that the Sun moved and
> the Earth stood still. 100% of the population for hundreds of
> thousands of years. Guess what? 50 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.
>
> Now, as to some objective evidence (proof) of the supernatural?
Give me objective proof of the natural first.
Deslea R. Judd
>cajoled Air News to carry alt.agnosticism, thinking that they would
>get all the posts made.
*gasp* There are almost-reliable news servers? Where do I find them? (I
often find replies to myself missing, and get bits of them later quoted in
people's reply to *them*. Most annoying...)
>But nooooooooo, they don't seem to be getting
>yours. Neither does AltNet. But NetLink does. Although NetLink
>seems to have a problem propagating messages to DejaNews.........
Ah well. I'm honoured you were so devastated that a one-word post from
myself went AWOL.
:-) Egotistical!Deslea
OldguyTeck
Shell wrote in message <371e32de...@news.msen.com>...>>Alan Sindler wrote:
>
>>> The point that seems lost in this debate is twofold:
>>> 1) There's a great majority of anti-abortion folks who are Catholic,
yet these
>>> same Catholics are opposed to birth control. Not a very practical
approach to
>>> the problem I think. It's kind of hard to take the high moral ground
when one
>>> doesn't advocate common sense birth control, even for married
couples.
>>
>>I don't understand your concern. You are not Catholic. Why do you
care what the
>>Catholic Church asks of its people? No, they don't advocate birth
control, but they
follow the
>>teachings of the Catholic Church, then you can't use birth control.
However, there
>>are many cafeteria Catholics out there, and they choose to use birth
control. The
>>only thing I can do for them is pray. No one forces anyone to do
anything. It's
>>all a matter of choice.
>
>school boards, and elect its members to positions where they can make
>both abortion and birth control less available to people in other
>countries, far away, awash in overpopulation. It's not only Catholics,
>though...although Baptists and Pentecostalists can theoretically use
>birth control, the fundamentalist lobby tends to frown on *funding* it
>about as much as they frown on abortion. I dunno why.
>
>>The only birth control the Catholic Church would like to see banned
are the ones
>>that are abortafacients. There the argument is the same. There is a
human life at
>>stake here and we are bound by duty to protect it.
>
>a claim that a fertilized egg is to be considered a human being, a
>*baby*. But others don't subscribe to the religion, nor to the claim.
>Still, you'd like to legislate what sort of birth control *I use* on
>the basis of your beliefs. I understand that you are between a rock
>and a hard place because you really do believe that a zygote is a
>child...but you don't have any right to legislate for me on that
>basis, because *I don't.* I feel for you in your dilemma, but not
>enough to let you legislate your (from my point of view) peculiar
>superstitions.
>
>>
to abide by
>>> the laws of the land, and, according to the law, it is up to the
woman to make
>>> the choice about whether or not she will carry *her* baby.
>>
worked in a
>>crisis pregnancy center where women (more often girls) would come for
pregnancy
>>tests.
>>Nine times out of ten they had no idea what happened during an
abortion or what
>>their baby looked like at this point in their pregnancy. On the
average they were
>>four months pregnant by the time they came in. When they saw a
picture of a four
>>month fetus (for lack of a better word than baby) they instantly
wanted to have that
>>baby. Why don't we inform these people before they have this surgical
procedure?
beyond that.
>
>On *average* four months!?? Oh, okay, you didn't specify that of women
>who actually got abortions, the average was four months. The average
>is of all women who came into the "crisis pregancy" clinic.
>
>Indeed, the fact that they were four months along or so might have
>been the reason that this was now a "crisis" to them.
>
>And...you know that people *are* told of what an abortion consists of,
>even in straightforward "abortion clinics?" The information is fairly
>complete and accurate, as far as I can tell, at all the clinics I know
>of. It's not surprising that people making first contact for a
>pregnancy test wouldn't have that information in advance, though. Why
>would that make you think that these women were therefore making an
>uninformed choice?
>
>
I don't know do you go to the chickens incubator with a hammer or basket
in your hand.?
Ed...............(Oldguyteck) † [enoughing of snuffing]
Deslea R. Judd
>>myself went AWOL.
>>:-) Egotistical!Deslea
>
>Brrrr, I mean you might be a Joey, but if you really are a sodding
>Borg, don't want to 'alienate' you............0;)
LMAO! Well, Seven did have that spiritual experience with the Omega
particle late in Season 4...
Deslea R. Judd
>>particle late in Season 4...
>
Well, yes; but I remember it particularly because of the religious content.
>Don't tell me, you occasionally dress up
>with Vulcan ears?
*snicker* No, but on bad hair days I could give the old Janeway Bun(TM) a
run for its money
>I'm a 'closet trekkie'. I never could get myself to dress up in those
>silly........eh, those EXPENSIVE, that's it....., those expensive
>costumes.
Me neither. However I am sewing one for an ex-boyfriend of mine (with whom
I'm still on good terms) who is most definitely not a "closet" fan....
Deslea
Gully Foyle
>
>
>FVF wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:19:09 -0400, "taxman." <taxm...@mediaone.net>
>> wrote:
>> <snipper>
>>
>> >I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
>>
>> The inquisition.
>>
>> "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and
>> punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our
>> own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I
>> believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
>> souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculious egotism".
>> ---Einstein
>
>
>Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
>accept the idea of a God.
Einstein was an agnostic, he pissed on the idea of an interventionist
puppet master.
XXIII
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z after the @ in my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
MORAL CRUSADE:
Public activity undertaken by middle-aged men who are
cheating on their wives or diddling little boys.
Moral crusades are particularly popular among those who are
seeking power for their own personal pleasure, politicians who
can't think of anything useful to do with their mandates and
religious professionals suffering from a personal inability to
communicate with their god. In military terms, a diversionary
tactic.
John Ralston Saul - THE DOUBTER'S COMPANION
_________________________________________________________________
Gully Foyle
<kwor...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote:
>>
>> Is *this* what you think the ethics of doctors are? I assure you, they could
>> not care less about your namecalling, let alone do more abortions (what, is
>> the doctor going to go to the street and solicit pregnant women into having
>> abortions?) just to spite you? You got to be kidding?
>
>As a matter of fact, there are some doctors who would do this. Are you naive
>enough to think that all doctors have ethics?
Well no, but they aren't priests either.
>>
>> Bzzzt. Wrong. Mother Theresa did *exactly* that to hindus. I understand she
>> had the full backing of the RCC on it, because of all the good press she
>> got.
>
>Quote to me where this information was given. You will even bash someone >who tries to help people. Where were you when she was helping the poor?
>
MT helped the poor a fraction more than some South American
governments help street kids. Mostly though she used them to push her
own image as a saint, to make money, and spread the dogma of the
church - in that order. She used her missionaries for propaganda
against birth control. She would rather have children born into
poverty, suffering and an early death than have birth control. It
probably can't be said she was as evil as the likes of Mengele but she
was evil.
>>
>> Then why are all forms of contraceptives not allowed for catholics?
>
>I already explained that.
>
I'll tell you why, because the church wants plenty of fresh meat (who
else will keep up the faith) and secondly because it wants to ensure
women are kept in their place and how else do you do that except keep
her barefoot and pregnant all the time. What amazes me is that women
still support such a misogynistic organisation.
>>The US is a hotbed of teenage pregnancy, because theists keep
>> getting fits over sex ed, and no sex ed means people don't know about the
>> facts. Why doesn't the RCC advance sex ed more vigorously then?
>
>No not what the baby "could" look like. What the baby does look like. There
>are ACTUAL pictures of babies in the mother's womb at all different stages in
>the pregnancy.
How many pictures have you seen of the faces of embryos (that's the
correct word for it BTW) at 1 month old? Perhaps you would care to
post them for us?
>If you choose to turn a blind eye to them, that is your choice,
>but you are missing out. I would never tell someone something that wasn't the
>truth when it comes to a pregnancy.
>
No, you just turn a blind eye to the cold hard facts because you
religion expects you to.
>NO SEX ED? You have got to be kidding! We are sex ed-ing the kids to death and
>show me where it has gotten them. You give them free condoms. Does the
>pregnancy rate go down? NO!
I'm not sure but someone did mention figures which show that teen
pregnancy has declined.
>The facts are that if you show a kid how to have
>sex, he or she will.
I was unaware that you had to "show" them how to have sex, perhaps you
were a strange kid.
>Show me one school where sex ed has helped. You won't be
>able to. They are nonexistent.
Do you have any figures to back this up?
>Where are these children's parents? They can
>have sex, but they can't explain it and why they shouldn't have it (because they
>could get pregnant or cause a pregnancy?) to them.
>
Maybe these parents are people who were taught that sex is dirty and
disgusting and so can't really bring themselves to?
>>
>> Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite until
>> it's born.
>
>That's a new one. Everyone else has been arguing that it's the woman's body;
>therefore, it's her right to choose. A parasite, hah! BTW, do you have any
>children?
>
Julie pull your head out of your arse and while you're at it pull your
nose out of other people's sex lives.
Gully Foyle
wrote:
>>
>> You mean appeal to their emotions with the pictures of what the baby
>*could*
>> look like? The US is a hotbed of teenage pregnancy, because theists keep
>> getting fits over sex ed, and no sex ed means people don't know about the
>> facts. Why doesn't the RCC advance sex ed more vigorously then?
>
>I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
>
By either having lots of unwanted children or abortions, usually a
mixture of both. One method of birth control (a form of post natal
abortion, if you will) that I'm sure "pro-life" Xians would approve of
was to simply leave the newly born baby exposed to the elements. After
all they only care what happens to someone before they are born and
after they die. BTW we can be certain this method was practiced widely
in biblical times and later by Xians.
>>
>> Wisdom teeth are a part of your body, a fetus isn't, it's a parasite until
>> it's born.
>
>And when its born it stops being a parasite? Doesn't a baby still depend
>on others for food, shelter, etc ...?
>
True, but at that point it is a self contained organism.
maff91
>
>
>FVF wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:19:09 -0400, "taxman." <taxm...@mediaone.net>
>> wrote:
>> <snipper>
>>
>> >I wonder how the human race survived before sex ed ....
>>
>> The inquisition.
>>
>> "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and
>> punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our
>> own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I
>> believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
>> souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculious egotism".
>> ---Einstein
>
>
>Of course, it is my understanding that before his death Einstein did
>accept the idea of a God.
Nope. Your faith must be so shallow that you've to resort to lies.
Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
universe]", but the quote is purposely taken out of context by theists
in order to mislead and lend credence to their religion.
Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for
the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory
was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential
part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would
be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or
randomness.
His "God does not play dice..." comment in his debate with Niels Bohr
was a simple reflection of this sentiment. A better quote, which
refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most
popular interpretations of quantum theory would be:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
actions of human beings."
(Note: Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677), was a Dutch
philosopher and pantheistic theologian. Pantheism is a doctrine
equating a deity with the universe and its phenomena.)
Further, according to the book "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
(edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press,
publisher), Einstein wrote in a March 24, 1954 letter:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
He also said in his autobiographical notes (translated from German):
"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however,
found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of
popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in
the stories of the bible could not be true. The consequence was a
positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression
that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies;
it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of
authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards
the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment
... "
Go to <http://www.westegg.com/einstein/>, page down to the "In His Own
Words" section, and follow the link labeled "Einstein on Science and
Religion" to the URL <http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html>
where more of Einstein's comments on religion can be found.
maff91
[snip]
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:23:23 +1000, "Deslea R. Judd"
>><drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>>>from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>>>come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>>>to the end of getting the woman to abort. Why? Two reasons.
>>>
>>>(1) An abortion = income for abortion service providers.
>>>(2) Fetal tissue = income for abortion service providers (by selling it to
>>>researchers).
You want to ban abortion so that organized crime can take it over and
women can die in back alleys.
http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
http://www.prochoice.org/facts/historyfs.htm
[snip]
maff91
>
>
>FVF wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
>> >
>> >The same place you're universe without a God came from
>>
>> And where is that?
>
>From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
>being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
>going to expand forever.
How does that support your "God" theory?
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astrophysics/Universal_Origins/
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/quantum/genious.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
http://feynman.com/online/quotes.htm
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/papers.htm
maff91
>
>
>Del wrote:
><snip>
>
>> and I had no intention of becoming
>> > one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
>> > biblically, and morally.
>>
>> And yet I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
>> to such claims (except as straw men, offered as
>> easy targets by the proponents of your religion).
>
>Your arrogance is underwhelming. The typical atheistic response, usually
>by an atheist who hasn't done much reading in philosophy or theology, is
>"you haven't even opened your mind to reality" or "your brainwashed and
>therefore can't be thinking right" or some other garbage. It is arrogant
>because it assumes anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid,
>ignorant, or brainwashed.
At least, the church can't murder people with impunity now.
Try
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457374591
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Middle_Ages/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Renaissance/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astronomers/Galilei__Galileo__1564_1642_/>
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
http://tlc.ai.org/enlight.htm
http://www.hemisfear.com/wcs/hitler.htm
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
Deslea R. Judd
>women can die in back alleys.
>http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html
>http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
>http://www.prochoice.org/facts/historyfs.htm
No, I want women to stop having abortions. Making it illegal would
facilitate that end, but as you state, it would also contribute to a
destructive black market. For me, the question of the legality of abortion
is fairly low on my priorities for that reason. I am more interested in
educating people about the dignity of life so that they might not choose to
abort to begin with. And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
tissue stopped as this creates a situation where abortion service providers
have a vested interest in women aborting, creating an unethical conflict of
interest in their dealings with pregnant women considering termination. Not
to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses
themselves.
Deslea
js...@juno.com
a while back (I don't remember the name but I know I still have it) that
said he came to abelief in or possibly it was an acceptance of the
possibility of the existance of god.
In any event, the link will make intersting reading.
maff91 wrote:
>
<snip>
js...@juno.com
maff91 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:03:50 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >FVF wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So my question to both of you: where did your god come from?
> >> >
> >> >The same place you're universe without a God came from
> >>
> >> And where is that?
> >
> >From no where and from nothing. That is the current 'scientific' theory
> >being put forth for the Universe now that they pretty sure it is not
> >going to expand forever.
>
> How does that support your "God" theory?
It is not meant to. it is meant to point out that the atheistic concept
of theorigins of the universe are as unprovable and take as much faith
as religion's belief in God.
"...But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I
can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a
whole lifetime without being able to prove them.
The mind can proceed only
so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes
a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge,
but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries
have involved such a leap."
js...@juno.com
maff91 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:08:48 -0700, Gary <ga...@tier2.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Del wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >> and I had no intention of becoming
> >> > one unless I was convinced, personally, of it claims historically,
> >> > biblically, and morally.
> >>
> >> And yet I'll bet you never examined the counterpoint
> >> to such claims (except as straw men, offered as
> >> easy targets by the proponents of your religion).
> >
> >Your arrogance is underwhelming. The typical atheistic response, usually
> >by an atheist who hasn't done much reading in philosophy or theology, is
> >"you haven't even opened your mind to reality" or "your brainwashed and
> >therefore can't be thinking right" or some other garbage. It is arrogant
> >because it assumes anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid,
> >ignorant, or brainwashed.
>
> At least, the church can't murder people with impunity now.
Nice to see your so open minded and non judgmental.
Elf Sternberg
>I am more interested in educating people about the dignity of life so
>that they might not choose to abort to begin with. Not to mention the
>complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses themselves.
The problem with this attitude is that it's completely
contrary to my experience. It's impossible to distinguish the process
of abortion from the far more commonplace process of miscarriage. Why
should one be any more significant than the other? In both cases, the
foetus is flushed from the body, sometimes with discomfort.
My wife is currently tweleve weeks pregnant and things are
going very well, but her friend miscarried in the tenth week and we're
caring for the friend as best we can. There's no sadness at the loss
of a child, though; it's not as if we're talking about a living,
breathing person with a personality. And, she hopes, as soon as she
recovers she and her husband will try again.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Chris Sherlock
>In article <7g5fnv$qee$1...@toto.tig.com.au>
> "Deslea R. Judd" <drj...@tig.com.au> writes:
>
>>I am more interested in educating people about the dignity of life so
>>that they might not choose to abort to begin with. Not to mention the
>>complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses themselves.
>
> The problem with this attitude is that it's completely
>contrary to my experience. It's impossible to distinguish the process
>of abortion from the far more commonplace process of miscarriage. Why
>should one be any more significant than the other? In both cases, the
>foetus is flushed from the body, sometimes with discomfort.
The difference is one a decision to murder and mutilate and the other
is a natural process.
Actually, I'm not that rabid about the issue, but I feel that life
begins at conception. It's not possible to draw the distinction
somewhere along the line of a pregnancy when a mass of cells becomes a
human. And if you choose to, what is a human before it is a human?
> My wife is currently tweleve weeks pregnant and things are
>going very well, but her friend miscarried in the tenth week and we're
>caring for the friend as best we can. There's no sadness at the loss
>of a child, though; it's not as if we're talking about a living,
>breathing person with a personality. And, she hopes, as soon as she
>recovers she and her husband will try again.
>
> Elf
>
And I hope she does too.
Debbie
>In article <7g5fnv$qee$1...@toto.tig.com.au>
> "Deslea R. Judd" <drj...@tig.com.au> writes:
>
>>I am more interested in educating people about the dignity of life so
>>that they might not choose to abort to begin with. Not to mention the
>>complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses themselves.
>
> The problem with this attitude is that it's completely
>contrary to my experience. It's impossible to distinguish the process
>of abortion from the far more commonplace process of miscarriage. Why
>should one be any more significant than the other? In both cases, the
>foetus is flushed from the body, sometimes with discomfort.
>
> My wife is currently tweleve weeks pregnant and things are
>going very well, but her friend miscarried in the tenth week and we're
>caring for the friend as best we can. There's no sadness at the loss
>of a child, though; it's not as if we're talking about a living,
>breathing person with a personality. And, she hopes, as soon as she
>recovers she and her husband will try again.
I'm not RC, and I have to say I don't fully support the RC position on
abortion, but I must point out that for many women, miscarriage *is*
the loss of a child. Having had a number of them myself, I mourned
when they happened, and I remember with sadness each year when the
child would have celebrated its birthday. No doubt some
women/families do not find it so, but there are plenty of us who do,
And none of my miscarriages were later than 12 weeks.
Regrads,
Debbie
--
Cybertheologian
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/debbie.gaunt/
icq 9428714
maddelin...@my-dejanews.com
> >women can die in back alleys.
> >http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html
> >http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
> >http://www.prochoice.org/facts/historyfs.htm
>
> No, I want women to stop having abortions.
That's about as unrealistic a statement as I've ever seen.
Making it illegal would
> facilitate that end, but as you state, it would also contribute to a
> destructive black market. For me, the question of the legality of abortion
> is fairly low on my priorities for that reason. I am more interested in
> educating people about the dignity of life so that they might not choose to
> abort to begin with.
In many cases, dignity of life is not a question. You seem to be completely
disregarding many sets of circumstances. What if a woman is raped, or there
is significant danger to the mother if she carries the child to full term?
What if a young girl becomes pregnant and can't go through with the
pregnancy? What if, for any reason, the child isn't wanted? Would you have
these women carrying these babies to term at significant risk to themselves?
And, would you want those babies to experience all the negativity about them?
Something like that, even in the womb, can scar. Women will always have a
choice, and some will choose to abort. I have had a child--I miscarried at 8
1/2 months. I realize there is life, and that it is conscious. But I still
honestly believe that the choice made by the creators of the child are
ultimately right. Besides, you don't object when god, your *creator* "aborts"
you, do you? What's the difference?
Maddeline Hattuer
And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
> tissue stopped as this creates a situation where abortion service providers
> have a vested interest in women aborting, creating an unethical conflict of
> interest in their dealings with pregnant women considering termination. Not
> to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses
> themselves.
>
> Deslea
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
You remind me of Fritz's and St Augustine's quote.
"BTW, doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of
god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend
their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it
is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to
internet-linked terminals? "
by Fritz (Nominated by Gully Foyle, seconded by Stix)
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
maff91
It's a fact of life that the founding fathers recognized.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
Deslea R. Judd
>
>That's about as unrealistic a statement as I've ever seen.
That does not invalidate it as an ideal.
>In many cases, dignity of life is not a question. You seem to be completely
>disregarding many sets of circumstances. What if a woman is raped,
You haven't been reading these threads, have you? I'm the one who sparked
half of these discussions when I stated that my son was born as a result of
rape, and I have never regretted having him. I am not disregarding hard
cases. I am saying that as human beings we have the responsibility to
nurture those who are more helpless and dependent than ourselves. No matter
how hard the case, the preborn is always more helpless.
>Would you have
>these women carrying these babies to term at significant risk to
themselves?
Yes. See above. We are not called to this life to be safe and secure. We
are called to risk and to challenge in order that we and others might live
and love.
>And, would you want those babies to experience all the negativity about
them?
No, but better that than being killed by the one from whom they came.
>But I still
>honestly believe that the choice made by the creators of the child are
>ultimately right.
I don't. Procreating a child does not equal ownership. It equals
custodianship. When one is a custodian, entrusted with a precious charge
(even if that charge is not precious to you), you don't destroy it.
>Besides, you don't object when god, your *creator* "aborts"
>you, do you? What's the difference?
The difference is that of moral agency. When a miscarriage occurs (and I
have had one, very early, and mourned deeply) that is not a result of
anyone's moral agency - no-one "did" anything immoral to make it happen. It
just happened. Abortion is quite different. It's the difference between a
natural death by disease and a death by homicide.
Deslea
Christopher A. Lee
>In <37273A6A...@juno.com>
>js...@juno.com etched into the ether:
>
>>It is not meant to. it is meant to point out that the atheistic concept
>>of theorigins of the universe are as unprovable and take as much faith
>>as religion's belief in God.
>
>physics. Second, they're based on *observation. Something which cannot be said
>for your "god."
I've no idea where they get the idea that these are atheist-specific
concepts.
More Christians (numerically) than atheists accept them.
Modern scientific understanding has nothing to say about deities.
It just investigated what happend, and *how*. *If* a deity did it,
then that's *how* it did it because thats what happened.
Rather like the obvervation that when things are dropped they fall
to the ground and somebody saying: "No they don't, God does it".
We're talking about two different things here, one of which
science has nothing to say about.
We shouldn't have to keep reminding them this, but it's all too
frequent: they ask atheists about objective scientific understanding
and think the response is atheist-specific.
js...@juno.com
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <7g5fnv$qee$1...@toto.tig.com.au>
> "Deslea R. Judd" <drj...@tig.com.au> writes:
>
> >I am more interested in educating people about the dignity of life so
> >that they might not choose to abort to begin with. Not to mention the
> >complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses themselves.
>
> The problem with this attitude is that it's completely
> contrary to my experience. It's impossible to distinguish the process
> of abortion from the far more commonplace process of miscarriage. Why
> should one be any more significant than the other? In both cases, the
> foetus is flushed from the body, sometimes with discomfort.
Isn't that like saying it is impossible to distinguish the process of
murder from the far more commonplace precess of death by old age or
starvation or whatever? The difference is that one is 'natural' and the
other is induced.
> My wife is currently tweleve weeks pregnant and things are
> going very well, but her friend miscarried in the tenth week and we're
> caring for the friend as best we can. There's no sadness at the loss
> of a child, though; it's not as if we're talking about a living,
> breathing person with a personality. And, she hopes, as soon as she
> recovers she and her husband will try again.
When we don't know aperson personally we don't get emotionally involved
in their sufferings and death. We do not know the unborn child and so
are not as emotionally involved as we would be with a child we have had
time to get to know. However, being emotionally affected or not has no
bearing on whether killing a person (child) is morally right.
Bill Nourse
>
> In <37273AC7...@juno.com>
>
History is written by the winners of the wars. I hope you're not
suggesting that there's actually such a thing an objective history that
we can know empirically.
--
Charles W. ("Bill") Nourse, Ed.D., CPP
Memphis, Tennessee USA
ICQ # 28643422
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~nourse
"Establish yourself in God and then you will be helpful to others."
-- St. Seraphim of Sarov
C. Thomas Vick
"Deslea R. Judd" wrote:
>
> You haven't been reading these threads, have you? I'm the one who sparked
> half of these discussions when I stated that my son was born as a result of
> rape, and I have never regretted having him.
Dominus vobiscum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pax!
Andrew Kennedy
life
>begins at conception. It's not possible to draw the distinction
>somewhere along the line of a pregnancy when a mass of cells
becomes a
>human. And if you choose to, what is a human before it is a
human?
Interesting question that. In some cultures with a high infant
mortality rate, a baby is not considered "human" and given a name
until after a critical period (usually a few days).
Ask yourself what makes you human. If you cut the
soul/spirit/whatever out of the questions with Occum's razor what
are you left with?
Your Genes have a deeply profound impact on who you are. But it
does not fully describe who you are (ask any identical twin).
The human self is something learnt.
It is the ultimate achievement of anthropomorphism.
By treating a Homo Sapien baby as a human it becomes one.
So the quick answer of when does a mass of cells become a human
is: when we start treating it as one. In our culture this is
usually at birth.
What is it before it is human? An immature Homo Sapien. Which is
almost exactly what it is after becoming human.
Andrew
"If god did exist it would be necessary to destroy him"
============================================
It is the policy of the EAC to neither confirm nor deny the
existence of sarcasm in any text written, reproduced or
transmitted by any member.
============================================
Michael Painter
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:372ecda4...@news.pacbell.net...
> "Michael Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> >Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
> > >
> >> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to
understand
> >> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once
they
> >> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is
directed
> >> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
>
>
> You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
> you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
Honest answers. The pro-life (until you are born) prime interface with
abortion clinics is waving placards and scaring the women and staff.
Their secondary activity seems to be "counseling clinics" They are easy to
identify because they NEVER are honest enough to state their religious
affilation and what they want to do. A real conseling session does not try
to sacre people out of choices.
>
> >On a side note what happens to the "souls" of these "children" if they
are
> >imbibed with one at the moment of creation?
> >Can they go to heaven?
>
> Maybe not. But not to hell, either, least not the fire and brimstone,
> let's punish Hitler (and maybe Clinton) variety.
>
> >How do these souls differ from the soul of anyone not saved?
>
> No fire and brimstone?
>
> >How do these souls differ from someone who experienced life?
>
> Untested and untried by the 'negativity' of this life; as one of the
> posters just phrased it in another message.
>
> >If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven
is
> >infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
> >Why oppose abortion in that case?
>
> Because . . . abortion is an abomination? Reason enuf?
>
> What do you say?
>
>
> >If they do get to heaven that means that for every human that is born and
> >gets to heaven there will be way more than 5 souls that got there for
free?
> >Will you feel out of place?
>
> You think Isaac Asimov is in Heaven? If so, talk about feeling - out
> of place . . .
I don't think there is a heaven.
So far one person feels they go to hell and you feel they don't go to
heaven.
83% plus of all fertilized ova never survive. At a bare minimum 83% of all
life as you define it will not go to heaven.
Your god can't seem to get anything right.
Mark Johnson
>In article <7g5fnv$qee$1...@toto.tig.com.au>,
> "Deslea R. Judd" <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>> No, I want women to stop having abortions.
>That's about as unrealistic a statement as I've ever seen.
If I may . . . and if she had suggested she would prefer that people
not kill each other - unrealistic? Strike all the laws? Would prefer
people not shoot each other? Strike the existing laws, never mind
coming up with new 'omnibus' ones? Think about what you write. People
will kill. Infants will be killed. It says only that just laws will be
violated.
>> Making it illegal would
>> facilitate that end, but as you state, it would also contribute to a
>> destructive black market.
Yes, but in our overly politicized and submissive culture, I think
some of the 'back alley' effort would be geared toward the
re-establishment of permissive abortion laws, as we have now, should
common sense ever strike people where they would have abortion, save
for therapuetic abortion as clearly defined, outlawed. That is, agenda
would drive the 'black market', as much even as 'market' forces,
perhaps. Bernard Nathanson alludes to this quite frequently in his
confessions regarding efforts undertaken during the late 1960s.
>> For me, the question of the legality of abortion
>> is fairly low on my priorities for that reason. I am more interested in
>> educating people about the dignity of life so that they might not choose to
>> abort to begin with.
The word choice is a useless euphemism, permitted only because the
national 'news' has set this jargon and this framework on this issue.
It's redundant, and serves only to avoid having to use the word,
abortion, which the national 'news' prefers, now, to link only to
those who oppose abortion, by insisting upon referring to them as
anti-abortionists: the abortionists, on the other hand, are always
'doctors', first, last and forever, 'care providers', 'medical
professionals', and other such nonsense - never, abortionists, which
is precisely what they are (would that the airhead editors and
copyists could read a couple of old medical texts from mid-century,
even, to see what the real medical profession once had to say about
abortionists - and I don't mean pro-lifers).
>In many cases, dignity of life is not a question. You seem to be completely
>disregarding many sets of circumstances. What if a woman is raped, or there
>is significant danger to the mother if she carries the child to full term?
Then the child is born. Abortion is an abomination. The child is not.
Instead, if you think it such a horror to the girl, or boy
(whichever), then wait until said child is of the age of reason,
playing at the amusement park, having a good day, and ask them - you
wanna I should kill you, now? cause you were the product of rape,
after all - time you realized. You really think they'd _agree_ to such
a retroactive abortion? Or is abortion only okay because you don't
have to hear their answer?
>What if a young girl becomes pregnant and can't go through with the
>pregnancy?
What if little Johnny at age 3 won't stop crying in his crib. Okay for
Mom to strangle him? I mean . . wha? Abortion is an abomination. Trust
me when I tell you this - THE CHILD IS NOT. A child is a gift from
God.
>What if, for any reason, the child isn't wanted?
Gee, I don't know. Were _you_ wanted - every day of your parent's
life, were you wanted? Same question. Kid is playing at the park, nice
day, he/she feels pretty good - you go up and say, so kid, time to
die? cause, after all, you weren't really a 'planned parenthood',
y'know. But no one would think you an insane killer, of course.
>Would you have
>these women carrying these babies to term at significant risk to themselves?
Significant risk meaning - missing a day at the office - or real
threat to life? Therapuetic once meant abortion to save a mother's
life. It was permitted. It wasn't permissive. There was a cause and
reason for such, even though the child was innocent, himself or
herself. Then therapuetic started to be broadly defined. Then the
'back alley' made its way into the medical wards. Then the laws were
changed. Then Roe v. Wade (and the Court is still smarting from that
one).
>And, would you want those babies to experience all the negativity about them?
Well, gosh - I sure wouldn't want my friends to tease me. That would
be just horrible. Or how about the jerks who drink too much, or have
whatever problem, and find they don't like your hair, or your clothes,
or what _you're_ drinkin, and just want to mock you before you start
in with them. Similarly, wouldn't want to be called names for skin
color, or creed, height or weight, complexion, and none of that.
Better off dead? ! Is THAT what you mean? Is THAT 'the cure'? You
really think the Nazi 'super-race' didn't have mean things to say
about their perfect genetically bred cousins? Your utopia not only is
a nightmare, but it's violently unrealistic in this world. Or do I
misread your agenda, in this? (cause it's possible)
>Something like that, even in the womb, can scar. Women will always have a
>choice, and some will choose to abort.
Doesn't make it right. Some women voted for Clinton, twice. And even
future historians will likely never absolve them of their foolishness.
>I have had a child--I miscarried at 8
>1/2 months. I realize there is life, and that it is conscious.
I'm sorry for your loss. But that _is_ what it was. You lost a child,
and you know it. That's WHY it's a tragedy. That's why it should not
be done on purpose, artificially induced. That's what abortion is
about. Killing kids on purpose. It may technically be called an
induced miscarriage, depending on the stage. But it isn't a
miscarriage as we normally understand.
>honestly believe that the choice made by the creators of the child are
>ultimately right.
The Creator is God. Maybe _that's_ your real source of confusion on
this issue.
>Besides, you don't object when god, your *creator* "aborts"
>you, do you? What's the difference?
God didn't abort me, or your correspondent. And if you're trying
desperately to broaden the term, abort, to include mortality, then it
won't work. But I really don't know what you could mean, here.
>Maddeline Hattuer
> And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
>> tissue stopped as this creates a situation where abortion service providers
AKA - abortionists. That's what they do. That's what they are.
Abortionists. That's what they used to be called. And a rose by any
other name is still a rose.
>> have a vested interest in women aborting, creating an unethical conflict of
>> interest in their dealings with pregnant women considering termination.
Part of their motive is simply political, to further the cause, not
merely the market, by an increase in permissive abortions, and to
further the spiritual depths by the performance of yet one more unholy
'sacrament' (as Limbaugh once rather reasonably described abortion and
its role with the feminists).
>> to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the foetuses
>> themselves.
But to the abortionist, and the industry supporters, children have no
dignity. 'Do it for the children' is never about - the children. It's
only ever about the - agenda, regardless of the children, certainly
regardless of any particular child. Librals are Commies, and think
like Commies. Face it. Sad fact. Utterly true. The 'child' is loved in
the abstract, and despised in the flesh. The 'child' is only the
cynical and opportunistic means to the end in a submissive, feminized,
hypersensitive and morally cold pop culture. We see such opportunism
with the gun control nuts and the Columbine massacre. But it's the
same with abortion in various other conferences, programs, right up to
taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, and the like.
Peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You can catch more flies with honey - but who wants to eat flies?
Mark Johnson
>Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
> >
>> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
>Name and sources of these testimonies please.
You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
>On a side note what happens to the "souls" of these "children" if they are
>imbibed with one at the moment of creation?
>Can they go to heaven?
Maybe not. But not to hell, either, least not the fire and brimstone,
let's punish Hitler (and maybe Clinton) variety.
>How do these souls differ from the soul of anyone not saved?
No fire and brimstone?
>How do these souls differ from someone who experienced life?
Untested and untried by the 'negativity' of this life; as one of the
posters just phrased it in another message.
>If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven is
>infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
>Why oppose abortion in that case?
Because . . . abortion is an abomination? Reason enuf?
What do you say?
>If they do get to heaven that means that for every human that is born and
>gets to heaven there will be way more than 5 souls that got there for free?
>Will you feel out of place?
You think Isaac Asimov is in Heaven? If so, talk about feeling - out
of place . . .
Chris Nelson
Deslea R. Judd wrote in message
<7g5fnv$qee$1...@toto.tig.com.au>...
>>You want to ban abortion so that organized crime can take
it over and
>>women can die in back alleys.
>>http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html
>>http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
>>http://www.prochoice.org/facts/historyfs.htm
>
>
illegal would
>facilitate that end, but as you state, it would also
contribute to a
>destructive black market.
Just as it happened in the '50s and '60s.
>For me, the question of the legality of abortion
>is fairly low on my priorities for that reason. I am more
interested in
>educating people about the dignity of life so that they
might not choose to
>abort to begin with.
What does not having an abortion have to do with the "dignity
of life" anyway? Can you support your assumption that
abortion is murder?
>And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
>tissue stopped
What about the benefits that fetal tissue research can
provide, like nerve regeneration and treatments for
Parkinson's disease?
>as this creates a situation where abortion service providers
>have a vested interest in women aborting, creating an
unethical conflict of
>interest in their dealings with pregnant women considering
termination.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should
support more widespread use of contraception. This is one
area where many religionists are inconsistent in their
philosophy.
But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there for a
safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion, you
don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves what they
want. After all, it is their decision.
> Not
>to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the
foetuses
>themselves.
Disrespect for non-sentient blobs of gestating tissue?
Surely you jest.
Chris Nelson
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:372ecda4...@news.pacbell.net...
>> "Michael Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>> >Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>> >Name and sources of these testimonies please.
>> You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
>> you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
>Honest answers. The pro-life (until you are born)
Yes, but that's just another abortionist canard. It's a
misrepresentation to make abortionists, and industry supporters - feel
good. The whole point of opposing permissive abortion is to remind us
all of the sanctity of people's lives - period, whatever their age.
Want honest? Then be honest.
>abortion clinics is waving placards and scaring the women and staff.
The scary ones are abortionists, and their allies. I can still
remember a news report, I think during the time of the Wichita
protests, where some old, angry feminist type runs up to a little kid
holding a pro-life sign, and just starts browbeating her until a
responsible adult is seen to come by and protect the kid. The ones who
are OUTRAGED are the obsessive feminist nutcases. That's how _they_
protest. That's _their_ tactic. You shouldn't be confused.
>Their secondary activity seems to be "counseling clinics" They are easy to
>identify because they NEVER are honest enough to state their religious
>affilation and what they want to do. A real conseling session does not try
>to sacre people out of choices.
Well, I suppose you wouldn't want the psychiatrist to try and wean the
trenchcoat kid off his choice to go on a killing spree. Maybe some
things aren't a very responsible sort of . . choice. Therapuetic
abortion, remember, did NOT used to mean just any kind of abortion.
And it ISN'T any sort of progress to find people who will defend
something even as pointless and unjustified as partial birth abortion,
as many Dem do.
>> >Will you feel out of place?
>> You think Isaac Asimov is in Heaven? If so, talk about feeling - out
>> of place . . .
>I don't think there is a heaven.
I think he thought the same thing. I'm suggesting that while there
clearly is a Heaven, old Isaac _probably_ got his wish and has avoided
the 'awful' place. It's a reasonable conclusion.
>So far one person feels they go to hell and you feel they don't go to
>heaven.
Hell isn't just fire and brimstone. Limbo is part of hell. But it's
not the punishment part. Hitler, I think, suffers the tortures which
are his due. The patriarchs freed by Our Lord's Death and Resurrection
did not.
>83% plus of all fertilized ova never survive. At a bare minimum 83% of all
>life as you define it will not go to heaven.
Then what's the percentage just in IVF? Surely someone can concoct a
number for that, as well - and it might even be accurate. You think
the numbers are too enormous to permit anything other than Heaven, in
which you don't believe? How many people are born in Red China, and so
die in Red China? A million? A Billion? What? There's lots of people
in this world, right now. As for Heaven, how many people vote for
permissive abortion, as a percentage, or voted for Clinton, even, as a
percentage, or idolize the self in general - as a percentage? You
think 83% is _high_ number?
>Your god can't seem to get anything right.
Don't know how else to say it. Don't project your god onto mine. It's
God that gives us life, and His to take. It's only idiocy to try and
pretend one is God.
Archimandrite Paledim
> >What about the benefits that fetal tissue research can
> >provide, like nerve regeneration and treatments for
> >Parkinson's disease?
Fuck you, living person.
How do you think dead babies like being.....shit, they're dead.
Never mind.
> If my son, God forbid, developed Parkinson's, I don't think I could look him
> in the eye and tell him that his treatments were developed as a result of a
> desecration of the corpses of millions of infants.
Fuck you, then. Don't you christers believe in transition to a spiritual
state after death?
> >If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should
> >support more widespread use of contraception.
>
> I have never suggested that I don't. I personally disapprove of
> contraception but I wouldn't try to legislate against it, either.
> >This is one
> >area where many religionists are inconsistent in their
> >philosophy.
>
> Actually, the inconsistency is only perceived. For millenia women's
> menstruation was treated like a disease. Now it's pregnancy, with
> contraception as the prevention and abortion as the cure. They're two sides
> of the one coin reflecting a bizarre idea in the West that having children
> is almost always a bad thing.
No, just sometimes.
> >But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there for a
> >safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion, you
> >don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves what they
> >want. After all, it is their decision.
>
> Sure it is. But it doesn't mean it's their moral right.
>
> >> Not
> >>to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the
> >foetuses
> >>themselves.
Fetuses are mindless lumps of flesh, 85% of which miscarry anyway,
amking Sky Daddy the Abortion King!
> >
> >Disrespect for non-sentient blobs of gestating tissue?
> >Surely you jest.
>
> Actually I don't. Get back to me when you've had a baby and we'll talk.
> Very few women who have been pregnant would consider a foetus unworthy of
> respect.
>
If this were true, abortions would be a thing of the past.
Now do like the Bible tells you to and get back in the kitchen and bake
me a pie.
--
Archimandrite Paledim BAAWA Commando Death Squire
Atheist #1536, Cussard #69, #FundyDevourer2 (after Tukla, of course)
WWID? (What Would I Do?)
Feel free to email me if you aren't selling anything.
Please do so if you are responding to one of my newsgroup postings.
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:06:54 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) wrote:
>>>> You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
>>>> you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
>>>Honest answers. The pro-life (until you are born)
>>Yes, but that's just another abortionist canard. It's a
>>misrepresentation to make abortionists, and industry supporters - feel
>>good. The whole point of opposing permissive abortion is to remind us
>>all of the sanctity of people's lives - period, whatever their age.
>>Want honest? Then be honest.
>Honest? 'Permissive abortion'. That's honest? Change that to 'a
>woman's choice and then you're 'honest'.
But - honestly - a euphemism, by design, is not honest. It's meant to
disguise the meaning of something, even just to spare people's
feelings - but also to get people talking about something in a way
they would not if they were reminded of what they were talking about.
Abortion is about death. It's about killing people. We recoil in
horror at the carnage in Columbine. But what do you say about piles of
dead babies out back of the clinic?
>You yell sanctity of a
>fetus, I yell rights of a woman. That would be simple honesty.
Lots of the infants are, in fact, female. Given time, they'd grow to
be women. You 'yell rights' and liberties of some women to do what is
wrong, and don't even speak for all women. Be honest about it.
>>>abortion clinics is waving placards and scaring the women and staff.
>>The scary ones are abortionists, and their allies. I can still
>>remember a news report, I think during the time of the Wichita
>>protests, where some old, angry feminist type runs up to a little kid
>>holding a pro-life sign, and just starts browbeating her until a
>>responsible adult is seen to come by and protect the kid. The ones who
>>are OUTRAGED are the obsessive feminist nutcases. That's how _they_
>>protest. That's _their_ tactic. You shouldn't be confused.
>There are nut case's on both sides. When was the last time a feminist
>nut case shot at a missionary on foreign soil for him brow beating a
>native with the threat of eternal damnation if said native doesn't
>give up his pagan ways and convert?
There ARE nuts on both sides, and incompetents on both sides - which
is particularly the bane of the pro-life movement. As long as we agree
that the fringe travel equally with either side in most any 'social
issue' . . .
>>>Their secondary activity seems to be "counseling clinics" They are easy to
>>>identify because they NEVER are honest enough to state their religious
>>>affilation and what they want to do. A real conseling session does not try
>>>to sacre people out of choices.
>>Well, I suppose you wouldn't want the psychiatrist to try and wean the
>>trenchcoat kid off his choice to go on a killing spree. Maybe some
>>things aren't a very responsible sort of . . choice. Therapuetic
>>abortion, remember, did NOT used to mean just any kind of abortion.
>>And it ISN'T any sort of progress to find people who will defend
>>something even as pointless and unjustified as partial birth abortion,
>>as many Dem do.
>>>> >Will you feel out of place?
>>>> You think Isaac Asimov is in Heaven? If so, talk about feeling - out
>>>> of place . . .
>>>I don't think there is a heaven.
>>I think he thought the same thing. I'm suggesting that while there
>>clearly is a Heaven, old Isaac _probably_ got his wish and has avoided
>>the 'awful' place. It's a reasonable conclusion.
>Really. WHY is there clearly a heaven? And what makes you think that
>YOU know what it is? Why is your idea of a heaven any more relevant
>then a buddhists? A hindus? A muslims?
Mmm. What to say? Let me try. I might suggest - because all is not
relative. There is a right. There is a wrong. The freemasons want
their substitute. The Commies want theirs. Other polytheistic
religions, or the politicized Greek, or the Muslims on a holy war all
have their right, and wrong. Heck the Nazis had their way. And even if
you defend the Commies, you likely don't defend the SS - I wouldn't
think. That is, not all is relative. Just cause someone says they're
right - doesn't mean they are. In this matter of God, the afterlife,
the 'handbook' for life, and so on, only one is true. Only one is
right. There may be different ways of phrasing it, or seeing it.
Catholics preach a selflessness similar, at some level, to that of the
asian monks (which was Merton's fascination, I suppose, with the
thing). But that's a far cry from the militant indifferentism of the
freemason, or the militant atheism of the Commie. And, again, I can't
decide this for you. I can't prove it to you, short of Our Lord's
Second Coming - in which case you believe or else. You'll have to
judge with your own heart whether or not Catholicism is that one and
true, whether or not God came in the Mysterious way of sending His
Only Begotten Son as both God and Man, whether it was prophecied,
whether the miracles actually happened, whether there were great and
humble Saints over the centuries and whether there were miracles
associated with them (as the Church insists), whether or not we owe
God everything, even our very lives, or if all is just a pointless and
crazy life of duties and obligations, a little stolen happiness, a lot
of acquisition, and the fear no one will remember us when we're dead.
And if you just loathe Catholicism, if you've been so carefully
taught, as the song went, by your gubment school teachers, if you
believe the spin on this PBS 'religion' show or that, this network
'news' story or that, this opinion piece or that passing comment in
print, then maybe just find the similarities, what _is_ true, in other
religions, and perhaps by conscience informed by God's grace you will,
eventually, decide - choose - what Merton probably did, namely,
Catholicism. In short, there is a right. There is a wrong. Not all is
relative, as morality is not to be temporized and self-servingly
defined. But what used to be called, situation ethics, for a few
years, is all that passes for the 'greater law'. This is what the
establishment teaches us. And, of course, 'modern' men of the world
cleave to libral establishment teachings. And that ubiquitous mindset
is part of what you have to fight against in 1999 America, and just
about anywhere else in the world, unless you want to wind up deluded
as most, and as spiritually dead and cold, as the majority.
>"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in
> veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above
> all, love of the truth."
> -------------------H.L. Mencken
Rationalism isn't the answer - to anything. HL was deluded. He had and
has lots of company. Catholicism, which is what I hope he meant, is
opposed to injustice, particularly that found in increasing social
chaos and 'deconstruction' as found in nations which try to separate
Church from civic life, is opposed to a lack of morality due to same,
and such as we see today, and champions fair and reasonable answers
applicable to the purpose of our very existence in this life - which
is, to prepare us for the next, not to pretend such doesn't exist.
Al Klein
Johnson) wrote:
>"Michael Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>>> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>>> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>>> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>>> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
>>Name and sources of these testimonies please.
>You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
>you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
An "answer" from people who have never been there, but ask women who
have, and then only publish the answers from women who answer the way
these groups want? Pro-lifers NEVER publish the "They tried to talk
me out of an abortion, but I insisted on one" answers.
>>If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven is
>>infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
>>Why oppose abortion in that case?
>Because . . . abortion is an abomination? Reason enuf?
That's not a reason, it's an assertion.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
Sherlock) wrote:
>Actually, I'm not that rabid about the issue, but I feel that life
>begins at conception.
That's your feeling. Don't try to impose it on others in a democratic
society.
> It's not possible to draw the distinction
>somewhere along the line of a pregnancy when a mass of cells becomes a
>human. And if you choose to, what is a human before it is a human?
Don't confuse nouns and adjectives.
Deslea R. Judd
Chris Nelson wrote in message <7gaulh$9mt$1...@composer.inav.net>...
>>And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
>>tissue stopped
>
>provide, like nerve regeneration and treatments for
>Parkinson's disease?
If my son, God forbid, developed Parkinson's, I don't think I could look him
in the eye and tell him that his treatments were developed as a result of a
desecration of the corpses of millions of infants.
>If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should
>support more widespread use of contraception.
I have never suggested that I don't. I personally disapprove of
contraception but I wouldn't try to legislate against it, either.
>This is one
>area where many religionists are inconsistent in their
>philosophy.
Actually, the inconsistency is only perceived. For millenia women's
menstruation was treated like a disease. Now it's pregnancy, with
contraception as the prevention and abortion as the cure. They're two sides
of the one coin reflecting a bizarre idea in the West that having children
is almost always a bad thing.
>But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there for a
>safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion, you
>don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves what they
>want. After all, it is their decision.
Sure it is. But it doesn't mean it's their moral right.
>> Not
>>to mention the complete disrespect for the dignity of the
>foetuses
>>themselves.
>
>Disrespect for non-sentient blobs of gestating tissue?
>Surely you jest.
Actually I don't. Get back to me when you've had a baby and we'll talk.
Very few women who have been pregnant would consider a foetus unworthy of
respect.
Deslea
Deslea R. Judd
Deslea R. Judd
Deslea R. Judd
Deslea R. Judd
Deslea R. Judd
Mark Johnson
>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:23:05 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) wrote:
>>"Michael Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>>Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>>>> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>>>> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>>>> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>>>> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
>>>Name and sources of these testimonies please.
>>You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
>>you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
>An "answer" from people who have never been there,
How many women who suffered abortion do you think are now working with
a pro-life group? People _can_ see the light. People can change their
minds for the better.
>but ask women who
>have, and then only publish the answers from women who answer the way
>these groups want? Pro-lifers NEVER publish the "They tried to talk
>me out of an abortion, but I insisted on one" answers.
Well . . . who knew?
>>>If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven is
>>>infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
>>>Why oppose abortion in that case?
>>Because . . . abortion is an abomination? Reason enuf?
>That's not a reason, it's an assertion.
It's a reasonable assertion.
Peace.
Al Klein
<drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
><snipping a lot of stuff I've answered about 20 times in the last fortnight)
>Chris Nelson wrote in message <7gaulh$9mt$1...@composer.inav.net>...
>>>And I definitely want to see the trafficking in foetal
>>>tissue stopped
>>What about the benefits that fetal tissue research can
>>provide, like nerve regeneration and treatments for
>>Parkinson's disease?
>If my son, God forbid, developed Parkinson's, I don't think I could look him
>in the eye and tell him that his treatments were developed as a result of a
>desecration of the corpses of millions of infants.
Then medical science, which uses cadavers regularly, is "desecration"?
EVERY doctor is taught MANY procedures on corpses. Grafts are done
every day from corpses.
>>If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should
>>support more widespread use of contraception.
>I have never suggested that I don't. I personally disapprove of
>contraception but I wouldn't try to legislate against it, either.
You wouldn't try to legislate against the availability of condoms in
high schools? Against the teaching of birth control in junior high?
>Actually, the inconsistency is only perceived. For millenia women's
>menstruation was treated like a disease. Now it's pregnancy, with
>contraception as the prevention and abortion as the cure.
Actually, since active abortion is tens of centuries old, at least,
this statement is meaningless.
>>But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there for a
>>safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion, you
>>don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves what they
>>want. After all, it is their decision.
>Sure it is. But it doesn't mean it's their moral right.
Morality isn't a universal. Don't impose yours on others, unless
you're willing for them to impose theirs on you. You DO go out of
your home unaccompanied by a male relative, don't you? Are you aware
that doing so is immoral?
>Actually I don't. Get back to me when you've had a baby and we'll talk.
>Very few women who have been pregnant would consider a foetus unworthy of
>respect.
Very few people who have actually seen an 8-week fetus would think of
the word "respect" in connection with what they've seen.
And I've "had a baby" as much as any man can. She's an adult now.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Chris Nelson
js...@juno.com wrote:
>Perhaps we should do like the chinese and start killing
prisoners for
>their organs. or the Brizileans and start killing of street
kids. Its
>all relative after all.
No. These people have already been born and thus have full
right to live. What you wrote is in no way logical; it is a
fallacy of non sequitur.
>>Someone wrote: (Sorry, the attributions are messed up!)
>> > If my son, God forbid, developed Parkinson's, I don't
think I could look him
>> > in the eye and tell him that his treatments were
developed as a result of a
>> > desecration of the corpses of millions of infants.
Perhaps you couldn't. But I could. Easily. BTW, my father
in law suffers from Parkinson's, and would suggest
fetal-tissue based treatment in a heartbeat, once the
technology is developed.
Fetuses are not infants, and your use of the term is
intellectual dishonesty. They are not a thing that can be
considered "desecratable" unless the pregnant woman grants it
the right to live.
>> > I have never suggested that I don't. I personally
disapprove of
>> > contraception
This is a position I can't possibly fathom, no matter how
hard I stretch my brain. Please help me understand, what is
so objectionable about birth control?
>> >but I wouldn't try to legislate against it, either.
I'm happy to hear this.
>> > >This is one
>> > >area where many religionists are inconsistent in their
>> > >philosophy.
>> >
>> > Actually, the inconsistency is only perceived. For
millenia women's
>> > menstruation was treated like a disease. Now it's
pregnancy, with
>> > contraception as the prevention and abortion as the
cure. They're two sides
>> > of the one coin reflecting a bizarre idea in the West
that having children
>> > is almost always a bad thing.
Not at all. It's almost always a good thing, for those who
want children (the vast majority of us, including me).
But if you don't want children, or you are not in a position
to have children (in college, no money, have genetic disease
that you don't wish to pass to the next generation, victim of
rape or incest, etc.) having kids can be a disaster.
>> > >But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there
for a
>> > >safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion,
you
>> > >don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves
what they
>> > >want. After all, it is their decision.
>> >
>> > Sure it is. But it doesn't mean it's their moral right.
Why not?
>> > >Disrespect for non-sentient blobs of gestating tissue?
>> > >Surely you jest.
>> >
>> > Actually I don't. Get back to me when you've had a baby
and we'll talk.
>> > Very few women who have been pregnant would consider a
foetus unworthy of
>> > respect.
My parents are vehemently pro-choice. How do you explain
that? I have many pro-choice friends with kids, too. Why do
you think that all people who have kids must necessarily be
anti-choice?
By the way, I even know a Catholic priest who is pro-choice.
He is forbidden by the church to suggest abortion as an
option, but he does say to his parishioners, "Do what you
think is right."
Chris Nelson
Al Klein
Johnson) wrote:
>nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz (Al Klein) wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:23:05 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>>Johnson) wrote:
>>>"Michael Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>>>>Deslea R. Judd <drj...@tig.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:7fj2ju$dlv$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>>>>> Not exactly. However, there is a lot of pressure, I'm led to understand
>>>>> from testimonies of staff at these facilities, on women to abort once they
>>>>> come through the door. The counselling is not therapeutic; it is directed
>>>>> to the end of getting the woman to abort .
>>>>Name and sources of these testimonies please.
>>>You might try a pro-life group. See what info _they_ have. Of course,
>>>you _ARE_ interested in getting an answer to this - correct?
>>An "answer" from people who have never been there,
>How many women who suffered abortion do you think are now working with
>a pro-life group? People _can_ see the light. People can change their
>minds for the better.
Forcing others to your will is "better"? Only if you're a fundy.
>>but ask women who
>>have, and then only publish the answers from women who answer the way
>>these groups want? Pro-lifers NEVER publish the "They tried to talk
>>me out of an abortion, but I insisted on one" answers.
>Well . . . who knew?
The people taking the dishonest poll. I believe they're called - er -
what was that phrase? Oh, yeah - the Christian Coalition. Those
holders of a higher morality. Otherwise known as Liars for Jesus.
>>>>If they can go to heaven without living a normal life and being in heaven is
>>>>infinately better than earth why do they get the benefit?
>>>>Why oppose abortion in that case?
>>>Because . . . abortion is an abomination? Reason enuf?
>>That's not a reason, it's an assertion.
>It's a reasonable assertion.
But not rational.
Deslea R. Judd
>he die than benefit from medical science which was available due to
>circumstances which had already existed? Or are you saying that you
>would hypocritically allow him the treatments and simply keep their
>origin a secret?
Neither of the above. I would give him the choice, remembering that we are
discussing an affliction which usually becomed evident well after the age of
reason has been attained; but I have always been open with him that I don't
believe that we have the right to contribute to the perpetuation of evil.
> Did you know that many of our modern medical advances are results of
>what was learned in the Nazi death camps through experiments on Jews? I
>think you should morally just avoid hospitals, to be safe....
Of course I do. But the difference is one of immediate material
co-operation. When one utilises remedies for hypothermia, say, learned from
Nazi experimenters, Nazies do not materially benefit and one does not create
a demand for more Nazi experimentation. But when we use foetal tissue we
financially benefit abortionists and create further demand for foetal
tissue.
> You have NOW suggested that you don't. If you disapprove of
>contraception, I can't imagine you supporting the increase of its usage.
Nonsense. Many people in this thread have stated they don't approve of
abortion but they don't believe it's their business to choose for others,
and hence are pro-choice. I'm in the same boat on the contraception issue.
(Lest you ask why I am not sympathetic to that argument for abortion, it's
because, as I've stated many times, I don't believe the foetus is the
woman's body; but her hormonal cycle certainly is, hence her right to choose
re: contraception).
>This whole debate
>is not promoting the implementation of mandatory abortions in a
>government-chosen percentage of women,
I'm not convinced of that, actually. Quite a number of pro-choicers have
said things like, "I don't think a woman has the right to depend on the
state for a baby she can't afford" (paraphrase). Pro-choice, for many
people, is more about passing judgement on who has the right, or at least
the social acceptability, to reproduce. The poor, the sick, the domestic
violence and rape survivors, etc don't seem to cut it.
> In which case, it isn't your moral right to push your religious
>beliefs on others; it is simply your legal right, and personal decision.
Not true. Legally we are obliged to protect children in danger. Pro-lifers
happen to believe this includes the pre-born.
Deslea
Deslea R. Judd
>EVERY doctor is taught MANY procedures on corpses. Grafts are done
>every day from corpses.
*With* consent from either the subject or her/his family. In the case of
the foetus, there is no-one who is capable of consent - the foetus isn't,
and the parents abdicated parental responsibility by aborting.
>>>If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should
>>>support more widespread use of contraception.
>
>>I have never suggested that I don't. I personally disapprove of
>>contraception but I wouldn't try to legislate against it, either.
>
>You wouldn't try to legislate against the availability of condoms in
>high schools? Against the teaching of birth control in junior high?
Nope. But I would lobby for fully informed birth control education,
including the fact that the Pill and IUDs are abortiofacients.
>Morality isn't a universal. Don't impose yours on others, unless
>you're willing for them to impose theirs on you. You DO go out of
>your home unaccompanied by a male relative, don't you? Are you aware
>that doing so is immoral?
Hahahaha. The difference is there is another, helpless human involved in
abortion, which is not the case for barrier-type birth control, etc etc.
>Very few people who have actually seen an 8-week fetus would think of
>the word "respect" in connection with what they've seen.
At my six week ultrasound my son was no bigger than a couple of grains of
rice. But he shuddered with every heartbeat. He was unmistakably alive, a
kernel of incredible growth and energy and life. I'm sorry this was not
your experience.
Deslea
Deslea R. Judd
>
>How many women who suffered abortion do you think are now working with
>a pro-life group? People _can_ see the light. People can change their
>minds for the better.
Interesting note - the woman at the heart of Roe vs Wade is now a prominent
pro-lifer and works for Priests For Life. She claims she never understood
her case was to be used as a precedent for legal abortion - she believed it
was about getting some kind of dispensation - and that she would never have
gone to court if she had understood the ramifications.
>>but ask women who
>>have, and then only publish the answers from women who answer the way
>>these groups want? Pro-lifers NEVER publish the "They tried to talk
>>me out of an abortion, but I insisted on one" answers.
Just my experience, but when I was pregnant after rape, I was never
pressured by my pro-life acquaintances to keep the baby - they really didn't
even discuss it. They gave me space, nothing more. My pro-choice
acquaintances tried very hard to pressure me to abort and ostracised me when
I wouldn't. One of these, a woman, attacked me and kicked at my stomach in
an effort to make me miscarry.
Deslea
Al Klein
<criskity@REMOVE_THISia.net> wrote:
>js...@juno.com wrote:
>>> > >But contraception fails sometimes, so abortion is there for a
>>> > >safety net. If *you* don't want to have a abortion, you
>>> > >don't have to. Let the women decide for themselves what they
>>> > >want. After all, it is their decision.
>>> > Sure it is. But it doesn't mean it's their moral right.
>Why not?
Because he (she? I lost track) interprets the bible as saying that
abortion is a sin. That's not what the bible says (it says that
causing one against the woman's will [or, more properly, the father's
will] is a civil matter), but fetus-huggers don't want to hear that.
It says that if a man kills the fetus, he can be taken to court by the
father (to be made to pay a fine), but if he kills the woman, he's
committed murder. It's pretty plain that the bible doesn't consider
killing the fetus to be murder, and it doesn't specify a time - it
only specifies that the fetus be in the mother's womb. So, according
to the bible, not even VERY late-term abortions, those that almost all
pro-choicers are dead set against except to save the mother's life,
are murder.
Of course, when it comes to those fetii AFTER their born,
fetus-huggers won't lift a finger. It's not a fetus any more, so they
lose interest. Or maybe it's just that they can't interfere in anyone
else's life.
Where are the fetus-huggers when their little fetii are abused a few
years later? You never hear from them then.
>By the way, I even know a Catholic priest who is pro-choice.
>He is forbidden by the church to suggest abortion as an
>option, but he does say to his parishioners, "Do what you
>think is right."
A Catholic priest who gives much the same counsel as Jesus did. What
will they think of next?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
Al Klein
<drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>>>An "answer" from people who have never been there,
>>How many women who suffered abortion do you think are now working with
>>a pro-life group? People _can_ see the light. People can change their
>>minds for the better.
>Interesting note - the woman at the heart of Roe vs Wade is now a prominent
>pro-lifer and works for Priests For Life. She claims she never understood
>her case was to be used as a precedent for legal abortion - she believed it
>was about getting some kind of dispensation - and that she would never have
>gone to court if she had understood the ramifications.
One is sure a good number to base statistics on. NOT!
>>>but ask women who
>>>have, and then only publish the answers from women who answer the way
>>>these groups want? Pro-lifers NEVER publish the "They tried to talk
>>>me out of an abortion, but I insisted on one" answers.
>Just my experience, but when I was pregnant after rape, I was never
>pressured by my pro-life acquaintances to keep the baby - they really didn't
>even discuss it. They gave me space, nothing more. My pro-choice
>acquaintances tried very hard to pressure me to abort and ostracised me when
>I wouldn't. One of these, a woman, attacked me and kicked at my stomach in
>an effort to make me miscarry.
Another statistic that's as relevant as the price of rice in China.
One does NOT a trend make.
Chris Nelson
Al Klein wrote in message
<372ecb13...@news.villagenet.com>...
>Where are the fetus-huggers when their little fetii are
abused a few
>years later? You never hear from them then.
Uh-oh, I feel an irresistable linguistic nitpicking urge
coming up...
...must resist pedantry....must resist....
<snaps>
Fetii? According to Latin grammar, the plural of "fetus"
should be "feti". "Fetii" would be the plural of "fetius".
Sorry, but having had three years of Latin, things like this
bug me. Particularly when I see the term "virii". I've
never heard of a "virius".
Chris Nelson
Reverend Spith
> > Did you know that many of our modern medical advances are results of
> >what was learned in the Nazi death camps through experiments on Jews? I
> >think you should morally just avoid hospitals, to be safe....
>
> Of course I do. But the difference is one of immediate material
> co-operation. When one utilises remedies for hypothermia, say, learned from
> Nazi experimenters, Nazies do not materially benefit and one does not create
> a demand for more Nazi experimentation. But when we use foetal tissue we
> financially benefit abortionists and create further demand for foetal
> tissue.
BUt when we don't use foetal tissue, we are ignoring a resource which
is already available, reguardless of its usefulness.
> >This whole debate
> >is not promoting the implementation of mandatory abortions in a
> >government-chosen percentage of women,
>
> I'm not convinced of that, actually. Quite a number of pro-choicers have
> said things like, "I don't think a woman has the right to depend on the
> state for a baby she can't afford" (paraphrase). Pro-choice, for many
> people, is more about passing judgement on who has the right, or at least
> the social acceptability, to reproduce. The poor, the sick, the domestic
> violence and rape survivors, etc don't seem to cut it.
That's a load of crap. Nobody is stating that anybody does not have
the right or social acceptability to reproduce. The debate is about the
exact opposite; about who has the right to NOT reproduce. Your attempt
to twist the words in this debate is transparent. Your statement
indicates that "pro-choice" equals "pro-abortion" which is absolutely
wrong. "Pro-choice" means that every woman can CHOOSE either result.
It means that anybody who does not want an abortion has the right to
CHOOSE NOT to have an abortion.
>
> > In which case, it isn't your moral right to push your religious
> >beliefs on others; it is simply your legal right, and personal decision.
>
> Not true. Legally we are obliged to protect children in danger. Pro-lifers
> happen to believe this includes the pre-born.
But legally, this has not been established.
--
-Reverend Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Deslea R. Judd
>>pressured by my pro-life acquaintances to keep the baby - they really
didn't
>>even discuss it. They gave me space, nothing more. My pro-choice
>>acquaintances tried very hard to pressure me to abort and ostracised me
when
>>I wouldn't. One of these, a woman, attacked me and kicked at my stomach
in
>>an effort to make me miscarry.
>
>Gads! Where was this? In the US?
Australia, but the woman was from a traditional Chinese background. The
bigger context was that I worked for her and she didn't want me to leave to
have my baby. Trying to beat me up, of course, was a really good way to
convince me to stay ;-).
Deslea
>
>
>
>
>
>"Over 90% of non public schools are sectarian:
>catholic, jewish, Missouri synod lutheran, fund-
>amentalist, christian reformed, etc."
> --Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read-Tim
> C Leedom
Mark Johnson
>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:47:15 GMT, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) wrote:
>>Fv...@FvsF.com (FvsF) wrote:
>>>Honest? 'Permissive abortion'. That's honest? Change that to 'a
>>>woman's choice and then you're 'honest'.
>>But - honestly - a euphemism, by design, is not honest. It's meant to
>>disguise the meaning of something, even just to spare people's
>>feelings - but also to get people talking about something in a way
>>they would not if they were reminded of what they were talking about.
>>Abortion is about death. It's about killing people. We recoil in
>>horror at the carnage in Columbine. But what do you say about piles of
>>dead babies out back of the clinic?
>Whoa! Clever disguise. I actually thought you were trying for
>honesty 'til you got to the last few sentences. Admit it. Aren't you
>sensationalizing your own idea of morality?
No. Not any more than those speaking of the mangled, bloodied bodies
of victims of drunk drivers do in describing the carnage. That's what
abortion is about. And it's done on purpose. Perhaps you didn't
realize.
>So tell me, is my stance
>'immoral' to you: that a woman should be able to choose what she does
>with her own body?
Well, first, have her lie in jury box - oh, wait, that's okay in
certain cases. Have her drive 100 MPH when the posted speed limit is
only 65? And so on? And, second, abortion wouldn't be abortion if you
were aborting that "woman should". It's her child that's getting the
axe. Perhaps you didn't realize.
>That no matter if the xian bible says she is
>suppose to 'bow to her man in all things',
Apparently, Daddy, or the boyfriend, can well be the ones to put
pressure on her to seek an abortion.
>that I feel she has the
>right to decide what she does even if I may disagree with her
>decision?
She doesn't like little Johnny crying and keeping her up and night.
Little Johnny is only 5 weeks old, say. He's utterly dependent on her
and can't survive on his own. She can just take him out back and leave
him in the dumpster? That's _her_ decision, even if you don't agree
with it? Some 'decisions'are just . . wrong. Abortion is wrong. Deal.
>And no matter that this is the year 1999 and the law of
>the land agrees with me, forget that.
I'm sure you would have wanted all to uphold the law in 1959, as well.
Be honest. It's only UseNet.
>Think of this. There is a
>tribe (or two) in Africa that thinks along the archaic lines that
>catholics do. Domination of women with 'moral' laws. If a male
>visitor visits someone in that village, they are expected to sleep
>with whomever they're visitings', wife. Would you do it? Would you
>go against their idea of morality?
Sure. Why adopt the ways of primitive savages? I mean . . . you won't
find Peace Corps workers trying to learn savage customs. Rather, they
go in there to teach and educate, regardless. And, oh . . just btw . .
. savage cultures once embraced human sacrifice. I suppose when in
Rome . . . or do even _you_ draw the line?
>That would be a sin in their eyes.
>Oh, that's right. They're pagans or heretics, aren't they.
Yep. Doesn't mean they can't be decent folk. Doesn't mean they can't
be wise, interesting and a veritible font of knowledge. But on
something like this, on this point, on this custom . . Again, say -
human sacrifice? _Someone's_ gotta say, that ain't the way. Not all is
relative.
>don't possess a highly advanced 'real moral code' like you guys,
>right?
Or like yourself, I'm sure.
>>>You yell sanctity of a
>>>fetus, I yell rights of a woman. That would be simple honesty.
>>Lots of the infants are, in fact, female. Given time, they'd grow to
>>be women. You 'yell rights' and liberties of some women to do what is
>>wrong, and don't even speak for all women. Be honest about it.
>I've been honest. I've stated many times that I think it's wrong if a
>woman aborts a fetus that can survive outside her body with out the
>need for life support. It is STILL her decision. You on the other
>hand, consider masturbation and the use of prophylactics a sin in your
>gods eyes. Am I correct?
Well, truth be told, The Church does disapprove of both because it
favors marriage, and babies. I mean, there are other spiritual and
moral reasons. But The Church favors people. Abortionists do not. The
Church favors virtue. Abortionists support vice. The Church favors
holiness. Abortionists probably wouldn't understand the term.
>>>There are nut case's on both sides. When was the last time a feminist
>>>nut case shot at a missionary on foreign soil for him brow beating a
>>>native with the threat of eternal damnation if said native doesn't
>>>give up his pagan ways and convert?
>>There ARE nuts on both sides, and incompetents on both sides - which
>>is particularly the bane of the pro-life movement. As long as we agree
>>that the fringe travel equally with either side in most any 'social
>>issue' . . .
>Of course they do and there are. Although I'd like an example of when
>a fringe pro-choicer is responsible for the outright murder of a
>fringe or non fringe 'pro-lifer'.
Well, I think maybe they just never got a clear shot at Clarence
Thomas. Thus - 'sexual harassment', which we've all seen now was
purely a partisan scam which got away from its promoters.
>The fringe element on both side's
>are hardly comparable. And I'm talking about working within the law
>of the land.
Fringe elements, my dear sir, always will have more in common with
each other than anyone else. The circle meets up at either end.
>You don't want mere human law, right? You want catholic moral law.
True enough. I am _not_ a freemason.
>Well, what make's catholic moral law superior to hindu moral law?
What makes banning human sacrifice superior to permitting it? There is
a right. There is a wrong. Not to say Hindus preach such a thing, but
on the specifics, there, I think one could argue that the oriental
paganism is wrong. It might take a couple of messages to do so, but I
think that's how it would turn out.
>not use that instead? Or something that 'evolved' off xianism.
But Catholicism doesn't . . evolve. It doesn't just happen, by chance.
People do stuff, right or wrong. People write stuff, decide things,
humble themselves before God by an act of will, and by His grace.
That's not evolution.
>Muslim moral law. They believe in the same characters you do from the
>OT and NT. Abraham, christ, etc. They just 'feel' that muhammad is
>the messenger that appeared after christ. Now WHY is their feelings
>wrong and yours right? Perhaps you should read the koran.
Perhaps you should read the first chapter of John.
>>>>>I don't think there is a heaven.
>>>>I think he thought the same thing. I'm suggesting that while there
>>>>clearly is a Heaven, old Isaac _probably_ got his wish and has avoided
>>>>the 'awful' place. It's a reasonable conclusion.
>>>Really. WHY is there clearly a heaven? And what makes you think that
>>>YOU know what it is? Why is your idea of a heaven any more relevant
>>>then a buddhists? A hindus? A muslims?
>>Mmm. What to say? Let me try. I might suggest - because all is not
>>relative. There is a right. There is a wrong.
>Is there? Other then the fact that you and your personal religion say
>so, why is there a definite right and wrong? Give me an example of
>something outside your religion that supports this statement.
Everyone supports the statement. They all believe _they're_ right. But
they may well be wrong. And they'll fight with the big lie, and
nightly news propaganda, and whatever else, to promote their unholy
causes, including permissive abortion, because they're absolutely
convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong. Same with you. I'm
just suggesting that, ultimately, to an honest conscience, to a soul
willing to learn, to fairly consider alternatives, and history, and
people, that your path will lead you to a religion, and that religion
will be Catholicism. I'm not, again, even arguing against virtue in
those who are not Catholic. But when it comes to some particular
issue, for all the rest where they follow their conscience, they may
be wrong for the religion they follow, and would not make that mistake
if they knew the whole story, beyond simply trying to do right by
people _and_ embrace a heather religion.
>>The freemasons want
>>their substitute. The Commies want theirs. Other polytheistic
>>religions, or the politicized Greek, or the Muslims on a holy war all
>>have their right, and wrong.
>Now, why is their right, 'wrong', and your right, right? Other then
>what your personal religion teaches you.
You mean, why are the gulags and force labor in China - _bad_ things?
Why are phony official 'Christian' churches bad, and bloody
persecution of the underground churches . . . um, inadvisable? Why is
Greek collusion with Commie authorities not putting their faith in the
best light? And so on? What does _your_ 'personal religion' teach you
about Communist tryanny? Live and let live?
>>And even if
>>you defend the Commies,
>Hee. What makes you think I would defend the commies?
I really don't know. Because you so hate my 'personal religion' that
you'd say anything to make a point?
>I would defend
>the right of a US citizen to his/her free speech. That is hardly
>comparable to agreeing with what he/she may be stating or any
>resulting actions they may take. Is that so hard to see?
Well, I'm glad to hear you want The Truth (I think is the name)
newspaper more widely distributed. Me, I'd be happy if it weren't, or
if it were, that a reasonable reply were included with every issue.
>> you likely don't defend the SS - I wouldn't
>>think.
>See above answer.
I'm still not sure I understand how you would . . answer.
>> That is, not all is relative. Just cause someone says they're
>>right - doesn't mean they are. In this matter of God, the afterlife,
>>the 'handbook' for life, and so on, only one is true. Only one is
>>right.
>Again, other then because you and your personal religion say so, why?
>And why yours?
Why yours? All is not relative. _I_ know that. You probably act like
that. But I think, deep down, you would confess it, as well. You're
just not encouraged to by the circle you run with, or by the
'educators' who taught you so carefully.
>>There may be different ways of phrasing it, or seeing it.
>>Catholics preach a selflessness similar, at some level, to that of the
>>asian monks (which was Merton's fascination, I suppose, with the
>>thing). But that's a far cry from the militant indifferentism of the
>>freemason,
>Hm. Really. And what of the fact that your group has built it's
>empire on over 1000 years of the crusades? I know, I know 'that was
>then and this is now', right?
So were Islamic rampages. So were the attacks by the Vikings, who had
their own pagan notions. Even if one argues with the sort who
sometimes signed up, and let's not exaggerate that all were hardened
criminals, or undisciplined adventurers - cause they weren't - or with
the execution of the thing, or even with the mission, the Crusades
didn't build anything by comparison with the Faith and conversion by
Evangelists, and then missionaries. That is what spread Catholicism to
formerly pagan nations. Your quarrel is with the good sense of those
who decided to convert.
>Well now how 'bout (as I mentioned to
>another catholic very overcome by vatican 'morality') if the pope
>first apologizes to the world (in order to reach all that his
>predecessors conquered), then returns all the land back to the various
>indigenous peoples,
Remember, various 'indigenous' (?) peoples (?) may just want to cede
the property right back to Rome. Their ancestors, many of them, in
century after century, embraced Catholic teaching. Would you like a
manifest of the date that this or that nation were formally converted
to Catholicism - or would that just bug ya?
>and allows them to reclaim the heritages that were
>suppressed, you know their own original ideas of 'morality'.
Which they decided were inferior to . . Catholicism. Again, your
quarrel is with their good sense.
>And he
>could throw around some of that papal fortune to get them back on
>their feet. Now that would be catholic selflessness.
You really do hate The Church. How well you've been 'educated'. Orwell
was right.
>>But that's a far cry from the militant indifferentism of the
>>freemason, or the militant atheism of the Commie.
>And what exactly is 'militant atheism'? I'm curious.
Oh, I don't know. How about chasing after the underground church and
forcing captives to labor, torture, or execution - and like that?
You're not curious, 'tall. You just don't wanna know about it.
>>And, again, I can't
>>decide this for you. I can't prove it to you,
>If you can't prove it to me, who proved it to you?
God.
Oh . . well.
>>short of Our Lord's
>>Second Coming - in which case you believe or else.
>Ah, I was wondering when the threat would emerge. Let me
>think....hm............., naw. Still don't believe. A thumbscrew or
>two might have made a difference though................
To get you sign the confession, you mean? I'm guessing they'd probably
just threaten to kill someone you cared about, if you didn't sign. But
then I don't know that much about clipboard cell tactics in the
'Middle Kingdom' (is it?).
>>You'll have to
>>judge with your own heart whether or not Catholicism is that one and
>>true, whether or not God came in the Mysterious way of sending His
>>Only Begotten Son as both God and Man, whether it was prophecied,
>>whether the miracles actually happened, whether there were great and
>>humble Saints over the centuries and whether there were miracles
>>associated with them (as the Church insists), whether or not we owe
>>God everything, even our very lives, or if all is just a pointless and
>>crazy life of duties and obligations, a little stolen happiness, a lot
>>of acquisition, and the fear no one will remember us when we're dead.
>>And if you just loathe Catholicism, if you've been so carefully
>>taught, as the song went, by your gubment school teachers, if you
>>believe the spin on this PBS 'religion' show or that, this network
>>'news' story or that, this opinion piece or that passing comment in
>>print, then maybe just find the similarities, what _is_ true, in other
>>religions, and perhaps by conscience informed by God's grace you will,
>>eventually, decide - choose - what Merton probably did, namely,
>>Catholicism.
>Yawn. What? you preachin' to me?
Why - you a lost cause, already?
>>In short, there is a right. There is a wrong. Not all is
>>relative, as morality is not to be temporized and self-servingly
>>defined. But what used to be called, situation ethics, for a few
>>years, is all that passes for the 'greater law'. This is what the
>>establishment teaches us.
>Deja Vu.
But you're following what I'm saying on this, right?
>>And, of course, 'modern' men of the world
>>cleave to libral establishment teachings.
>Really? Sadam Hussan is modern. Now how liberal is he?
Saddam Hussein? He's a classic tryant. There are many in the world. I
suppose since he's not supposed to be very religious, that the Muslims
would consider him necessarily liberal, in that - and whatever else.
>How 'bout Milosevic? What about the various African leaders. How 'bout those
>religious morons in Northern Ireland?
The Orangemen?
>Don't we all live in 1999?
>Perhaps your world view is a bit narrow?
Don't project. Or at least, realize you're doing it.
>>And that ubiquitous mindset
>>is part of what you have to fight against in 1999 America, and just
>>about anywhere else in the world, unless you want to wind up deluded
>>as most, and as spiritually dead and cold, as the majority.
>Hee. Yet another catholic with the one and only truth. You're so
>close to your truth you can't see anyone else's. Must be from the
>glow of righteousness....
Again, don't project. I don't deny virtue in anyone, even an atheist.
But when it comes to specific issues - say, like abortion - without a
solid Catholic foundation, even conscience might not prevent one from
going astray.
>>>"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in
>>> veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above
>>> all, love of the truth."
>>> -------------------H.L. Mencken
>>Rationalism isn't the answer - to anything. HL was deluded. He had and
>>has lots of company. Catholicism, which is what I hope he meant, is
>>opposed to injustice, particularly that found in increasing social
>>chaos and 'deconstruction' as found in nations which try to separate
>>Church from civic life, is opposed to a lack of morality due to same,
>>and such as we see today, and champions fair and reasonable answers
>>applicable to the purpose of our very existence in this life - which
>>is, to prepare us for the next, not to pretend such doesn't exist.
>Neither is the dogma of a deluded zealot.
Again, don't project.
>You've built a very pretty castle of words.
>Unfortunately the foundation it's built on is
>nothing more than a 'feeling'.
See above.
>The feeling that you're right and the
>rest of the world is damned.
Well, more properly, regardless of myself, The Church is right - when
it sticks to what The Church teaches (which is real problematic in
these times). The Saints are the example for us. So the world hates
the cult of Saints. 'Changing' churchmen in The Catholic Church hate
the cult of Saints. Padre Pio was celebrated this week (see ewtn.com),
but who knew about him, or his example, if all you had were CNN, or
ABC, or the like? If the Dalai Lama had some anniversary coming up, or
Bishop Tutu, now . . that would be different. Some religions are fine
with men of the world. True Catholicism, orthodox Catholicism, the
Catholicism of Gregory the Great, Pius V, and so on is not acceptable
to the libral establishment, and never could be following the
Protestant Revolution of centuries past - now predictably displaced by
its logical heir, paganism and aimless materialism - and of course, an
unhealthy dose of nihilism (cause really - there is a right. . . there
is a wrong).
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
stoney
<drj...@tig.com.au> wrote:
[>>>Just my experience, but when I was pregnant after rape, I was never
[>>>pressured by my pro-life acquaintances to keep the baby - they really
[>didn't
[>>>even discuss it. They gave me space, nothing more. My pro-choice
[>>>acquaintances tried very hard to pressure me to abort and ostracised me
[>when
[>>>I wouldn't. One of these, a woman, attacked me and kicked at my stomach
[>in
[>>>an effort to make me miscarry.
[>>>Deslea
[>>
[>>Gads! Where was this? In the US?
[>
[>Australia, but the woman was from a traditional Chinese background. The
[>bigger context was that I worked for her and she didn't want me to leave to
[>have my baby. Trying to beat me up, of course, was a really good way to
[>convince me to stay ;-).
I've heard some really wierd stuff about the Chinese. One lady I know, her
husband was hospitalized with a heart attack and she was fired because she
needed a couple days off to care for him.
Stoney