19 minutes ago
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Twitter Updates
Always Look at the Bright Side...
The "Religion of Peace" At Work...
About Me
- Brooke
- "Here sir, the people govern." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech in the New York ratifying convention, 17 June 1788)
Five Star Bloggers
-
-
1 hour ago
-
2 hours ago
-
2 hours ago
-
3 hours ago
-
4 hours ago
-
5 hours ago
-
5 hours ago
-
6 hours ago
-
10 hours ago
-
13 hours ago
-
14 hours ago
-
15 hours ago
-
17 hours ago
-
19 hours ago
-
20 hours ago
-
1 day ago
-
1 day ago
-
1 day ago
-
3 days ago
-
3 days ago
-
4 days ago
-
4 days ago
-
4 days ago
-
4 days ago
-
5 days ago
-
1 week ago
-
1 week ago
-
1 week ago
-
1 week ago
-
3 weeks ago
-
5 weeks ago
-
5 weeks ago
-
1 month ago
Liberal Warning Disclaimer
Buy This Book...
...At Lulu.com!
Gen. George S. Patton On Terror
Outrage!
Burqa-Free
Yes, She Has A Plot...
TR Says:
Housekeeping Is Important
Bad Decision
Allah Ack Bacon
9-11
Mother And Child
The Meat Of Islamo-Fascism
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(199)
-
►
December
(15)
- Close Gitmo... Great Idea.
- "Religion of Peace" Attempts Another Airplane Jiha...
- Merry Christmas!
- Unbeliveable.
- A couple of Good Ones:
- Opportunity for the Muslim Ladies:
- Getting Us Coming and Going...
- How to Know You're About To Have a Bad Day:
- Minnesota: Another Cartonnifada?
- Imam: Catholic Jihad?
- Another Good One:
- Dayam. Worth a Thousand Words.
- Nothing to See Here, I'm SURE.
- Video Friday
- Short Hiatus: At New Job Orientation
-
►
November
(19)
- Skip the Trip to Best Buy This Year!
- Happy Thanksgiving
- Outrage Trinity:
- Islam: Women Under Attack
- On Your Mark...
- America: A Banana Republic
- Depressed.
- Video Wednesday
- Worth a Thousand Words:
- Americans Bow to Royalty?
- Guess What? The Border is Now Secure!
- Memorial Day:
- 43 Fails:
- Welcome to the Collective.
- The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Ft. Hood
- SWINE FLU!!!
- SWINE FLU!!!
- I'm Surprised the MSM Doesn't Just SAY IT:
- Monday Funnies:
-
►
December
(15)
Trolls Aborted:
Civil Discourse And Honest Opinions Are Welcome. Be Warned: Troll Abortions Performed Here!
Second Amendment Rights!
The Truth Hurts...
193 comments:
That cartoon is going to PISS people off. And while you can argue that you cannot compare the two... I must say I feel there is some truth in it.
4,000 abortions a day in the u.s. since 1973.
there is so much more truth in this cartoon than even we can fathom - too bad if it pists people off - too fargen bad!
i'm sure you heard that some lunartick called steve and threatened to kill his son over his last post on late-term abortion? he's quit blogging and i don't feel one ounce of pity for the fool who did this to him - if he finds them before the police do.
these are the same people who think it's cruel to wear animal skin and eat eggs or meat or cut down trees to build houses - they're a bunch of freakin' hypocrites!
I did hear about Steve. I'm sorry that happened.
I hope he takes the caller as far as the law will go; threatening a minor is a serious offense, I believe.
I assume this means the blogger get-together he was planning is cancelled?
Nice pic...
Steve who? Got a link? Does Steve live in Arizona? Does he need a bodyguard?
I'll put the caller out of his misery for him...no problem. Any maddog that threatens a child need not be afforded a fair and impartial jury of his peers.
Steve's link quit working, so I took it off my blogroll.
He doesn't live in AZ, but I'm sure he'd appreciate the sentiment!
You're right, of course; anyone who would threaten a child needs a LOT of his own medicine!
Yikes!
Oh, the pro-choicers will always chatter about how no one really "likes" abortion, but keep 'em talking and you'll find that they don't want any limits on it, ever - up to and including partial birth abortion (aka infanticide). They claim to want to reduce it by passing out condoms to teens, but what they really want to do is encourage more unGodly behavior.
Someone should enlighten the muzzies about abortion.
Whoooaaa! Like it! If it pisses pro-choicers off, tough.....maybe it's because they feel guilty.
Great cartoon Brooke.
this has so much irony to it. thanks brooke.
I had to steal this one brooke.
Neil: It's difficult to arrive at any other conclusion!
Jay: They'd just end up like areas of rural India: Using ultrasound to identify female fetuses and aborting those.
Joe: Danke! They've got to have some guilt, right?
EB: Go for it! Glad you liked it!
Pro"choicers" are horrible, horrible godless "people." We need to throw them out of the counrty because they are just corrupting it. If i could wave my wand and make them all go to canada or somwhere tomorrow, i would. When Roe gets overturned, we should deport everyone who's ever performed an abortion or had one.
very clever & true.
Careful anonymous, I know women who had them done when they were younger, and believe me, they live with it EVERY DAY!
The ones who should be deported are the advocates AND those who have abortions, just to have them instead of using birth control!
Also, those older men who seduce girls and force abortions on them to hide their crimes! They should be tarred and feathered and then hung!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
First thing I thought was exactly what mdconservative said. "That cartoon is going to piss off a lot of people".
Too bad.
No, merry widow, they had abortions, i don't care how old they were or who "forced" them into it -- personal responsibility is king. They took a life! they should be happy to be deported instead of being put in prison for murder
Roe's going to be overturned, then we make a federal law banning abortion, and we get a list of all thw women who've ever had one, and all the doctors who did them, plus all the nurses who assisted these "doctors" and we deport all of them. I'm sure godless Canada would be more than happy to have them.
aren't you being somewhat extreme, anon?
there are plenty of women who've had them and turned from their ways, been forgiven in the eyes of the Lord - the same as any other sin.
there are NONE without sin, no not one. even the thief on the cross realized he was hanging next to his Redemption at the end of his miserable life.
our G-d is a forgiving G-d. He forgets more than we're ever capable of.
if you believe in G-d, the only G-d, then you also know He cannot deny a request for forgiveness when one is repentant.
TMW, Nanc: You're right!
The key is repenting and turning away from the sin; I just want the evil practice stopped!
There's not even any secular justification for abortions; birth control is readily available for nothing or next to for those without insurance through the government.
Nanc, you're right. Once we get the list of the women who have had them and the doctors and people that perform them, we should ask them if they have turned from their ways, if they have accepted Jesus Christ our Lord into their hearts.
If not, it's Canada for them. I'm sick of this country being poisoned from the inside by these goldess murderers.
That was clearly not Nanc's intent, Anon.
Brooke, when Roe is overturned and we make a national ban on all abortions, abortions will still happen illegally if we let doctors who know how to do them stay in our country. We have to deport them to save american babies.
Well, it's my intent. Why should let people who still support their murder, who feel no guilt about it, stay in our beautiful, blessed country?
roe will never be overturned in this life. but we should still keep up a good fight and educate our sons and daughters in the area of remaining pure until marriage and only have children when they are truly wanted - hence, birth control.
more men need to become involved in this travesty on humanity - take responsibility for their actions or inaction.
and another thing - you cannot measure the guilt a person has or hasn't - it's an easily masked emotion. actions speak farther than words.
one more thing - you cannot force Yeshua on people! He is a gentleman and doesn't have the desire to be in relationships with people because they FEEL guilty.
Roe is going to get overturned. Just look at the vote on the partial birth abortion ban. Educating our young should be a priority, but how can we educate them with all this sex ed and homosexual propaganda and no prayer in school. They only learn horrible non-values. That's why that's not enough. Roe has to be overturned, and will be. And then we can drop this states-rights crap and make a nationwide ban.
I evangelize, as Jesus commanded, to spread the good news. If people don't repent, don't show their guilt about their abortionr, through actions or words, they are not fit to live in America.
Evangelism is great, but you cannot FORCE people to Christ.
Good grief, that's what the Islamofascists do... Convert, and profess MoTP, or leave/die.
You don't want this country to turn into another Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, do you?
Anonymous-Evangelize, but remember you are presenting 'Good News", don't make it a threat. Yeshua didn't, it is a free gift and G*D created us with freewills. Don't try and abrogateHIS Perogatives!
Nanc's right, I know several women who have repented with weeping, even years later, of their abortion(s). Several have married and had children who were gifts of G*D BECAUSE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CARRY THEM!
Tread carefully on G*D's Turf!
tmw
This is a Christian country, and I don't want to be poisoned from the inside by non-Christian non-values.
I don't force people to Christ, but I don't force people to murder their babies either. Abortion is murder and deporting those who don't repent will be more appreciated by them than putting them in prison for murder.
btw, birth control is not christian, even for married people. the pill is an abortafesant, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall.
You don't have to be poisoned. That's a choice. Lot lived in one of the worst places on Earth, but remained virtuous.
It's all about personal choice.
Besides, if you hold onto the murder is murder argument, how do you reconcile deportation over inprisonment?
You can't have it both ways.
As for the pill... Where do you draw the line? How about spermacide? Condoms? Diaphrams?
Some birth controls prevent ovulation. What about those?
Deportation is merciful to them, allows them freedom outside of America to practice their sinful ways. I just don't want America to go down the way of Sweden or some other horrible place -- I am a patriot, my family has been here for generations and I see what is happening. It's not only about my personal choice if everything around me is Sodom and gommorah. I care about other people being saved, i don't want them to be secuded into an inpure lifestyle by the sodom and gommorah all around us.
I draw the line at conception, when the sperm and egg have combined into a zygote which, if implanted, would grow into a baby. The pill works in many ways, but you never know which one, and one of the ways in which it works is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. It's the exact same thing as the morning after pill, it works in the exact same way. In fact, you can replicate the effects of the morning after pill by just taking a bunch of regular birth control pills at once.
I think that's immoral, and pretty much equivalent to an abortion. What's the difference between not allowing implantation, or sucking an implanted embryo out with a vacuum? What's the difference between that an the abortion pill?
If you're on the pill, you've probably had this happen many times inside your womb, and that's immoral, and ungodly.
You just can't arbitrate that citizens should be deported on basis of belief... That's not Sweden, it's Iran! WAY WORSE!
And for the sake of argument, I'm not on the pill now (my hubby has had a vasectomy), but I was when we first got married.
Would you deport me?
What if I've already had several children? Should I just keep having them probably at the rate of one every year regardless of my ability to afford and properly care for them? Should I just attach myself to the government teat when I surpass my budget?
Or should my husband and I just not engage in one of the privileges of marriage that God has ordained for us?
And what about people who miscarry? Are you saying that God is punishing them? Where does it end?
Pharisitical and judgmental aren't we?
Remember that the judgment with which you judge others is the judgment G*D will judge you!
Remember mercy and grace are of the Lord ALSO!
Judge not lest you be judged.
tmw
Your using the same arguments for the pill as pro-abortion activists use.
I don't care what you do as long as you don't kill babies - don't have sex, use diaphram or condom or some other barrier method, use natural planning, whatever But the science is clear: the pill often causes a feritilized egg to not implant in your uterus and that is why you dont get pregnant. No amount of justifications about earthly concerns like money or sexual desire is going to change the fact that it kills a baby.
Miscarriage is a natural phenomenon, and it happens for the same reasons that babies get sick and die.
Yeah, maybe I would deport you because you have engaged in something very close to abortion numerous times. It's hypocritical, dont you think, to be against killing a baby at 1 month age, or 2 months age or 5 months age, but be okay with killing it at 2 days age? Either your pro-life, or you put your own material comfort and sexual desire ahead of the rights of babies, like those pro-abortion people always do.
Merry Widow, aren't you judging me now? Isn't your blog full of judgment against the dhimmicrats(i love it!) and liberals?
I didn't mention material comfort, I was talking about being able to afford to FEED all the kids that one would have!
I am most definitely not a pro abortionist.
Thank you, TMW.
Methinks someone we know is just playing the devil's advocate...
I'll ask you again, what's the difference between killing a baby at 2 days, or 2 months?
That is fine, makes us think. Which is good.
tmw
Brooke-What else are friends for?
We can't win, we can't convince people to be pro-life, if we are not internally consistent, and I find this inconsistency among conservatives and christians on the pill very disturbing.
as elbro would say - anonymouse is pole vaulting over cow patties...
i would love to be fruitful and multiply some more. there are lines that must be drawn at my age, however.
as christians, we have advocated chastity to our children and they have taken these vows seriously. but, if they ever marry - i will also advocate safe birth control until they and their spouses cannot only financially, but emotionally afford children.
tmw has never judged anybody unrighteously in all the time i've been acquainted with her - jews, athiests, as well as christians CANNOT argue any of the many points she makes time and again and believe me, you little twit - those are her friends!
there is no difference between killing a baby at two days or two months and you know it - it is no different than killing a 90 year old person.
the pill just talks your body into thinking it's already pregnant - that's first year sex-ed stuff for crying out loud - your body will not get pregnant if it already believes it is. get a new argument and return in a better frame of mind!
Nanc, you just don't understand how the pill works. Temper your indignation before getting all the facts.
Please read this, from Eternal Perspective Ministries, it will open your eyes:
http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html
The conclusion of the article is:
"The Pill is used by about fourteen million American women each year and sixty million women internationally. Thus, even an infinitesimally low portion (say one-hundredth of one percent) of 780 million Pill cycles per year globally could represent tens of thousands of unborn children lost to this form of chemical abortion annually. How many young lives have to be jeopardized for prolife believers to question the ethics of using the Pill? This is an issue with profound moral implications for those believing we are called to protect the lives of children."
Here are some more resources on how the pill works:
http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10126
Even Planned Parenthood admits this:
"The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
birth-control-pregnancy/
birth-control/the-pill.htm
Why are they saying there is no evidence that this occurs? Because they don't want to tell everyone that the PILL CAUSES EARLY ABORTIONS!
Fox News reports the same:
"Mirena had several advantages, say the researchers. It’s easily implanted by health care providers and offers birth control protection. Levonorgestrel (search) makes cervical mucus thick and sticky enough to stop sperm from reaching the uterus. The hormone may also prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,140455,00.html
Actually, that last link about Mirana is about an IUD. Sorry.
True, but as the links say, there is no scientific evidence that the lack of implantation occurs definitely.
Plus, the cervical mucous thing is an effective enough deterrent that they don't bother with even fully investigating the lining of the uterus.
If you don't like the pill, there are always things like Mirena.
I think you're not being honest here. It's pretty clear that this must be happening in at least some cases, yet you don't seem to care because it would just been to inconvenient for you (well, no longer you, but others like you) to give up the pill. Are you going to trust Planned Parenthood over Christian and pro-life websites? I sure don't.
And IUDs are even worse, they are even more likely to prevent implantation -- that's their main method of working, both the hormonal and non-hormonal one.
Mirena's website says:
A. There is no single explanation of how Mirena works.
Mirena may:
* Block sperm from reaching or fertilizing your egg
* Make the lining of your uterus thin (this may also result in benefits like less menstrual bleeding over time)
* Stop the release of your egg from your ovary (but this may not be the way it works in most cases)
It is believed that all 3 of these actions may work together to prevent pregnancy.
http://www.mirena-us.com/faq.html?C=&c=
I'm not being dishonest, I just don't see this from the same angle you do.
We can both at least agree that abortion as the left sees it is dead wrong!
Abortion as the left sees it absolutely wrong. I just don't see the difference between an abortion and taking the pill or using the IUD. both caused fertilized eggs, at least in some cases, to die.
I don't think this has anything to do with angle. Suppose that in 1% of cases, the pill works by preventing implantation. That means that if you use the pill for 100 cycles, you will kill 1 baby this way. 100 cycles = 8 years and 4 months. If my rather modest assumption is correct, any woman who has ever used the pill for a total of 100 cycles or more has killed a baby through her actions. I think that's pretty horrific.
The left always argues about abortion as a matter of convenience and we rightly denounce them for it. But we must not fall into the same trap and refuse to face the facts about hormonal birth control and IUDs simply because it is inconvenient. Convictions are more important than convenience. As a fellow follower of Christ, you know this.
Hi tomme. Getting a little revenge today I see.
Emerson, "Self Reliance"
For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face. The by-standers look askance on him in the public street or in the friend's parlor. If this aversion had its origin in contempt and resistance like his own he might well go home with a sad countenance; but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs. Yet is the discontent of the multitude more formidable than that of the senate and the college. It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid, as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment.
The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity, yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.--"Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood."--Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. . . .
His Word is written upon your heart.
Still haven't found wisdom, I see.
I am saddened that you dismiss the descrution of the most vunerable lives, only a few days old, as "hobgoblin[s] of little minds."
They have souls just like you, they don't deserve to be killed. I am really saddened by everyone here, except merry widow, who is refusing to see the truth about hormonal contraceptives and IUD's for what they are, abortifesants. In the face of overwhelming and conclusive evidence, too.
And you call yourselves Christians. This is exactly the kind of corruption by Sodom and Gommorah I am talking about -- slow but steady inflitration of Christian minds to accept completely unacceptable things! I don't want you to go to hell for killing children. Please, find your convictions, stand up for what is right, what you know is right.
okay - all you people just stop fornicatin' if you're not planning to have babies! now! well, unless one or both of you are fixed, then have at it!
It's not fornication if you're married, y'know. It's just gratuitous copulation.
Can I make that joke, or am I going to hell for it?
Ok, I guess I can't be anonymous anymore.
It's still fornication and against the Bible if you are not married, whether or not you're "fixed."
For a bad joke, you're definitely going to h-e-double hocky-sticks.
And we're all sinners. We may not like it, but we are. The Catholic Church does not endorse artifical means of irth control, and in this regards, they are as consistent as your strawman. But not all Christians are Catholics. And prevention of a viable implantation ab initio is not the same as deliberately aborting a viably implanted egg ipso facto.
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Farmer John, if prevention of a viable implantation of a fertilized egg is fine, then so is embryonic stem cell research, because those embryos have not been implanted. But I don't support that. Does anyone here? I hope not.
I'm okay with barrier brith control for married couples, because it prevents conception. But not IUDs or the pill or anything hormonal, because it doesn't always.
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And cells used in stem cell research are created to be deliberately destroyed.
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Intent. Murderous or otherwise?
Thou shalt not murder.
not
Thou shalt not kill.
I don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Farmer John.
An embryo is a human life. End of story. Are you a Christian or not?
...and I apologize for my own personal hobgoblins.
I am not.
An embryo is not a viable form of life. And neither is an infant child. Both need a mother.
You're not a Christian? why not?
Are you pro-abortion, too?
and me, haven't you ever heard the myth of Pandora, Epimetheus (afterthought) and Prometheus (Forethought)?
Is there a difference between pre-meditated murder, and manslaughter?
I do not believe that Jesus Christ was G_d.
I am anti-abortion.
And you... be honest, me.
Ask G*D to close your womb. Several women have done that, but it takes a level of faith above the usual.
My husband and I actually had to pray for both of our children, otherwise I would not have gotten pregnant, so I was in a different position than most. Therefore my consistancy is intact with my experience.
I believe Jews have a purifying bath taken by married women if the have their period, it's to cleanse them from NOT getting pregnant.
And if you have yor tubes tied, or your husband has his tied, you are preventing the very possibility of fertilization, should those couples refrain from marital relations because no child is possible?
tmw
All I know is that an embryo is a human life, and that no matter waht, it deserves to live: no abortion, no non-implantation, no embryonic stem cell research. It has a soul, it's a human being. Killing it is just as bad as killing a 1 year old or a 90 year old.
What this Farmer John person, and why he is here even though he's not a Christian, and supports klling embryos? This is exactly the kind of person that needs to be deported.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. And my apologies to Brooke, our hostess, for this rather unapologetic guest.
Lewis Caroll, "Alice in Wonderland"
`We had the best of educations--in fact, we went to school every day--'
`I've been to a day-school, too,' said Alice; `you needn't be so proud as all that.'
`With extras?' asked the Mock Turtle a little anxiously.
`Yes,' said Alice, `we learned French and music.'
`And washing?' said the Mock Turtle.
`Certainly not!' said Alice indignantly.
`Ah! then yours wasn't a really good school,' said the Mock Turtle in a tone of great relief. `Now at ours they had at the end of the bill, "French, music, and washing--extra."'
`You couldn't have wanted it much,' said Alice; `living at the bottom of the sea.'
`I couldn't afford to learn it.' said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. `I only took the regular course.'
`What was that?' inquired Alice.
`Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,' the Mock Turtle replied; `and then the different branches of Arithmetic-- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.'
`I never heard of "Uglification," Alice ventured to say. `What is it?'
The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. `What! Never heard of uglifying!' it exclaimed. `You know what to beautify is, I suppose?'
`Yes,' said Alice doubtfully: `it means--to--make--anything-- prettier.'
`Well, then,' the Gryphon went on, `if you don't know what to uglify is, you are a simpleton.'
Mr. John, why are you quoting Alice in Wonderland? You sound a little crazy to me, honestly.
But you're not a Christian, and you support completely unchristian values. America is a Christian country. You should leave.
It's a Judeo-Christian country. That means you shouldn't be trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't do or think unless it's your business. Is it your business?
listen, mzzzzzzzz. new yawk - the farmer is a beloved friend of this and MANY other blogs - there has NEVER been a viable reason we or brooke would ever ban him. why, that would be like an abortion!
oh my!
you, however, could find your way out the door with not much more help than you're giving yourself...i'd watch my step if i'er you.
I think that being a Christian country means we should all live by Christian values, in relation to everything. You support killing babies, what can you say in your defense?
There are a lot of people here who seem quite nutty...
poppycock!
faith-This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, BUT G*D WAS THROWN OUT DECADES AGO! We are NOT a Christian nation any longer!
We are dealing with pagans, now FJ may not be Christian, but he does believe in G*D! AND he is a friend.
My late husband, and this is borne out by Jewish teachings, that the life of the mother does take precedence over the child, this is also taught by many denominations. Why? Because the husband-wife bond was the first covenant instituted by G*D. That means it has precedence!
The INDISCRIMINATE use of abortion as birth control is murder!
And remember, any unborn child goes Home to it's Creator, which is not the fate of adults. And a 14 yr. old girl is not responsible in the same way as a 30 yr. old man who uses, abuses and takes her to get an abortion to HIDE HIS CRIME!
You are trying to make everything equivalent, it doesn't work; a rat IS NOT a tree IS NOT a boy!
Your immaturity is showing!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
What can I say in my defense? I plead insanity. The people who invented abortion and birth control and gave mankind all these immoral "choices" were insane.
Merry widow, an embryo is an embryo is an embryo. I don't care if it's a petri dish, in a womb unimplanted, in a womb implanted, whether it's fathar is a rapist or it's in a womb of a 14 year old girl -- it's an embryo, it deserves to live no matter what. Someone who was fathered by a rapist deserves to live just as much as someone who was fathered by a loving husband -- who am i to make that judgment? who are we humans to decide which one of us lives when the Lord makes those decisions? He hold us not to kill, so why do some of you suddenly think it's okay to kill a baby when it's 2 days old, or when it's father is a rapist?
I think the life of the mother takes precedence, but only the life, not her convenience. No killing babies for convenience. It's murder whether you intentionally kill it at 2 days, or 2 months or 2 years! It makes no difference!
He never told us not to kill.
I don't see how you can say that!!! look at the 10 commandments! Well, you're not a Christian anyway, so I don't know why I'm even borthering to talk to you.
Why are you against abortion at all, if He never told us not to kill? Why are you against murder?
In Hebrew it states; Do not commit MURDER lest thou be EXECUTED.
murder-premeditated killing
execution-act of the government to protect the populace and PUNISH CRIMINALS
If you are going to argue Scripture, go back to the original language and intent!
tmw
How is intentially destroying an embryo by not allowing it to implant, or using it for stem cell research, or sucking it out with a vacuum any different? Isn't there intent? Isnt' there premeditated killing?
You take the pill(or any other hormonal method: ring, patch, norplant, etc.) or insert an IUD for the express purpose of not getting pregnant, it's not like you don't know what's going to happen, you intend not to get pregnant, and you know that in at least some cases, the way it works is through preventing implantation. Why would you do that, if you care about not killing babies? I don't understnad.
You aren't a Christian, you are an atheist, so you wouldn't. You just like to pretend to be something better than you are.
Farmer John, I don't know what I can do to prove to you I am Christian, and I don't know why you think otherwise. In any case, yu are not a Christian, so how dare you talk to a Christian lady this way?
Fine, prove it. If you're a Christian, what was wrong with Cain's offering to G_d in Genesis Chapter 4?
You grew up in a "Jewish" household, so perhaps something stuck. You should be able to find Genesis 4.
Abel sacrificed the best of the bst, he outdid himself, whereas Cain's sacrifice was just mediocre. The Lord wants us to sacrifice everything for him, like Abraham was ready to do with Isaac. Abel and Abraham had faith in their Lord, trusted in his greater plan, without question, whereas Cain was reserved, Cain did not trust.
The Lord wants us to sacricice, to put him FIRST, above all, to trust in him. Ignoring the killing that is caused by hormonal birth control and IUDs simply because it would be so inconvenient to go without them is an example of not trusting in the Lord, of not putting personal convenience ahead of his principles.
delete "not" from the last line.
Anyway, you're not God, you don't judge who's a christian and who's not, so i don't have to prove anything to you.
Don't you trust in G_d to determine the viability and suitability for implanation of an embryo in the womb? Not all embryo's attach and become viable forms of life. Even in a womb devoid of abortificants. And G_d won't allow an embryo to attach in an unhealthy environment.
And since you knew the answer, feigning stupidity about "thou shalt not kill" is beneath you, me. Are you offering your best in His service?
Look, i don't know what you keep going on about, in fact i'm a little confused.
I trust in god, so i don't want to interfere with his plans by taking drugs that prevent implantation of a baby. It's murder.
I learned the commandment as "thou shalt not kill." I haven't studied Aramaic or whatever you people are obsessed with. I know what god wants, and that's not to kill babies. You people are willing baby-killers.
Show some respect then and capitalize His name!
btw - How many times have you been blessed with children, me? You must have a veritable herd by now. Please, lecture us some more about how great it is to have babies around and in your life... Please, tell all the people who actually have children the joys of having more.
If five are good ten must be better. My grandparents typically had families of eight to twelve...
Tell us all about how life has progressed to the point where many families barely have two.
And tell us all about your husband. What does he think of all your children?
The lady doth protests too much methinks.
I just got married in December, so I have not yet been blessed with any children.
You are a strange man.
Indeed. And you are not as strange as you would have us believe.
.........................
.
.
.............................~~(&:>
Wowza! I take a day of and miss the party!
Of course, Farmer, TMW and Nanc are welcomed friends here.
Everyone else is welcome to debate, so long as it is civil, and doesn't dissolve into petty name calling and spamming.
Whether or not we see eye to eye, Faith's argument of deporting all of us "baby killers" is an illogical one. May I humbly suggest that you start with all of the athiests, Muslims, Buhdists, Hindus, ect... Then we can sort out who isn't Christian enough.
That sort of argument just doesn't work.
I'm all for deporitng the atheists and the Muslims too. America is a Christian country.
But you people don't want to admit you support killing babies through hormonal birth control. It's very disturbing.
faith is a stalker.
america's foundation is based upon judeo/christian beliefs - we are NOT christian nation and never have been.
It's a Christian nation and has been until recently. for example, we used to now allow atheists to testify, now it's okay. used to have prayer in school, we have the pledge of allegiance, we have god on the money and in all of the government buildings. and it's not a jewish or muslim god, because we have paintings and depictions and stuff, which is not allowed by there religions. and forget any other "religion" like buddhism or cow-worshippers or withces or whatever.
Course secular humanism is the ugliest religion. Right?
Those people are scum. We need to deport them too. I'm sure Canada will be more than happy to have them! or some european country! look at them and how they're kowtowing to the muslims.
What's your beef with Canada? I mean, other than the psuedo-Frenchness, that is. ;)
Well, i mean, it is Canada, hahaha.
But seriously, it's close by, and they have gay marriage and legal marijuana, they're totally immoral and godless, and they accept immigrants from almost anywhere (Toronto is UNESCO's "most diverse city" I can only imagine). It would be easier to deport people there than ahywhere else.
And really, yeah, that whole french thing doesn't help. they all speak enlish, what's the deal? bunch of posers.
do you really believe everything you're saying?
i personally know more honest agnostics, athiests, and secularists than i do christians - your arguments are weak.
what brooke said - why canada? they are, after all, on the heels of this nation.
pseudo-frenchness...
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
redundancy becomes you, brooke...
*:]
So faith, where in Christian teachings does it tell us to deport our neighbors?
Just curious.
Cause it would be rather difficult to get them to leave without using some kind of force backed up by a threat to kill, dontcha think?
They would obey the rule of law, sheepish liberals don't have guns anyway. They'd just get herded like morons, and then, flash! deported.
But I'm not a liberal. How will you deport me? LOL!
...and Islam is not exactly the religion of peace. How will you deport them?
Saying liberals would obey the rule of law is like claiming that heroin addicts would simply give up drugs if heroin were made illegal. Wait a minute...aren't most heroin addicts liberals? LOL!
faith-Your arguments are specious and a real "reach". I would rather live next door the FJ and his lovely and patient wife than a pharisitical, abrasive, knowledge puffed "christian".
My late could be abrasive, but he would hold conversations and listen to them. He cared about the people, not just winning arguments.
And I really believe you are being ludicrous to try to scream hypocrite at us. I'm sure(inspite of protests)you are liberal and are looking for ammo.
We are not stupid, or naive.
tmw
It does seem clear that Faith is a liberal, and the argument is designed simply to get us to hang ourselves.
Yeah, you're right, i'm a liberal. But hey, I got you, merry widow, to agree to deport actual american citizens, which is an abomination of every conceivable concept of law. and no one has yet explained to me why it's okay to kill 2-day-old babies but not 2-month old babies.
Check. Mate.
I didn't see TMW agree to any such thing.
In fact, we have all been saying quite the opposite.
The only thing you've proven is that you are being a manipulative jerk.
If you cannot engage in a hypothetical discussion without deception, you are not welcome here.
The Merry Widow said...
Careful anonymous, I know women who had them done when they were younger, and believe me, they live with it EVERY DAY!
The ones who should be deported are the advocates AND those who have abortions, just to have them instead of using birth control!
Also, those older men who seduce girls and force abortions on them to hide their crimes! They should be tarred and feathered and then hung!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
Fri Apr 27, 06:43:00 AM
Anyway, anyone got an idea about why it's okay to kill 2-day-old babies but not 2-month-old ones?
Nowhere in that comment does TMW say it's OK to kill a two day old baby.
She said (as I understand it) that women who have abortions often feel guilt and remorse on a daily basis.
I believe that the deportation comment was rhetorical; YOU were the one that brought it up!
I brought it up, but I didn't force her to agree with me. In fact, many people here refused to agree with the deportation idea.
I guess no one will tell me why it's okay to be pro-life and take the pill or have an IUD at the same time, why it's snot hypocritical...
At the risk of putting words in TMW's mouthit was rhetorical.
I guess no one will tell me why it's okay to be pro-life and take the pill or have an IUD at the same time, why it's snot hypocritical...
Just ignore inconvenient facts, right?
it is very clear to me tmw was speaking of people who USE abortion AS birth control.
Brooke and anonymous have gotten it. faith/me, there is this little thing called FREEWILL, that was given to us by G*D HIMSELF, if you abrogate it, you are infringing on G*D's Perogatives. AND YOU WERE NEVER APPOINTED JUDGE AND JURY! You are advocate, prosecutor, judge or jurist. NOT ALL OF THE ABOVE!
If you WANT punishment for others sins, be prepared to be judged by the same standards! If you wish to be judged with mercy, SHARE IT WITH OTHERS!
You want mercy for the rigid few, that or you are playing rhetorical games. Well sweetiepie, you can't have it both ways!
I prefer the mercy route myself! Because I need it I am willing to give it too others!
Ted Bundy repented before his execution, he wept when he said that he deserved to die because he could not bring back those young women and restore them to their families! He said it was better for him to die for the families sake. He was truly repentent.
Have you repented for the evil you have done AND ARE STILL DOING?
tmw
I gave the answer... which you ignored, as usual.
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
I thought you were a hot-shot lawyer. They still use a Latin, don't they?
So you're saying it's okay to kill 2-day-old babies as long as you repent? so if brooke repents for all those years she was on the pill, it's all right? Why be pro-life then, if all you have to do is repent?
Fascinating! So, if Bobby Sue over here (and the south has the highest abortion rates per capita, so a southern name is appropriate) has an abortion every 6 months, but repents after each time, it's okay, according to you?
Besides, as someone already mentioned, baby goes to meet his maker, so it's no big deal. I think this philosophy would actually make killing or supporting killing in the name of other things a lot easier than if you are an atheist. If you're an atheist, you believe that this is the only chance you get, if you kill someone, that's it, they're dead, you deprived them of their ONLY CHANCE EVER to live. It's abig deal. Whereas if you believe in heaven, and god, and all that stuff, then killing someone isn't such a big because (1) they go to heaven, or hell, if they deserve it, and (2) you can repent, and your hands are clean.
I wonder if this is how Bush thinks about all those casualties in Iraq...
Anonymous, i'm not sure who uses abortion as birth control, but even those people, if they are American citizens cannot be deported. It's a basic human right.
While you swim in your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
...and yes, true repentence does bring forgiveness of sin. But I guess that's a foreign concept to you.
What you need for each crime is sufficient mens rea. The sufficient mens rea depends on the crime.
1. Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person; for example, to shoot an arrow at someone and hit him.
2. Knowingly - Knowledge that one's actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but did not specifically intend to commit that crime against the particular victim which one is accused of injuring; for example, to shoot an arrow at A but hit B. This also covers the concept of willful blindness. Willful blindness is where a person knows that something is very probable, but avoids investigating to gain that knowledge. Often used against drug mules, who knew that it was highly likely that there was contraband in the vehicle, but refused to look.
3. Recklessly - Knowledge that one's actions had an unjustifiable risk of leading to a certain result, but did not care about that risk ("reckless disregard"), and acted anyway; for example, to shoot an arrow in the air in a crowded place. Under the MPC, barring contradictory statutory language, recklessness is the minimum mens rea that will lead to criminal liability. This covers the "depraved heart" state of mens rea, which is an extreme disregard for human life. Examples include playing Russian Roulette, street racing, and other highly dangerous activities.
4. Negligently - Did not intend to cause the result that happened, but failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent that result (which includes failing to become aware of the risk of that result.) The above is the tort standard of negligence. In general this is not enough for criminal liability. Criminal negligence is a "gross deviation" from the standards of normal conduct and includes a substantial and unjustifiable risk. For example, one might be negligent for failing to put up a fence to keep children away from your pool. This will not lead to criminal charges. Criminal negligence might include keeping a vicious dog tied to a tree with twine.
A woman who takes the birth control pill knowing that it has a moderate chance of not allowing a fertilized egg to implant is at the very least reckless, in my opinion, maybe even knowing.
You are what we call "lourd." Your Latin doesn't impress anyone with half a brain and access to google. What exactly are your referring to with your false casuality accusation?
Is creating an inhospitable womb a crime? In what state?
And should she not take the birth control, would every embryo properly implant? Would they even be fertilized?
No crime. No intent to commit a crime.
But it's not about crime. Abortion isn't a crime, yet people believe it should be illegal because it's immoral. The argument people give for making aboriton illegal also strongly support making hormonal birth control and the IUD illegal.
I'm trying to figure out what people think the difference is, since both involve fertilized eggs/zygotes/embryos.
I have my own opinions on why the Christian Right isn't taking this position.
as to my post hoc argument...
That taking measures before hand to prevent a viable implantation were the same as taking measure afterwards to abort a viably implanted embryo.
Prometheus vs Epimetheus. Forethough vs afterthought. Afterthought has intent and specific knowledge. Forethought does not have specific knowledge that one is terminating a life.
Creating an artifical womb environment unreceptive to an embryo implanting happens NATURALLY ALL THE TIME. How could extending this condition be thought to be the killing of a viable life?
Terminating an known-implanted embryo is different.
...but I'm no Christian. What always stuck with me though, was that one could sin merely in ones thoughts, and my thoughts were something I could NOT control.
It always seemed kind of "unfair" to me. But now, I don't quite see it that way.
G'Nite ladies. Have a pleasant evening with Torquemada!
That taking measures before hand to prevent a viable implantation were the same as taking measure afterwards to abort a viably implanted embryo.
I don't think it's all that different. "Act or omission" is what's in most laws, a generally accepted legal standard. Negligence, for example, is negligence whether you purposefully made the stairwell dangerous, or you failed to repair a stairwell that became dangerous.
Creating an artifical womb environment unreceptive to an embryo implanting happens NATURALLY ALL THE TIME. How could extending this condition be thought to be the killing of a viable life?
I think it's pretty close. It's not extending this condition, it's purposefully creating it, and knowingly creating it to prevent, among other things, the embryo from implanting. This argument has little traction. It's like saying, "children starve to death all the time, so how could starving your kid on purpose be held to be anything other than unintentional?"
sure hope you pass the bar, faith...
The Catholic Church might agree with you. But not everyone is Catholic. Taking in "orphans", an embryo, may be your sense of duty, but if your not home when they knock, it's a little hard to do. Should you be guilty of gross negligence and a crime if your not their to answer your doorbell when it rings cause you've "gone on vacation?"
Of course, sending them out into the street because they'd be a pain in the butt after you've already let them in, is another case entirely.
Anon, thanks for your concern. As Farmer John knows, this is Right Wing Insult #22. I just love it when non-lawyers try to tell me something about the law, or my capacity to pass the bar. You worry about yourself, I'll worry about myself.
Farmer John, you've moved the discussion to outside one's own body and household. I was only talking about your own body, what you perpetuate inside of it, and how you take care of the born children you have. Your orphans example is a good one, but i don't think it's reasonable to extend "good samaritan" laws. While what you do or don't do to other people outside of your own household and body may not expose you to liability, the same acts to people within your household can. Like I mentioned above, letting random orphan annie to starve on the street is not a crime, but letting your own child starve is.
PS Aren't you guilty of Plato's "fallacy" of "extension"? :)
Just remember, faith. Just because a piece of logic is a fallacy doesn't mean it isn't true. ALL logic is a fallacy... of sorts. (Nietzsche, "Gay Science")
...and perhaps that is why it is rather silly of you to go around pointed out "other people's" fallacies, while not understanding or recognizing your own.
Nietzsche, "Will to Power"
512 (1885)
Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.
----
"Gay Science"
111
Origin of the Logical. Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal - an illogical inclination, for there is no thing equal in itself - first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every skeptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination - to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right - had been cultivated with extra ordinary assiduity. The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us.
So if you want to start weighing photons again, you and I are going to need to have a little talk.
Logic is merely an art which Prometheus gave to man. The fire of the gods, he stole from them and gave to mankind hidden in a fennel stalk. For that crime, Zeus sent Pandora to earth. And you, Pandora, are the gift/curse accepted by Epimetheus that can't be returned for "store credit".
yikes!
The virgin Diana & Apollo's arrows do NOT fall to earth when launched... they fly perfectly straight. When you or I launch them, we must account for the force of gravity that allows them to arc gently back to earth.
Aeschylus, "Prometheus Bound"
KRATOS (force) -Now have we journeyed to a spot of earth
Remote-the Scythian wild, a waste untrod.
And now, Hephaestus, thou must execute
The task our father laid on thee, and fetter
This malefactor to the jagged rocks
In adamantine bonds infrangible;
For thine own blossom of all forging fire
He stole and gave to mortals; trespass grave
For which the Gods have called him to account,
That he may learn to bear Zeus' tyranny
And cease to play the lover of mankind.
prometheus died for the sin of enlightenment. yes, i'm still reading it...
there were/are some things we were never meant to know.
Have you spotted Achille's heel yet, me?
The son of Thetis (an Oceanide), daughter and grandson of Nereus (Truth)/a shapeshifter has a vulnerability.
Nietzsche, "Zarathustra"
Only when will to truth steps in the heels of will to power will it become invincible.
You cling to Themis, me believing HER to be Thetis. You've heard rumour of Nereus, but you do not believe in him (quite). But even Nereus must answer to Zeus. And Zeus eludes you.
--and my apologies to all Christians for my lapse into paganism (for illistrative purposes).
This is merely one "portait of Daedelaus" (Plato, "Meno").
If you ever wish to become "rationale" and not merely "logical" you'll need to learn the inductive art of dialectic. (Aristotle, "Topics")
Because right now you still chained in the cave staring at the shadows on the wall. (Plato, "Republic")
Oh Farmer John, thank you for enlightening me with your gibberish.
Really, you use latin terms (incorrectly and for obnoxious flair), you quote extensively from books you don't understand, and all for what? Smoke and mirrors, baby. To obscure your own massive reasoning flaws and hypocrisy. How many posts did you just post, Greek and roman mythology, and all? Once again telling me how stupid i am, and by implication, how smart you are. And for what?
Because you're trying to somehow defend the idea that killing a 2-day-old baby is different from killing a 2-month old baby. Note that neither The Merry Widow nor Brooke are arguing this point. Don't you wonder why?
Try to be succint, not self-contradictory, and honest. good faith and all that.
I don't agree with you, Faith. I don't argue with you because to do so would be to beat a dead horse.
But what do you think, Brooke? I'm just wondering. I'm honestly wondering.
You wrote earlier that "there is no evidence" that the pill causes fertilized embryos to not implant, but in fact, that is always listed as one of the ways in which it works. For IUDs, both hormonal and non-hormonal, the offical story is that "no one knows how they work" but the non-implantation of fertilized eggs is one of the main guesses as to how it works. Is it enough that there is no certainty in the science, or is that risk not worth taking if it may cause an egg not to implant?
I see this issue as a GLARING contradiction in the pro-life movement, and i think that the objections Farmer John has proposed are not satisfactory because all he does is distinguish between purposefully doing something (abortion), and merely disregarding a sizeable risk that something will happen (hormonal birth control and IUDs).
But maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe. But morality usually involves purposely or not purposely doing something. Kind of like law... but then THAT is a subject you glaringly seem to not know much about (aside from what's easily wikiable).
But, I guess it all goes to show, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes it's just a jackass.
Of course, our little me still has some problems understanding the difference between murder and death, so there's little surprise he's found a GLARING contradiction in the pro-Life movement.
Maybe he should go talk to them? Nah, why bother to collect a few facts when a strawman argument will do.
btw - Did I tell you about your own "credibility" problem me? It's called misrepresenting yourself at this website. Don't you think you owe a few apologies? And not a few words. Do you know the meaning of true repentance? Perhaps we'll see.
Let's take a look at the psychology of me/faith for a moment.
Here is someone who finds it necessary to provoke and extend a fight for over 163 comments. That suggests someone who cannot let a point go; she is hypercompetitive, and apparently stakes some part of her self image upon fighting rather obscure battles on line where she is safe and protected by anonymity.
How she chooses to argue is in itself revealing. First, she blatantly misrepresents herself. This suggests some lack of confidence. Next, she purposefully misreads texts. That is very much at odds with her claims to be a lawyer (such must be very careful with the words they use). She dismisses Nietzche as irrelevant, not deigning to grapple with someone who brings up authors with whom she apparently is unfamiliar. Lastly, her rhetoric is overblown, bombastic, and emotional, often bordering on sheer incoherent rage.
All of these facts together add up to paint a picture of someone who is emotionally unstable, has few social skills, and lives for the adrenaline rush of the fight (and the debasement of those who oppose her). I have seen many people like this in my life and without exception, they are all small, pitiable, and powerless people.
Until you can be honest with yourself, and honest in the positions you advocate, you do not deserve a debating partner, Faith. You will find people ignoring you until you mature.
Thanks Farmer, and RS, you're right; "Faith" will no doubt be along shortly to have the "last word."
RS-me/faith is possibly an emergent church acolyte by the name of Mark.
Emergent church followers are into all sorts of feelings, facts and logic escape their lax grasp!
Mark is a "true believer" and will argue even after he has lost the war, WHY?, because he is running on feelings not common sense. He is pathetic, but dangerous in his zeal, his blog is insulting to real Christians, he accusses us of being; unloving, intolerant, hateful and lacking knowledge of grace...the best is to start ignoring him. He is a fool who professes to be wise, don't sink to his level. He is looking for ammo to put us down with!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
Christian anarchist & church "planter". Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? Burn the old church down so you can plant a "new" one and watch it "emerge". Cultivate a new "reason" for G_d because you didn't like His, He cramped your lifestyle.
I see. So you've abandoned, en masse in fact, arguing on the merits and have moved on to the much easier and self-satisfying ad hominem. After all, you don't knkow who I am, i do't really know who you are, so there is really no way to disprove what you've supposed I am like, as opposed to scientific facts, of which there is abundant proof all around you.
It's okay, y'all, your refusal to actually debate the issues is quite telling in itself.
As for my knowledge of the law, again, y'all, I'd be careful, because I actually know quite a bit about the law, and your comments show your own ignorance. Just by way of example regarding the difference between murder and death, some civil violations and crimes are covered by the standard of strict liability, and as you may suspect, the perpetrator of this crime or act is strictly liable for a death, whether the act was intentional or not. These acts are known as malum in se, inherently bad, not malum prohibitum, wrong because it is prohibited. Fascinating, n'est-ce pas?
So for example, statutory rape does not require any mens rea element regarding the defendant's knowledge of the victim's underage status. Other examples of strict liability crimes: sale of impure food or drugs to the public, anti-pollution environmenta laws, as well as traffic and motor-vehicle regulations. Many SEC regulations are strict-liability. Most of these things can cause death (food and environmetal laws), but whether you did it intentially, negligently, or even with the utmost care, you're going to be held liable equally under these laws.
Whatever...
tmw
A merited argument with a disingenuous poster?
Anonymous, Faith, Me, Thomas... It appears that Farmer was dead on the mark, after all...So much for feigning ignorance.
And, of course, you argument is fallacious. Rape (statutory or otherwise) is always illegal in our justice system. Birth control is not.
Brooke, if you accept Farmer John's argument, which was, there's a difference between getting an abortion and creating a hostile environment for a fertilized egg, because the hostile environment is not purposefully directed towards one specific egg, but to any future eggs that may or may not be fertilized, then you accept that:
it's okay to poison a big tub of food and bring it to a party. you're not targeting the food towards a specific person, you're just creating a hostile meal for someone who may or may not eat it. Better yet, it's okay to leave a bunch of poisoned candy on the street. Maybe no one will pick it up and eat it. But if they did, it's okay.
Or, how about this? It's okay to put a spring-loaded shotgun at your door that will go off in anyone opens the door and will shoot them. You don't KNOW if anyone will enter the house, maybe no one will, and no one will die. You're not targeting a specific person, or anyone in particular.
That's all okay, right, Brooke?
And, of course, you argument is fallacious. Rape (statutory or otherwise) is always illegal in our justice system. Birth control is not.
I don't think you understood what I wrote. Birth control could be illegal. Abortion isn't illegal, but your position is to make it illegal, right? Legality does not mean that something is right or moral.
I suppose since I got my tubes tied I'm committing eggocide?
tmw
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those eggs aren't fertilized, right?
Life begins at conception, right?
Seems life exists way before conception. Only it isn't viable in it's "separate" forms, is it? LOL!
Which is the cause, and which is the effect? Is the egg "inert matter"... how but that little "swimmer"? I know, just a little electricity applied to a dissected frogs leg...
Still grasping at "straws". or in this case "strawmen".
And your apology to tmw, the posters at this blog and this hostess? Or was their nothing improper in attempting to deceive us and espouse beliefs that were not you own in order to deceive us?
I don't think the Bible is real specific on the point. Or maybe it is? tmw?
Misrepresenting yourself on a blog. Malum in se, inherently bad, or malum prohibitum, wrong because it is prohibited?
We're waiting.
Do you have empathy, Alcibiades/ Alexander?
Ever hear of the "fire pyramid"? Every fire requires three elements. Wood/Fuel; Air/Oxygen; and Heat. Failure to bring all three elements together, and the fire cannot either start or sustain itself. Remove any one element, and the fire "dies". If you are a firefighter, this is very useful knowledge. The science of firefighting depends upon it.
Drawing lines on slippering slopes can be fun. Dividing a whole into proper "parts" is tricky. A good dialetician stuggles to make sure that each "part" is representative" of the whole. For example, human beings. Is it more proper to divide them by "sex" or by "geography" ie - Greeks and Barbarians. Now once your down to a "man", how do you then divide him "again" so that each half is still "representative" of the whole? Many Aristoteleans and Neo-Platonists went body/spirit. I wonder if they were right?
Of course, if you had a "wagon", many would be tempted to separate out the bed, and the wheels, and the axles. But if you did it that way, what would simply examining a "part", like the wheels, be able to tell you about a wagon?
Fun, huh? What's this got to do with life? Beats me. I'm just a dumb old dialetician. And not a very smart one, either.
Emerson, "Conduct of Life" (On Beauty)
The spiral tendency of vegetation infects education also. Our books approach very slowly the things we most wish to know. What a parade we make of our science, and how far off, and at arm's length, it is from its objects! Our botany is all names, not powers: poets and romancers talk of herbs of grace and healing; but what does the botanist know of the virtues of his weeds? The geologist lays bare the strata, and can tell them all on his fingers: but does he know what effect passes into the man who builds his house in them? what effect on the race that inhabits a granite shelf? what on the inhabitants of marl and of alluvium?
We should go to the ornithologist with a new feeling, if he could teach us what the social birds say, when they sit in the autumn council, talking together in the trees. The want of sympathy makes his record a dull dictionary. His result is a dead bird. The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relations to Nature; and the skin or skeleton you show me, is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington. The naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power,--that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.
Apologies to anybody offended by the above passage. I'm a lover, not a fighter. A philo-sopher.
And I'm done taking advantage of our hostess's good will. Thank you brooke. Please feel free to delete all these posts. It is your blog. And I thank you for your hospitality.
If me wants to argue with me, he'll/she'll know where to find me. But I will no longer argue with her/him here.
But I will be back to talk w/you if you'll have me.
Happy St. Tammany's!
Once again, smoke and mirrors, blah blah blah. Farmer John immediately seizes upon newly-learned Latin, and yet in a few hundred words, manages to say nothing. How convenient.
Morning, FJ! Botanical misogeny?
Bug and botanical porn? My-my...
Well the Talmud says that a fetus up to 40 days is the same as a bodily fluid(specifically blood)and to show you how sacred blood is(after all, G*D DID say the Life is in the blood)orthodox jews in Israel come along after an accident or terrorist attack and mop up the blood as well as they can so that the blood may be buried with the body!
faith/me/thomas/mark-You are full of knowledge yet lacking in wisdom and insight.
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
You had your chance. You failed to take it. I guess we now know who argues for show, and who argues for truth.
Acta non Verba.
See 'ya round the blogosphere, me. Don't expect to be treated any better than you would treat others. Lies, deceptions, traps, and heaps and heaps of ridicule.
Farmer, you are of course welcome whenever you wish to come!
As for the troll with multiple personalities... I will not argue with someone who cannot rise above a strawman debate.
Well, merry widow, so are you okay with abortion for the first 40 days of pregnany?
Brooke, where's the strawman? How is a 2-day old embryo different from a 2-month old fetus? Are you subscribing also to Merry Widow's 40-day time limit?
Nowhere did TMW say it was OK to have an abortion for up to 40 days.
Since you are obviously deceptive and just ridiculous at this point, I'll be controlling your comments.
And before you go off on your "You cannot censor me" boo-hoo, this is MY blog; my e-property. Just as anyone can kick anyone else out of their home or business, so can I.
Of course you can censor me, it is your blog. It's just surprising to me that you dont seem to tolerate disagreement very well -- you simply ignore or delete comments that pose hard questions, that make you challenge your own beliefs and actions.
I've tolerated it for 188 or so comments now, ME.
I know what I believe. I've listened to your points; I just do not agree with them, if they are even yours, and not just some attempt to get me to admit error.
In any case, I'm not going to engage in an endless argument with you over it.
So you just don't agree with the science of how birth control pills and IUDs work?
That's an interesting tack.
"I just don't agree with the laws of physics."
Gravity will get you whether you agree with it or not, the pill and IUDs will prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, considered to be "life" by pro-lifers, whether you agree with that or not.
the life comes from the father's blood, me. the eggs can do NOTHING on their own. you are grasping at the straw that broke the camel's back.
Ok, Brooke, just one very last question: Are you against the morning-after pill? I mean, the pill you take within 72 hours of having sex to prevent pregnancy, like Plan B. I don't mean the abortion shot/pill RU-486.
The reason I ask is that a lot of pro-lifers are against this drug, yet it works in the exact same way as the pill and an IUD. It prevents implantation of an already-fertilized egg. It doesn't work if the zygote already implanted. that's why it only works for 72 hours, and the efficacy decreases the later you take it -- the statistics increase on the chances of whether it's implanted.
So to be against the morning-after pill, but to be for the pill and IUDs seems to be contradictory on its face.
anon, "fertilized" means that the sperm already got into the egg.
"Fertilized" means I've unhooked the spreader from the tractor.
Post a Comment