Very OT - Fahrenheit 9/11

First of all, there is a specific legal definition of murder, which includes
issues of state of mind. Learn it.

Secondly, this is not a matter of sin, but a matter of legality. Most of
our laws are not about morality at all.

But mainly, until you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't wish laws on me.

And don't make a procedure illegal unless there is no conditions under which
a procedure is necessary, like partial birth abortion.

Just because something turns your stomach doesn't mean it's bad. Do you eat
meat? I do, and I can butcher if there is no other choice.

I think abortion can be justifiable homicide. How dare you suggest women
have abortion on a whim!

Most cultures do not consider a child to be alive (have a soul) until after
birth. Many do not even name a child until weeks or months, or even 2
years, considering a child not to be fully alive only after the time of
infant mortality is pretty much over.

Also consider the child. Rush Limbaugh thinks women who can't manage their
own lives should be forced to have those children "to teach them a lesson".
Should a child have to live with someone who is reminded of rape each time
they look on their child. Should a woman be forced to carry a child and
have the both stay in an violent abusive relationship.

If there are exception to the law, then the law should not be placed. That
would be like saying only people without enough money for a good lawyer have
to follow this law.

Should desperate women, who are in need of the most protection, be the ones
to have to pay the highest price not only in their private circumstances,
but also before the law?

Tina


"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
So if the unborn child is WANTED, killing the child is murder.

But if the unborn child is UNwanted, aborting the child is OK.

So the unborn child's right to life depends on the mood of the mother when
she finds out she's pregnant?

What other right do we have that depends on someone else's mood or
attitude
to detemine whether we deserve it or not? Since when does our right to
life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness depend on whether someone else wants
us
to have those rights?

People here are NOT arguing FOR ABORTION. They are arguing against the
illegality of abortion.

Same as arguing for the legality of medical marijuana is not an argument for
indiscriminate drug use.

Tina


"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote...

I do think you've struck on the only valid biological argument FOR
abortion.

Karleen, if we would all be on the same side to prevent as many abortion as
possible without giving up our right to chose to have one, we could all work
much harder to find an end to the need to have one. But it seems to me that
most hard core far right people don't want to work to do this. It is easier
for them to just be morally right then end the struggle to have women
determine the right to their own bodies.
Roxan
"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
As stated before no one has the right to use someone else's body
against
their will. Therefore, when a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant.

I do think you've struck on the only valid biological argument FOR
abortion.
That an unborn child is a parasite who lives in his/her mother's body for
the purposes of survival until he/she is able to live outside the womb. Of
course if this reasoning is used, it follows that ALL pregnancies are
parasitical infections and should be aborted to perserve the health of the
mother in every case. In fact, it would be a public health matter, similar
to an outbreak of tapeworms or some other noxious affliction.

The stupidity of this position should be clear, I hope. And your
contention
that a fetus "uses someone else's body against their will" certainly gives
the fetus motive, purpose, and the ability to facilitate that purpose,
which
looks like personhold, humanness, or life to me. On the other hand, if the
fetus is in the position of having someone use his/her body against
his/her
will by ending his/her life, then abortion is wrong in every case. The
parasitical argument however was not the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

I'm not stupid, you know. I do know the difference between the US
Constitution and whatever constitution or basis of law the Nazis had. But
the relegating of undesirables to subhuman status in Nazi Germany is the
same as Roe v. Wade. As was the relegating of blacks to subhuman status as
slaves/property. As was the relegating of women to the status of property
early in US history as you pointed out yourself. As was the relegation of
Native Americans to subhuman status (of which I am well aware since I am
Native American). And as will be the relegating of undesirables to
subhuman
status if euthanasia becomes legal.

You stated: "There will not be any kind of wholesale rounding up of
persons
to be euthanised on the order of Nazi Germany or slavery or removal of
indigenous Americans to reservations which you neglected to mention)."

50 million aborted fetuses .... who'd have thought in 1971 that the
slaughter would be so extensive? It trumps the 6 million Jews and 5
million
non-Jews that the Nazis caused to be killed. It trumps the number of
slaves
who were in bondage, mistreated, and died without freedom. It trumps even
the 4,000 Native Americans who died on the Trail of Tears. In fact, it
trumps any modern tragedy or disaster that I can think of.

You said : "I will side with personal freedom over government intervention
in my life any day."

Don't you see how hypocritical this is? Your position has denied personal
freedom to 50 million unborn children because of the governmental
intervention of Roe v. Wade... is this the side you are on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770
"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?" Ben
Franklin, letter to Thomas Paine

Actually, according to some Muslim biographies I have read, Allah was a
Bedouin term for a powerful spirit that had nothing to do with a
monotheistic God until Mohamed used it in the Koran (presumably to put it in
terms that his audience could relate to). Mohammed admired the Jews
religious system and called them people of the book and desired that his
people would have a unifying code. He meditated on this idea and eventually
wrote, or was inspired to write, the Koran. In the Koran, Allah is the term
for the God of Abraham. So, since Islam is the dominant religion, for all
intents and purposes Allah is used for God in Arabic, it is not a one-to-one
literal translation from an etymologistic viewpoint.

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
My understanding is that Allah is the only Arabic word for God, and that
Arabic Christians call God Allah.
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770
"vj" wrote in very good, Tina!
just like [i think it was Louis' suggestion?] try replacing "under
God" in the pledge with "under Allah" and listen to them scream!

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
As stated before no one has the right to use someone else's body
against
their will. Therefore, when a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant.

I do think you've struck on the only valid biological argument FOR
abortion.
That an unborn child is a parasite who lives in his/her mother's body for
the purposes of survival until he/she is able to live outside the womb. Of
course if this reasoning is used, it follows that ALL pregnancies are
parasitical infections and should be aborted to perserve the health of the
mother in every case. In fact, it would be a public health matter, similar
to an outbreak of tapeworms or some other noxious affliction.


All pregnancies are parasitical infestations. This does not imply you
should always terminate the life of a parasite. You can decide to be host
to this parasite if you want to.
As noted in my post, this makes the act of motherhood all the more heroic
and self-sacrificing and admirable.
Your implication that defining the fetus as a parasite, which you admit
is valid, does not imply what action should be taken regarding the parasite.
And your analogy with tapeworms simply does not hold water. I do not argue
in favor of the practice of abortion, I argue in favor of a woman being
able to choose whether to carry a child of not. I realize this may seem
like a fine line, but there is a difference.

The stupidity of this position should be clear, I hope. And your
contention
that a fetus "uses someone else's body against their will" certainly gives
the fetus motive, purpose, and the ability to facilitate that purpose,
which
looks like personhold, humanness, or life to me. On the other hand, if the
fetus is in the position of having someone use his/her body against
his/her
will by ending his/her life, then abortion is wrong in every case. The
parasitical argument however was not the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.


"Usage of a body" does not imply motive. A virus uses your body when you
have a cold, yet there is clearly no motive there. And just because
something has life, humanness and all these other things does not imply that
their actions should be sustained without restraint. There is a balance of
interests here. The mother has rights as well, and one of those rights is
self-protection. Women die in childbirth, women's bodies are irreperably
changed during pregnancy and childbirth.
You say a person that is in the position of using another person's body
against their will should not be killed, then maybe you would like to be
raped or beaten or to be less intense, maybe someone might want to just suck
on your toes for a little while. Since that person has humannes and will
and so forth, I guess you would think that was okay?
You say you have a degree in religion and graduated with various honors.
Did they not teach logic or rhetoric as part of the program there? Or has
your religious bias caused you to abandon the training? And is refering to
someone's viewpoint as "stupidity" a method you were taught to win debates?

I'm not stupid, you know. I do know the difference between the US
Constitution and whatever constitution or basis of law the Nazis had. But
the relegating of undesirables to subhuman status in Nazi Germany is the
same as Roe v. Wade. As was the relegating of blacks to subhuman status as
slaves/property. As was the relegating of women to the status of property
early in US history as you pointed out yourself. As was the relegation of
Native Americans to subhuman status (of which I am well aware since I am
Native American). And as will be the relegating of undesirables to
subhuman
status if euthanasia becomes legal.


I don't think I was the first person to call anyone stupid. But the point
is, US Constitution and law has a history of relegating some people to
subhuman class, which you said it didn't.
This whole thing started with an assertion on your part that the US
Consitution was founded on Christianity. I, and others, have clearly
demonstrated it was not, and you have yet to concede that point.
Your knowledge of history is incomplete and your skills in logic and
rhetoric need refining.

You stated: "There will not be any kind of wholesale rounding up of
persons
to be euthanised on the order of Nazi Germany or slavery or removal of
indigenous Americans to reservations which you neglected to mention)."

50 million aborted fetuses .... who'd have thought in 1971 that the
slaughter would be so extensive? It trumps the 6 million Jews and 5
million
non-Jews that the Nazis caused to be killed. It trumps the number of
slaves
who were in bondage, mistreated, and died without freedom. It trumps even
the 4,000 Native Americans who died on the Trail of Tears. In fact, it
trumps any modern tragedy or disaster that I can think of.

You said : "I will side with personal freedom over government intervention
in my life any day."

Don't you see how hypocritical this is? Your position has denied personal
freedom to 50 million unborn children because of the governmental
intervention of Roe v. Wade... is this the side you are on?

I do not see how it scan possibly be hypocritical. The stand that I deny 50
million people the right to damage the bodies and risk the lives of 50
million other people against their will is highly consistent, and if the
only way for these people to defend themselves is to terminate the fetus, so
be it. I am on the side of not having the state force women to be used
against their will.
Since you are so foggy on US history, let me give you some abortion
history (information from http://www.hopeclinic.com/history.htm, some
iformation about birth control not directly related to abortion omitted for
brevity, comments in paratheses are mine)

4th Century AD - St. Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion
up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus. (how did
they know the gender at that point?)

13th Century AD - St. Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual
intercourse only for procreation.

1588 - Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions (talk about inconsistency)

1591 - Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus' edict against abortion (Talk
more about inconsistency, a total reversal within three years no less)

1803 - Great Britain makes abortion a misdemeanor

1821 - Connecticut outlaws abortion after quickening, early abortions are
legal (wow it seems the original founding fathers of the US were
pro-choice)

1860's - All states pass comprehensive, criminal abortion laws. Most remain
until 1973.

1869 - Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France's Napoleon
III acknowledging papal infallibility. France's population experienced a
sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.

1873 - Federal Comstock laws enacted prohibiting mailing or distribution of
information on birth control and abortion

1930 - Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual
intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent.
1956 - Dr. John Rock (a Catholic) and others developed the birth control
pill. Their research was funded by two women: (the mention of Catholism is
sic as well as the punctuation)

1967 - Then-Governor Ronald Reagan of California (who became a very
anti-choice president) signs the most liberal abortion law of the times
allowing freedom of choice during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. (talk
about inconsistency again)

1970 - Hawaii, Alaska, and New York repeal criminal abortion laws allowing
abortion in the first trimester.

1972 - Supreme Court finds the right to privacy of unmarried persons
violated by Massachusetts law against distribution of contraceptives in
Eisenstadt v Baird. Justice Brennan in the majority opinion states that all
Americans have a right to bear and beget children free from government
interference.

Monday Morning, January 22nd, 1973 - The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2
decision, hands down Roe v Wade making a 1st trimester abortion a private
decision between a woman & her physician. In the 2nd trimester states can
put limitations on abortion with regard to the health of the pregnant woman.
In the 3rd trimester states can make abortion illegal except to save the
life of the woman. (you see your knowledge of even abortion history is off
by two years, a Phi Beta Kappa should do better research)


As I said in my original post I really didn't want to argue the abortion
issue, but I have been drawn into it inadvertantly. Yet I am sure you have
not even read the slim volume I suggested, even though 50% of it was written
from an anti-abortion standpoint.
You began by making false assertions about the people who began the US and
wrote the Constitution. Others and I have made it abundantly clear that
those assertions were wrong. You have yet to address or concede the points
that were made.
Now you have become degrading and insulting. And I don't appreciate
that. This is method of the one who has lost her position. I have tried
throughout to keep the high road in this discourse, but you have chosen
another path. A sad state for an alledged Phi Beta Kappa I would think.

--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770
"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?" Ben
Franklin, letter to Thomas Paine


The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.
-Benjamin Franklin (Franklin's Works, Vol. ii., p. 2).

Hear, Hear!

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Christina Peterson" wrote in message
...
First of all, there is a specific legal definition of murder, which
includes
issues of state of mind. Learn it.

Secondly, this is not a matter of sin, but a matter of legality. Most of
our laws are not about morality at all.

But mainly, until you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't wish laws on me.

And don't make a procedure illegal unless there is no conditions under
which
a procedure is necessary, like partial birth abortion.

Just because something turns your stomach doesn't mean it's bad. Do you
eat
meat? I do, and I can butcher if there is no other choice.

I think abortion can be justifiable homicide. How dare you suggest women
have abortion on a whim!

Most cultures do not consider a child to be alive (have a soul) until
after
birth. Many do not even name a child until weeks or months, or even 2
years, considering a child not to be fully alive only after the time of
infant mortality is pretty much over.

Also consider the child. Rush Limbaugh thinks women who can't manage
their
own lives should be forced to have those children "to teach them a
lesson".
Should a child have to live with someone who is reminded of rape each time
they look on their child. Should a woman be forced to carry a child and
have the both stay in an violent abusive relationship.

If there are exception to the law, then the law should not be placed.
That
would be like saying only people without enough money for a good lawyer
have
to follow this law.

Should desperate women, who are in need of the most protection, be the
ones
to have to pay the highest price not only in their private circumstances,
but also before the law?

Tina


"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
So if the unborn child is WANTED, killing the child is murder.

But if the unborn child is UNwanted, aborting the child is OK.

So the unborn child's right to life depends on the mood of the mother
when
she finds out she's pregnant?

What other right do we have that depends on someone else's mood or
attitude
to detemine whether we deserve it or not? Since when does our right to
life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness depend on whether someone else
wants
us
to have those rights?

Then you dont subscribe to the creed of McDonaldism (or is it the BKites)
who promise that 'we deserve a break today', and exhort us to 'have it our
way'? You do not bow down and worship and the feet of conspicuous
consumption of commercial gods and goddess'?
;-)
Diana, not quite tongue in cheek

"Christina Peterson" wrote in message
...
I think most of societies "breakdown" is from 1) the difference in
privileges given to the haves and have nots in this country, 2) the over
interpretation of laws and morals, and 3) the marketing done in this
country
that teaches dissatisfaction. Much of which is the result of the
unbalance
of an overly patriarchal society.

Tina

Um, except that the government also does not have the legal right to
de-parasite anyone against their will.

-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay


Karleen/Vibrant Jewels wrote:
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...

As stated before no one has the right to use someone else's body against
their will. Therefore, when a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant.


I do think you've struck on the only valid biological argument FOR abortion.
That an unborn child is a parasite who lives in his/her mother's body for
the purposes of survival until he/she is able to live outside the womb. Of
course if this reasoning is used, it follows that ALL pregnancies are
parasitical infections and should be aborted to perserve the health of the
mother in every case. In fact, it would be a public health matter, similar
to an outbreak of tapeworms or some other noxious affliction.

The stupidity of this position should be clear, I hope. And your contention
that a fetus "uses someone else's body against their will" certainly gives
the fetus motive, purpose, and the ability to facilitate that purpose, which
looks like personhold, humanness, or life to me. On the other hand, if the
fetus is in the position of having someone use his/her body against his/her
will by ending his/her life, then abortion is wrong in every case. The
parasitical argument however was not the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

I'm not stupid, you know. I do know the difference between the US
Constitution and whatever constitution or basis of law the Nazis had. But
the relegating of undesirables to subhuman status in Nazi Germany is the
same as Roe v. Wade. As was the relegating of blacks to subhuman status as
slaves/property. As was the relegating of women to the status of property
early in US history as you pointed out yourself. As was the relegation of
Native Americans to subhuman status (of which I am well aware since I am
Native American). And as will be the relegating of undesirables to subhuman
status if euthanasia becomes legal.

You stated: "There will not be any kind of wholesale rounding up of persons
to be euthanised on the order of Nazi Germany or slavery or removal of
indigenous Americans to reservations which you neglected to mention)."

50 million aborted fetuses .... who'd have thought in 1971 that the
slaughter would be so extensive? It trumps the 6 million Jews and 5 million
non-Jews that the Nazis caused to be killed. It trumps the number of slaves
who were in bondage, mistreated, and died without freedom. It trumps even
the 4,000 Native Americans who died on the Trail of Tears. In fact, it
trumps any modern tragedy or disaster that I can think of.

You said : "I will side with personal freedom over government intervention
in my life any day."

Don't you see how hypocritical this is? Your position has denied personal
freedom to 50 million unborn children because of the governmental
intervention of Roe v. Wade... is this the side you are on?

I agree. I think abortions are terrible, but so many more coupd be
prevented by working to A: prevent unwanted pregnancies and B: eliminate
the scenarios that lead to pregnancies being untenable. Better
education, less abuse, a larger middle class, etc. Forcing women to give
birth to unwanted babies doesn't help anyone.

-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay


roxan wrote:
Karleen, if we would all be on the same side to prevent as many abortion as
possible without giving up our right to chose to have one, we could all work
much harder to find an end to the need to have one. But it seems to me that
most hard core far right people don't want to work to do this. It is easier
for them to just be morally right then end the struggle to have women
determine the right to their own bodies.
Roxan
"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...

"Louis Cage" wrote in message
. ..

As stated before no one has the right to use someone else's body

against

their will. Therefore, when a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant.

I do think you've struck on the only valid biological argument FOR

abortion.

That an unborn child is a parasite who lives in his/her mother's body for
the purposes of survival until he/she is able to live outside the womb. Of
course if this reasoning is used, it follows that ALL pregnancies are
parasitical infections and should be aborted to perserve the health of the
mother in every case. In fact, it would be a public health matter, similar
to an outbreak of tapeworms or some other noxious affliction.

The stupidity of this position should be clear, I hope. And your

contention

that a fetus "uses someone else's body against their will" certainly gives
the fetus motive, purpose, and the ability to facilitate that purpose,

which

looks like personhold, humanness, or life to me. On the other hand, if the
fetus is in the position of having someone use his/her body against

his/her

will by ending his/her life, then abortion is wrong in every case. The
parasitical argument however was not the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

I'm not stupid, you know. I do know the difference between the US
Constitution and whatever constitution or basis of law the Nazis had. But
the relegating of undesirables to subhuman status in Nazi Germany is the
same as Roe v. Wade. As was the relegating of blacks to subhuman status as
slaves/property. As was the relegating of women to the status of property
early in US history as you pointed out yourself. As was the relegation of
Native Americans to subhuman status (of which I am well aware since I am
Native American). And as will be the relegating of undesirables to

subhuman

status if euthanasia becomes legal.

You stated: "There will not be any kind of wholesale rounding up of

persons

to be euthanised on the order of Nazi Germany or slavery or removal of
indigenous Americans to reservations which you neglected to mention)."

50 million aborted fetuses .... who'd have thought in 1971 that the
slaughter would be so extensive? It trumps the 6 million Jews and 5

million

non-Jews that the Nazis caused to be killed. It trumps the number of

slaves

who were in bondage, mistreated, and died without freedom. It trumps even
the 4,000 Native Americans who died on the Trail of Tears. In fact, it
trumps any modern tragedy or disaster that I can think of.

You said : "I will side with personal freedom over government intervention
in my life any day."

Don't you see how hypocritical this is? Your position has denied personal
freedom to 50 million unborn children because of the governmental
intervention of Roe v. Wade... is this the side you are on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770
"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?" Ben
Franklin, letter to Thomas Paine

He has certainly won my respect. That was incredibly educational.

-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay


vj wrote:

thank you, Louis.
you have MUCH more patience than i have.