Re: Atheism provides a green light for abortion and queerdom
Mark Sebree
> We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> who is right and who is wrong?
The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
Quite frankly, these types of decision aren't anyone else's business.
That is the essence of freedom and liberty, even if the religious right
does not appreciate these freedoms. There is no reason to butt into
other people's personal lives like some people want to do, and to
demand that others follow "moral" codes that are not their own and
religious strictures of other people's religions.
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
adultery, or premarital sex. It is all a matter of how a person views
each of them. And one person cannot dictate that another should be
required to follow his or her views rather than the other person's own
views.
Mark Sebree
Hypno
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1138478174....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are the supreme arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong'?
Rationally, the waste of animal protein created during the abortion process
is horrendous. This protein could form a valuable source of nourishment for
their 'creators'. The best use of this underutilized resource would be to
recycle it through the food chain; like the reconstitution processes used to
make chicken nuggets.
Are you suggesting we do away with the current legal systems? What is
'inherently wrong' with deleting six million inferior individuals to provide
'lebensraum' for six million 'superior' individuals?
Who gets to decide ultimately what IS right and wrong in your equality
utopia?
Hypno
Richard Smol
Kannibalism is not such a wise habit for human beings, because of
resulting afflictions like Creutzfeldt-Jakob desease.
RS
Mark Sebree
Hypno wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> news:1138478174....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
> >> We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> >> implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> >> Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> >> bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> >> homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> >> believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> >> who is right and who is wrong?
> >
> > The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
> > Quite frankly, these types of decision aren't anyone else's business.
> > That is the essence of freedom and liberty, even if the religious right
> > does not appreciate these freedoms. There is no reason to butt into
> > other people's personal lives like some people want to do, and to
> > demand that others follow "moral" codes that are not their own and
> > religious strictures of other people's religions.
> >
> > There is NOTHING inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
> > adultery, or premarital sex. It is all a matter of how a person views
> > each of them. And one person cannot dictate that another should be
> > required to follow his or her views rather than the other person's own
> > views.
>
> You are the supreme arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong'?
Nope. If you read what I said again, I said that the person involved
makes the decision on these types of issues, and there is nothing
inherently wrong with any of them.
>
> Rationally, the waste of animal protein created during the abortion process
> is horrendous. This protein could form a valuable source of nourishment for
> their 'creators'. The best use of this underutilized resource would be to
> recycle it through the food chain; like the reconstitution processes used to
> make chicken nuggets.
>
> Are you suggesting we do away with the current legal systems?
No.
> What is
> 'inherently wrong' with deleting six million inferior individuals to provide
> 'lebensraum' for six million 'superior' individuals?
Define "inferior" and "superior" objectively.
And invasion of one country by another without provocation (as Nazi
Germany did to Poland and Austria) is never correct.
For those that don't know what "lebensraum" is, here is the definition
from Dictionary.com:
Additional territory deemed necessary to a nation, especially Nazi
Germany, for its continued existence or economic well-being.
Adequate space in which to live, develop, or function.
space sought for occupation by a nation whose population is expanding
>
> Who gets to decide ultimately what IS right and wrong in your equality
> utopia?
The people themselves, and only for themselves individually. After
all, why should they listen to another's opinion about those types of
things when they don't harm anyone and their own beliefs differ. This
is the essence of individual freedom and liberty.
Mark Sebree
>
> Hypno
Gantz
Mark Sebree wrote:
> ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
> > We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> > implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> > Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> > bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> > homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> > believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> > who is right and who is wrong?
>
> The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
> Quite frankly, these types of decision aren't anyone else's business.
Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
> That is the essence of freedom and liberty, even if the religious right
> does not appreciate these freedoms.
Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>There is no reason to butt into
> other people's personal lives like some people want to do, and to
> demand that others follow "moral" codes that are not their own and
> religious strictures of other people's religions.
Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>
> There is NOTHING inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
> adultery, or premarital sex. It is all a matter of how a person views
> each of them. And one person cannot dictate that another should be
> required to follow his or her views rather than the other person's own
> views.
>
> Mark Sebree
Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
Gantz
Hypno wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting we do away with the current legal systems? What is
> 'inherently wrong' with deleting six million inferior individuals to provide
> 'lebensraum' for six million 'superior' individuals?
>
It made Germany of today the most powerful european nation. The
surviving Jews who wer desplaced to Israel are still fighting with it
neigbours.
> Who gets to decide ultimately what IS right and wrong in your equality
> utopia?
>
> Hypno
Today that would be President Bush.
Hypno
"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:1138480460.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> You are the supreme arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong'?
>>
>> Rationally, the waste of animal protein created during the abortion
>> process
>> is horrendous. This protein could form a valuable source of nourishment
>> for
>> their 'creators'. The best use of this underutilized resource would be
>> to
>> recycle it through the food chain; like the reconstitution processes used
>> to
>> make chicken nuggets.
>
> Kannibalism is not such a wise habit for human beings, because of
> resulting afflictions like Creutzfeldt-Jakob desease.
You are suggesting that sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have the
disease because they are kannibals?
Hypno
Richard Smol
Well, I was more referring to a variation of it called kuru.
RS
Conspiracy of Doves
I must disagree. There is nothing wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
or prematital sex. Adultery, on the other hand, is wrong because you
are betraying the trust that another person has placed in you. I am
defining adultery as being married and having sex with someone other
than your spouse without your spouse's knowledge or permission. I don't
count threesomes with your spouse as adultery.
Zhavriol
> Mark Sebree wrote:
>>
> I must disagree. There is nothing wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
> or prematital sex. Adultery, on the other hand, is wrong because you
> are betraying the trust that another person has placed in you.
So if you are not married you can have sex with whomever?
> I am
> defining adultery as being married and having sex with someone other
> than your spouse without your spouse's knowledge or permission. I don't
> count threesomes with your spouse as adultery.
"Uh.. Honey, I am going to have sex with the dog, do I have your
permission?"
cactus
> Mark Sebree wrote:
>> ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
>>> We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
>>> implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
>>> Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
>>> bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
>>> homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
>>> believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
>>> who is right and who is wrong?
>> The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
confidential court approval. But there is a good chance that telling her
parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
incest. In other cases there may be other serious social consequences
with parents who are so angry that they kill her or do something almost
as drastic. It doesn't make sense to ensure social propriety on the
back of a young, relatively helpless woman.
>
>
>> Quite frankly, these types of decision aren't anyone else's business.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
confidential court approval. But there is a good chance that telling her
parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
incest. In other cases there may be other serious social consequences.
It doesn't make sense to ensure social propriety on the back of a young,
relatively helpless woman.
>
>> That is the essence of freedom and liberty, even if the religious right
>> does not appreciate these freedoms.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
confidential court approval. But there is a good chance that telling her
parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
incest. In other cases there may be other serious social consequences.
It doesn't make sense to ensure social propriety on the back of a young,
relatively helpless woman.
>
>> There is no reason to butt into
>> other people's personal lives like some people want to do, and to
>> demand that others follow "moral" codes that are not their own and
>> religious strictures of other people's religions.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
confidential court approval. But there is a good chance that telling her
parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
incest. In other cases there may be other serious social consequences.
It doesn't make sense to ensure social propriety on the back of a young,
relatively helpless woman.
>
>
>> There is NOTHING inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
>> adultery, or premarital sex. It is all a matter of how a person views
>> each of them. And one person cannot dictate that another should be
>> required to follow his or her views rather than the other person's own
>> views.
>>
>> Mark Sebree
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>
If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
confidential court approval. But there is a good chance that telling her
parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
incest. In other cases there may be other serious social consequences.
It doesn't make sense to ensure social propriety on the back of a young,
relatively helpless woman.
cactus
because the fetus would not have been afflicted (unless possibly the
mother were.
cactus
have costs of some sort. Premarital sex, if performed without proper
precautions, can be deadly. Abortion, which I believe to be a woman's
right, often carries physical and/or emotional costs. Homosexuality,
which is not a choice, bears a societal stigma in many parts of the
world. Adultery can be hazardous for obvious reasons.
And yet people do them, often because the perceived benefits are greater
than the costs. Yes, everyone should have the right to do these things,
but they need to be educated objectively about precautions and consequences.
Liz
message <1138499207.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
>> Mark Sebree wrote:
>>>
>> I must disagree. There is nothing wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
>> or prematital sex. Adultery, on the other hand, is wrong because you
>> are betraying the trust that another person has placed in you.
>
>So if you are not married you can have sex with whomever?
Not whomever, just consenting adults.
>
>> I am
>> defining adultery as being married and having sex with someone other
>> than your spouse without your spouse's knowledge or permission. I don't
>> count threesomes with your spouse as adultery.
>
>"Uh.. Honey, I am going to have sex with the dog, do I have your
>permission?"
You need to get the dog's permission, too.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
Hypno
From a purely rational viewpoint, there is nothing inherently wrong with
anything - including genocide.
>> Rationally, the waste of animal protein created during the abortion
>> process
>> is horrendous. This protein could form a valuable source of nourishment
>> for
>> their 'creators'. The best use of this underutilized resource would be
>> to
>> recycle it through the food chain; like the reconstitution processes used
>> to
>> make chicken nuggets.
>>
>> Are you suggesting we do away with the current legal systems?
>
> No.
>
>> What is
>> 'inherently wrong' with deleting six million inferior individuals to
>> provide
>> 'lebensraum' for six million 'superior' individuals?
>
> Define "inferior" and "superior" objectively.
I cannot. Atheist states throughout the 20th century have believed they
could and genocide has been the result.
> And invasion of one country by another without provocation (as Nazi
> Germany did to Poland and Austria) is never correct.
Is that an objective assessment? -
Rationally, if invasion without provocation achieves the desired result,
invasion without provocation is a viable option.
Richard Dawkins
"cactus" <b...@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:N9VCf.5408$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
others, laughed until I had to run to the toilet. I would like you to
understand a few things before I continue in what I hope you will qualify as
a high quality rant.
Your pathetic attempt at an intelligent dialog on this newsgroup has not
only embarrassed intelligent people, it has also managed to make us look as
foolish as you for being caught in the same virtual community as you. We can
only weep, and pray that we stop at this resemblance to you, as to look like
you too...well, it's a fate worse than death.
Richard Dawkins
its rather small head.
Richard Dawkins
Here , have mommy read this to you.
I haven't seen anything that remarkable since the that Chinese Down's
Syndrome kid threw a lance a full seven feet at the last Special Olympics.
Admittedly, it wedged in the chest of his coach who was standing seven feet
behind him, but it was still pretty impressive. But then, world records are
nothing novel to you.
Conspiracy of Doves
Regardless of whether that is wrong or not, it is still not adultery.
Cracklin'
"Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:16mta3-...@news.infowest.com...
> I cannot. Atheist states throughout the 20th century have believed they
> could and genocide has been the result.
Did you forget the Inquisition? The Crusades? The mass slaughter of SA and
US Indians because the good god fearing Christian believers saw them as
godless savages?
--
Arach.........
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
"Where two or three are gathered together in MY name, I am in their midst:"
[Matt 18:20] No Watchtower Society needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~<{@
Hypno
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138497330....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Monogamy is irrational. - It makes much more sense to propagate dna
liberally to increase it's chances of survival.
Trust is nothing more than the product of an emergent property of
neurochemical activity - a self defeating weakness.
Hypno
Hypno
"Zhavriol" <zod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138499207.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Why not try a sheep - you can have sex with the sheep with it's permission;
afterwards you can kill and eat it without it's permission.
Hypno
Hypno
"Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43dc3907$0$13148$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>
> "Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
> news:16mta3-...@news.infowest.com...
> > I cannot. Atheist states throughout the 20th century have believed they
> > could and genocide has been the result.
> ==================
> Did you forget the Inquisition? The Crusades? The mass slaughter of SA
and
> US Indians because the good god fearing Christian believers saw them as
> godless savages?
No - they never achieved the industrial scale that the atheist states of the
20th century achieved.
To you, however that is irrelevant.
Hypno
R. Pierce Butler
It can be avoided if one does not eat the human brain.
pierce
cactus
mind.
cactus
mind. And you should be out dating or something. What did you do to get
grounded on Saturday night? Or are you unable to get a date?
cactus
What are you doing in on Saturday night? Can't get a date, or are you
grounded?
Ray Fischer
>> > could and genocide has been the result.
>>
>> US Indians because the good god fearing Christian believers saw them as
>> godless savages?
>
>No - they never achieved the industrial scale that the atheist states of the
>20th century achieved.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolph Hitler -- Mein Kampf
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Who is to say
> who is right and who is wrong?
Rational, moral, thinking people.
I. e.: NOT fundies.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
Cracklin'
You mean it goes by how MANY they slaughtered as to who's Christian and who
isn't?
> To you, however that is irrelevant.
Right,... because the good Christians murdered more people over the
centuries than any modern day sociopathic atheist could dream of. Old
Jehovah himself killed a few hundred thousand souls, including infants and
pregnant women........
CR.....
"Mark Sxxxxxx" <deletethisprefix...@verizon.net>
wrote in message news:%AVmf.2567$Kk7.691@trndny05:
> That wasn't Vance - it was "Ray Hollister".
~~~~~~~~
"Vance Liscomb" aka Ray Hollister <Vance_...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:dnhdb...@drn.newsguy.com:
I posted as Ray Hollister to see ........
AND HE OUTED MARK SXXXXXX, his BROTHER JW.
In hopes of causing him death or property damages.
============================================
Mark Sebree
Fair enough. Given the number of anal-retentive fundamentalists that
frequent these newsgroups, I was using the more restrictive definition
that they would think of, i.e. sex with another during marriage. I
know people that are swingers, in open marriages, in effectively group
marriages, polygamists and polyandrymists, and a number of other
variations on the theme. All are cases of relationships between
consenting adults. When the communication is open and above board with
no secrets kept, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. These
people have strong marriages, strong enough so that they do not have to
worry about what their spouse is doing because of the trust that they
share.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Gantz wrote:
> Mark Sebree wrote:
> > ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
> > > We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> > > implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> > > Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> > > bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> > > homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> > > believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> > > who is right and who is wrong?
> >
> > The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
>
>
You are talking about an 11 or 12 year old girl I assume. Those are
pretty much the only children that would want an abortion. And likely,
the young girl's parents and doctor, since she is too young to safely
complete a pregnancy.
>
> > Quite frankly, these types of decision aren't anyone else's business.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
See above.
>
> > That is the essence of freedom and liberty, even if the religious right
> > does not appreciate these freedoms.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
See above.
>
> >There is no reason to butt into
> > other people's personal lives like some people want to do, and to
> > demand that others follow "moral" codes that are not their own and
> > religious strictures of other people's religions.
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>
See above.
>
> >
> > There is NOTHING inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality,
> > adultery, or premarital sex. It is all a matter of how a person views
> > each of them. And one person cannot dictate that another should be
> > required to follow his or her views rather than the other person's own
> > views.
> >
> > Mark Sebree
>
>
> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
See above.
And you really should lay off the non sequitors. Pre-adolescent girls
are too young to complete a pregnancy safely. They are likely to die.
And they are the only children that have any chance of being involved
in an abortion.
Mark Sebree
Nicholas
> "Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in
> news:1138482438....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Hypno wrote:
>>
>>>"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:1138480460.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You are the supreme arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong'?
>>>>>
>>>>>Rationally, the waste of animal protein created during the abortion
>>>>>process
>>>>>is horrendous. This protein could form a valuable source of
>>>>>nourishment for
>>>>>their 'creators'. The best use of this underutilized resource
>>>>>would be to
>>>>>recycle it through the food chain; like the reconstitution processes
>>>>>used to
>>>>>make chicken nuggets.
>>>>
>>>>Kannibalism is not such a wise habit for human beings, because of
>>>>resulting afflictions like Creutzfeldt-Jakob desease.
>>>
>>>You are suggesting that sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have the
>>>disease because they are kannibals?
>>
>>Well, I was more referring to a variation of it called kuru.
>>
>>RS
>>
>>
>
>
> It can be avoided if one does not eat the human brain.
You;d need to avoid the whole spinal column as well if it follows new
variant C-J pathology.
Nicholas
Nicholas
The key bit here though, is not atheist but 20th century. It is the
technology that made it so much more devasting than the 19th. And it has
not just been limited to the 'bad' guys. Whilst I support the decision
to use the atomic bombs on Japan, it doesn't change the fact that two
cities were wiped out. And genocide/mass murder hasn't been limited to
atheist states either, especially in the last couple of decades.
Nicholas
Nicholas
> Monogamy is irrational. - It makes much more sense to propagate dna
> liberally to increase it's chances of survival.
>
> Trust is nothing more than the product of an emergent property of
> neurochemical activity - a self defeating weakness.
There is some sense to mongamy, especially for the female as with humans
it takes a lot of effort to make sure that the baby grows into a viable
adult and in the short term. It doesn't matter how many pregnancies you
cause if the child dies young due to lack or food or care.
Interestingly though it seems that women are more likely to cheat whilst
they are in the fertile period.
Nicholas
cactus
They are not the only children who have a chance of needing an abortion.
It affects women of all ages and circumstances.
Javriol
> "Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
> news:16mta3-...@news.infowest.com...
> > I cannot. Atheist states throughout the 20th century have believed they
> > could and genocide has been the result.
> ==================
> Did you forget the Inquisition? The Crusades? The mass slaughter of SA and
> US Indians because the good god fearing Christian believers saw them as
> godless savages?
> --
> Arach.........
> http://silentlambs.org
> www.freeminds.org
> http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
> ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
>
No.. But you forgot your goldfish friends..
Javriol
Mark Sebree wrote:
> Gantz wrote:
> > Mark Sebree wrote:
> > > ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
> > > > We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> > > > implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> > > > Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> > > > bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> > > > homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> > > > believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> > > > who is right and who is wrong?
> > >
> > > The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
> >
> > Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
> >
>
> You are talking about an 11 or 12 year old girl I assume. Those are
> pretty much the only children that would want an abortion. And likely,
> the young girl's parents and doctor, since she is too young to safely
> complete a pregnancy.
>
> >
Well If she going to a doctor with her parents, then most likely her
decision over her body is non-existant.
that would be the same for 14, 16, 17 year olds...
Javriol
cactus wrote:
> Gantz wrote:
> > Mark Sebree wrote:
> >> ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
> >>> We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
> >>> implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
> >>> Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
> >>> bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
> >>> homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
> >>> believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
> >>> who is right and who is wrong?
> >> The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
> >
> > Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>
> confidential court approval.
Well, if she goes to court, she is not making her own decision. A court
could say "no" depending the sated you ive in.
>But there is a good chance that telling her
> parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
> incest.
I some cae it could be her 15 year old boyfriend, who got her pregnant.
Let be realisitc here.
? In other cases there may be other serious social consequences
Javriol
Hypno wrote:
>> Monogamy is irrational. - It makes much more sense to propagate dna
> liberally to increase it's chances of survival.
>
Hence Rape, I gather you agree with rape. After all that is what a
apist is doing, spreading his genes far and wide.
R. Pierce Butler
@news3.infoave.net:
Thanks for the update. I will be careful.
(:>)
pierce
David Jensen
"Richard Dawkins" <Daw...@Hell.com> wrote in
<P5WCf.73$v83....@news.uswest.net>:
teachings of Jesus and that you will stop at nothing to make Christians
look bad.
cactus
> cactus wrote:
>> Gantz wrote:
>>> Mark Sebree wrote:
>>>> ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
>>>>> We live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are
>>>>> implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn.
>>>>> Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own
>>>>> bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view
>>>>> homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others
>>>>> believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say
>>>>> who is right and who is wrong?
>>>> The person making the decision or lifestyle choice, and nobody else.
>>> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>> If you mean a minor, probably the minor. Maybe, just maybe with
>> confidential court approval.
>
> Well, if she goes to court, she is not making her own decision. A court
> could say "no" depending the sated you ive in.
A court merely validates the decision. She should decide.
>
> >But there is a good chance that telling her
>> parents or guardians could be deadly for her - in some cases it might be
>> incest.
>
> I some cae it could be her 15 year old boyfriend, who got her pregnant.
> Let be realisitc here.
In some cases it might. And in some of those cases it could be deadly to
either or both for the same reasons as if it were incest.
Choose Life
A new crisis has struck America, a new crisis in faith!
This is an emergency!
A new crisis of faith is ripping its way through families,
exposing children to the air of doubt. And, It's not happening
in New York, or Boston or any of those places we associate
with the liberal ideology. It's happening right here, within
the very heart of the bible belt.
Right now as many as 11 homes in one North Carolina county
alone are being foreclosed upon each day, shattering forever
the American dream for more families. Rather than improving,
financial forcasters are predicting the rise of foreclosures to
spread into Americas west & midwest regions.
Each one of these foreclosures represents another family
savaged by economic growth that has long since left them
behind. Each and every foreclosure is another family left
destitute, their children looking forward to a future where
they will not only be told that they will have to expect less
than their parents, but they will have to expect less than
Mexicans if they want to compete for their jobs.
This is a crisis. This is a crisis in faith. With so many
rudely awakened to the realities of right-wing economics,
with so many terrified at the likelihood of becoming the
next victim of Republican economic policy, we chosen
by Jesus find ourselves desperate for an issue that will
not only distract the people the Republicans have turned
their backs on, but will motivate them to once again vote
against their best interest.
GOD BLESS BILL FRISK.
With inflation high, job growth never making up for
Bush's earlier losses and thousands killed in an
unnecessary war, the failed economic policies of
the Republican leadership, tax give-aways to the
rich and the countless scandals rocking Republicans
are fast coming under scrutiny. To avoid this, we need
gay marriage. Again, we NEED gay marriage.
Bill Frisk has enacted a rather clever plan. He is
re-introducing an anti-gay marriage amendment in
the hopes of appealing to the worst instincts of voters.
He is hoping to inflame them with the idea of two
men, or two women turning their backs on a life of
promiscuity and taking legal & financial responsibility
for each other.
HURTING PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE IS BETTER
THAN HELPING YOURSELF, OR HELPING YOUR
CHILDREN.
Call your Senators. Call your congressman. Tell them
to set aside economic concerns, tell them not to address
any of the corruption and tell them to ignore fixing the
budget deficit. Tell them to set everything important to
your children aside and to make a really big show out
of an anti-gay marriage amendment.
We need your help. We REQUIRE the distraction. We
have to get the minds of the American people off what
is good for them and their children. We need the gay
marriage issue, and we need it NOW.
Call congress. Call the Senate. Call the Whitehouse.
Tell them to continue doing nothing to help America
during this crisis and to spend week, maybe even
months, obsessed with gay marriage.
Do it. Do it now.
Koi-lo
goldfish group. Our goldfish do no get abortions.
Thank you.
============
"Richard Dawkins" <Daw...@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:lnSCf.42$Ay6....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "ShadowFalconBlack" JABRIOL<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> message news:894eaa60601281043v9f0...@mail.gmail.com...
Mark Sebree
Actually, they are. If they are much older, they are no longer
children.
> It affects women of all ages and circumstances.
True. And the overwhelming majority of them feel relief from not
having to endure an unwanted pregnancy. However, the person that I was
replying to specified "a child who wish (sic) to have an abortion".
Therefore, I addressed the only children that can have an abortion,
young girls that are pregnant.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
That is why the laws require a judicial bypass. So the young women CAN
make their own decisions.
Mark Sebree
cactus
until age 17 and 359 days. That's a pretty big group, and all should
have the choice. Technically a girl who has sex prior to the age of
consent is considered to have been raped. If you want to distinguish
between girls younger and older than the age of consent, you might have
somewhat more of a case. But I think that the younger girls deserve the
same protections as older ones. A girl that young needing an abortion
will receive counseling beforehand from any reputable clinic. And
parental notification is probably required for any medical procedures
performed for any minor.
Hypno
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43dc5ff5$0$58069$742e...@news.sonic.net...
He also said that "National Socialism and Christianity cannot exist
together" -
Hitler was a skilled manipulator and propagandist who realised the political
influence that could be gained by temporarily aligning with Christianity
when it suited his purpose.
Hypno
Hypno
"Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
> news:t4uta3-...@news.infowest.com...
> >
> > "Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:43dc3907$0$13148$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> >>
> >> "Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
> >> news:16mta3-...@news.infowest.com...
> >> > I cannot. Atheist states throughout the 20th century have believed
> >> > they
> >> > could and genocide has been the result.
> >> ==================
> >> Did you forget the Inquisition? The Crusades? The mass slaughter of
SA
> > and
> >> US Indians because the good god fearing Christian believers saw them as
> >> godless savages?
> >
> > No - they never achieved the industrial scale that the atheist states of
> > the
> > 20th century achieved.
>
> You mean it goes by how MANY they slaughtered as to who's Christian and
who
> isn't?
>
> > To you, however that is irrelevant.
>
> Right,... because the good Christians murdered more people over the
> centuries than any modern day sociopathic atheist could dream of.
Proof?
Old
> Jehovah himself killed a few hundred thousand souls, including infants and
> pregnant women........
Since you readily proclaim the non-existence of said Jehovah, these few
hundred thousand souls that he killed must be equally imaginary?
Hypno
Hypno
"Nicholas" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dri2uj$doag$3...@news3.infoave.net...
The male of the species creates many millions of sperm each day - It makes
more sense to the male to impregnate constantly and leave the female to fend
for itself - some of the progeny will survive, some will die. That is how
we evolved...
Hypno
Cracklin'
>
> "Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> Jehovah himself killed a few hundred thousand souls, including infants
>> and
>> pregnant women........
> Since you readily proclaim the non-existence of said Jehovah, these few
> hundred thousand souls that he killed must be equally imaginary?
=================
Yep! Just like all the imaginary people killed by all those imaginary
atheists. :-) I knew you didn't believe in the big sky pixie! Therefore
you don't believe he murdered people..........
--
CR.......
Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people
including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be
saved for later raping (concubinage & forced marriage) by Moses' soldiers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CR.....
AråchñÕe¤
And genocide/mass murder hasn't been limited to
> atheist states either, especially in the last couple of decades.
>
Not to mention Hitler wasn't an atheist. Not only was he a god fearing man
but he was kind to Christian children and animals. That should tell us
something about Christian sociopathic homicidal hypocrites.
--
Arach
All the JWs wish for is walking around the COUNTRYSIDE (never any towns
pictured in the WT rags) smiling like the village idiot and carrying
baskets of veggies and fruit with them. Also note they all live in suit
pants and dress shirts. The women live in housedresses of 1952 vintage.....
and they call that paradise? Any normal human being would rapidly be bored
to death looking at trees, grass, each other's ever smiling faces and eating
a vegetarian diet.
They'd soon be longing for a good book, a movie, a Mall or a steak
dinner..... (Carol)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cracklin'
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1138521898....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gantz wrote:
>> Who should make the decision for a child who wish to have an abortion?
>
> See above.
>
> And you really should lay off the non sequitors. Pre-adolescent girls
> are too young to complete a pregnancy safely. They are likely to die.
> And they are the only children that have any chance of being involved
> in an abortion.
That's because you're replying to JABRIOL with a new NYM. He's only posting
this BS here to have you reply and unwittingly CROSS POST to groups he's
trying to destroy with your help. Have you looked at what he's done to
ARJ-W and the pond and Aquaria groups because people don't remove off-topic
groups when they reply?
CR.........
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
Cracklin'
> That group includes girls from the onset of menstruation (12 - 13) or so
> until age 17 and 359 days.
First check you NG headers. Why are you sending this to an aquarium keepers
NG? Second, a female over the age of 15 or 16 can hardly be considered a
"child" too young to make some decisions for herself. Remove irrelevant
off-topic NGs if you wish to reply to messages.
That's a pretty big group, and all should
> have the choice. Technically a girl who has sex prior to the age of
> consent is considered to have been raped. If you want to distinguish
> between girls younger and older than the age of consent, you might have
> somewhat more of a case. But I think that the younger girls deserve the
> same protections as older ones.
Agreed. They should also have a say in whether they are forced to bear an
unwanted child or not.
A girl that young needing an abortion
> will receive counseling beforehand from any reputable clinic. And
> parental notification is probably required for any medical procedures
> performed for any minor.
--
Alice in Watchtowerland....
The WTS treat the sheep like mushrooms....keep them in the dark and feed
them
bullsh!t..... (Cedit to Dizz)
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p. 1061
"While malicious lying is definitely condemned in
the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under
obligation to divulge truthful information to people
who are not entitled to it." *WHO DECIDES?*
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
http://www.intrex.net/talley/list7_13.html
So many sheep, so much fleecing.
Hypno
"Javriol" <jav...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138542502.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the package is delivered nature will take care of the rest without
worrying too much about the niceties...
Hypno
Hypno
"Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Hypno" <666...@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
> news:6t70b3-...@news.infowest.com...
> >
> > "Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > Old
> >> Jehovah himself killed a few hundred thousand souls, including infants
> >> and
> >> pregnant women........
>
> > Since you readily proclaim the non-existence of said Jehovah, these few
> > hundred thousand souls that he killed must be equally imaginary?
> =================
> Yep! Just like all the imaginary people killed by all those imaginary
> atheists. :-)
You are a holocaust denier?
Hypno
Xabriol
cactus wrote:
could say "no" depending the sated you ive in.
>
> A court merely validates the decision. She should decide.
> >
up in the air statement.
>
Ray Fischer
Jesus H Christ
[what the FUCK does this dumbfucks posting have to do with GOLDFISH?
distribution snipped]
> These are not atheists on this forum.
> These are God-Haters attempting to disguise themselves as atheists.
Raymond Ambrosini, we don't hate 'god' since that's just a figment of
imagination, we just hate *you*.
> You should be posting this on other newsgroups such as alt.atheism but
> even then when you sift the wheat you'll find that 90% or more over
> there are anti-theist God-hating morons such as the ones responding to
> this thread.
WASH MY FEET, FUNDIE!
jesus!
Borked Pseudo Mailed
<1138499207.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"Zhavriol" Jabriol <zod...@gmail.com> Verizon/JerseyCity:NJ/
Hey hey Roy off his meds,........ ........ Bwa ha ha ha ha ha
ha Ha what a fucking asshole ....
From: "Roy" <n...@home.now> wrote in message
news:43259bf8...@news.east.earthlink.net...> On Sun, 11
Sep 2005 10:17:25 -0300:
>===<>
I do not think so I merely replied to ap ost that was made in
Rec.ponds............not like Carols baggage did not follow her
in to
rec.ponds before that either as it sure did........So get a
FUCKING
clue derek, and there I said it again, god forbide but go fuck
yourself........I can easily jump in there with some of the
others and make yet more problems but no I have not, so say
whayt the hell you
like, and carol is still a fucking bitch and can bite my ass
after you
take your turn..After all I would hate to see such a stupendous
in
thine onle eyes to you anyhow individual get a case of ain;t no
telling eating after carol so see I gave you a break big boy!>
==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original illiterate ponder"
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~~~~~ }<(((((o>
AråchñÕe¤
No, why? Hitler was a good Christian and went to church regularly. And
like so many other good Christians he slaughtered others because they
believed differently, they weren't Christians. He learned to do this from
the bible no doubt. Look at all the non-Jews Jehovah has his Hebrew pets
murder,... whole villages including all the animals. Whoops, except for all
those juicy little virgin girls they were to keep for themselves. ;-)
--
Alice in Watchtowerland....
AråchñÕe¤
> The male of the species creates many millions of sperm each day - It makes
> more sense to the male to impregnate constantly and leave the female to
> fend
> for itself - some of the progeny will survive, some will die. That is how
> we evolved...
Until someone created the gods. Too many woman and children were probably
dying so they had to come up with something to force men to be responsible.
--
Arach....
Hypno
>> No - they never achieved the industrial scale that the atheist states of
>> the
>> 20th century achieved.
>>
>> To you, however that is irrelevant.
>
> The key bit here though, is not atheist but 20th century. It is the
> technology that made it so much more devasting than the 19th. And it has
> not just been limited to the 'bad' guys. Whilst I support the decision to
> use the atomic bombs on Japan, it doesn't change the fact that two cities
> were wiped out.
Easy to say when you were not in the cities concerned at the time..
And genocide/mass murder hasn't been limited to
> atheist states either, especially in the last couple of decades.
Examples?
Hypno
Hypno
"Thurisaz the Einherjer" <MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:drhpd8$hnr$7...@online.de...
> ShadowFalconBlack wrote:
>
>> Who is to say
>> who is right and who is wrong?
>
You know some?
Hypno
Hypno
"cactus" <b...@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:6RaDf.7227$Dk....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> parental notification is probably required for any medical procedures
> performed for any minor.
Not in the UK:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,1692999,00.html
Mother loses abortion 'right to know' case
Staff and agencies
Monday January 23, 2006
The mother of two teenage daughters today lost her high court battle for
parents' "right to know" whether girls under the age of 16 were being
advised on obtaining an abortion.
The legal defeat for Sue Axon, a divorced mother from Baguley, in
Wythenshawe, Manchester, was being viewed as a test case with potential
implications for parents across the country.
Ms Axon had argued that the current guidelines allowing teenage girls
confidential family planning advice increased the likelihood of them having
underage sex and then an abortion, which she opposes.
However, the high court in London today rejected the 52-year-old's challenge
that parents had a right to know about the advice their daughters receive.
Mr Justice Silber ruled that Ms Axon, who has five children - or any other
parent - had no right to know unless the child decided otherwise.
He said he would not change the law as Ms Axon's lawyers had requested.
Lawyers for the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, had fought the legal
challenge.
The judge added that to force a girl to tell her parents "may lead her to
make a decision that she later regrets or seek the assistance of an
unofficial abortionist".
Outside court, Ms Axon - who will not be seeking leave to appeal - said she
was disappointed, but did not regret bringing the case.
"I hope these proceedings will help parents and children to recognise the
trauma of abortion and to talk openly about sexual matters," she said.
She added the judge had underlined that abortion can have severe medical and
psychological consequences for the person concerned.
During a recent hearing, she had said she had been prompted to make the
legal challenge after a termination she had 20 years ago resulted in "guilt,
shame and depression for many years".
Lawyers for Ms Axon, who had launched the proceedings more than a year ago,
had emphasised that her teenage daughters, 16-year-old Joy and Amber, 13,
had not sought abortions and that she was bringing the case "as a matter of
principle".
They later said her 16-year-old was pregnant and expecting in March, and
that this showed the case was of "more than hypothetical interest" to Ms
Axon.
"Having endured the trauma of abortion, I brought the case to ensure that
medical professionals would not carry out an abortion on one of my daughters
without first informing me," Ms Axon said.
However, the Department of Health and the Family Planning Association (FPA),
which campaigned against Ms Axon's appeal, welcomed the ruling.
Anne Weyman, the FPA chief executive, said any change in the rules would
deter young girls from seeking help on sexual health matters.
"Confidentiality is the single most important factor in a young person's
decision to visit a health service," she said.
"Compulsory parental notification of their visit would have been a disaster,
leading to young people staying away from services and risking unplanned
pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections."
Ms Axon had attempted to challenge the legality of Department of Health
guidance on the provision of advice and treatment to under-16s on
contraception and sexual and reproductive health, issued in July 2004.
The guidance stated that although doctors should try to persuade children to
tell their parents or another family member, terminations could take place
without parental consent or knowledge if the child was mature and
intelligent enough to understand the implications.
The main consideration is that the confidentiality of under-16s must be
respected if they wish to terminate a pregnancy.
Ms Axon said the advice "undermined" her role as a parent and infringed her
parental rights under the European convention on human rights.
The court today had to decide whether the current guidance was lawful.
Ruling that it was, Mr Justice Silber said: "Everybody involved in this case
is agreed that a young person should be encouraged to involve his or her
parents on any decision on sexual matters."
However, he added that there were unfortunate situations in which a young
person needed advice when they were not prepared to inform their parents.
If Ms Axon's case had been successful, it would have overturned the ruling
in the 1986 case of Victoria Gillick, a Catholic parent who lost her attempt
to prevent doctors giving contraception to her daughters.
Mr Justice Silber said the Gillick case and other arguments led him to
support the July 2004 guidelines.
Speaking after the ruling, the public health minister Caroline Flint said:
"This judgment confirms that our guidance is fully in line with the law."
She said it was "a very difficult issue" and that healthcare professionals
should always try to persuade a young person to involve their parents.
"In the cases where this is not possible, every effort should be made to
help them find another adult to provide support - for example another family
member or a specialist youth worker," she added.
Hypno
Nicholas
> "Nicholas" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dri2h5$doag$2...@news3.infoave.net...
>
>
>>>No - they never achieved the industrial scale that the atheist states of
>>>the
>>>20th century achieved.
>>>
>>>To you, however that is irrelevant.
>>
>>The key bit here though, is not atheist but 20th century. It is the
>>technology that made it so much more devasting than the 19th. And it has
>>not just been limited to the 'bad' guys. Whilst I support the decision to
>>use the atomic bombs on Japan, it doesn't change the fact that two cities
>>were wiped out.
>
> Easy to say when you were not in the cities concerned at the time..
Indeed: a luxury I am more than pleased to have.
>> And genocide/mass murder hasn't been limited to
>> atheist states either, especially in the last couple of decades.
>
> Examples?
What used to be Yugoslavia
Rwanda
Iraq
Sudan
Afganistan
Nicholas
Xabriol
>> atheist states either, especially in the last couple of decades.
> Examples?
What used to be Yugoslavia
Rwanda
Iraq
Sudan
Afganistan
Nicholas
---> where is the country of Nicholas?
wbarwell
East Timur
Guatemala
Chile
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Brazil
Argentina
Vietnam
Cambodia
Iran
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie