XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: junegill@btinternet.com   
      
   "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   news:7943568.0403012009.5ff2d4f1@posting.google.com...   
   > "junegill"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > news:7943568.0402290301.3643086e@posting.google.com...   
   > > > "junegill"  wrote in message   
   > > news:...   
   > >   
   > > [snip]   
   > >   
   > > > > 1  Do you consider that the blobs on tampons, which every sexually   
   > >  active   
   > > > > woman finds once in a while, are children?   
   > > > >   
   > > > Well, I do not think it would be possible to explain to adulterous   
   > > > people what a child is.  There is no reason to try that I can see.   
   > > > People who commit adultery are going to have problems that they would   
   > > > not have if they lived moral lives.   
   > >   
   > > Are you insinuating that I have committed adultery?   
   >   
   > I can't tell about you.  I have not seen you deny the existence of God   
   > and then ask to see a sign.   
      
   I'm an atheist, and I don't think there are such things as signs from any   
   alleged deity, so I wouldn't ask for one.   
      
   >  That is a very serious   
   > > allegation about a woman who has been married as long as I have.  Would   
   you   
   > > have the nerve to say that in person to my husband?   
   > Only if you were to deny the existence of God and then ask to see a   
   > sign.   
      
   That isn't what anyone else would understand adultery to mean, so you'd   
   better be careful in case some irate husband descends upon your welding   
   shop.   
      
   > > The example you give is not   
   > > > relevant because it does not relate to the deliberate killing of   
   > > > children by abortion.   
   > >   
   > > Of course it's relevant - they are the same things that have been   
   > > spontaneously aborted as those that are aborted by human intervention,   
   or   
   > > are they only children when it suits your agenda, so that a full-term   
   > > stillborn is not a child?  Now, since you claim to be the only one who   
   knows   
   > > what is and isn't a child, answer the question.  Are those blobs   
   children?   
   >   
   > You might do better to ask someone in the medical profession.   
      
   Right.  The medical profession call them spontaneously aborted embryos.  Are   
   embryos children?   
      
   > > > > 2  You're very fond of quoting the Bible: have you never read Exodus   
   > > > > 21:22-25?  It seems that God does not take such a dim view of   
   foetuses   
   > >  dying   
   > > > > ... just a paltry fine as a penalty.   
   > > > >   
   > > > The law was given to protect the life of the person who strove with   
   > > > the husband of the wife who had a miscarriage because of their fight.   
   > >   
   > > So obviously the offender's life was more important than that of the   
   foetus,   
   > > right?  Face it - that's the only reference in the Bible to miscarriage,   
   and   
   > > it clearly shows that the death of a foetus wasn't considered to be a   
   big   
   > > deal.   
   > Well, the death was considered to be accidental, not intended.   
      
   Maybe, but if the pregnant woman had been accidentally killed, then it was a   
   life for a life, so obviously the foetus wasn't considered to be a human   
   life.   
      
   > > > Otherwise, the husband would probably kill that person.  There were   
   > > > also cities to which a person who killed someone by accident could   
   > > > flee until the accidental killing could be resolved in a court.   
   > > > People back then often responded by taking the life of whoever had   
   > > > offended them.   
      
   Irrelevant - the verses are plain: death if the woman's accidentally killed,   
   a fine if it's only the foetus.   
      
   > > But this was after the commandment to not murder, so they clearly didn't   
   > > think that anyone causing the death of a foetus, ie abortion, was a   
   serious   
   > > crime.   
   > If you read the book, they were very wicked people, although probably   
   > not as wicked as the people of today.   
      
   Irrelevant again - that was one of the laws laid down by your supposed God.   
   Life for a life, fine for a foetal life.   
      
   > > > > 3  If Jesus were around today, do you think He'd be doing what   
   you're   
   > >  doing   
   > > > > to try to stop abortions?  I think He'd be much more likely to   
   persuade   
   > >  a   
   > > > > woman to carry to term by supporting her financially until such time   
   as   
   > >  she   
   > > > > could support herself and her child, so it makes one wonder why all   
   > > > > Christians aren't doing just that.   
   > Jesus was not the one who carried money around.  Judas Iscariot was.   
      
   You're good at irrelevancies.  I'm saying He would probably have worked to   
   support the woman.   
      
   >  Think about it: in a population of   
   > >  about   
   > > > > 280 million, around 86% claim to be Christian, which is about 240   
   > >  million.   
   > > > > You'd think that 240 million would easily be able to financially   
   support   
   > > > > just one million women and their children per year for a few years,   
   > >  wouldn't   
   > > > > you?  That would really cut down on the number of abortions.   
   > > >   
   > > > Well, I made the offer of taking care of any child you pro-abortion   
   > > > people decide to let live.  So far, the number of children you have   
   > > > decided to let live instead of killing by abortion seems to be zero.   
   > > > Robert B. Winn   
   > >   
   > > I haven't decided anything - they can all live as far as I'm concerned;   
   it   
   > > has nothing to do with me (nor you) if a woman decides to abort.  As to   
   you   
   > > taking care of anyone's child, what makes you think that the state would   
   > > consider you fit to do so?  I didn't say that that's what Jesus would   
   > > probably do - in your shoes, He'd be more likely to sell His computer   
   and   
   > > other non-necessities in order to give the money to the woman and her   
   child.   
   > I don't have a computer.  I use my business partner's computer.   
      
   In work time, eh?  And in another post, you've claimed that doctors don't   
   work very hard because they've studied Latin.   
      
   > > Why aren't you doing that?  Have you forgotten Jesus' admonition to the   
   rich   
   > > young man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor?   
   Don't   
   > > claim that you're not rich - compared to the poverty in third-world   
   > > countries, you're very rich indeed, no matter how little money you have.   
   > I have about $6.00 in my checking account which will be deducted for a   
   > service charge if I do not do something with it.  Well, that is just   
   > the way it goes.   
      
   So give that $6 to the poor, and sell any other possessions you have -   
   that's what Jesus said you should do.   
      
   >   It   
   > > seems that you're not prepared to walk the walk.   
   >   
   > I never do anything but walk.  I do not drive a car.   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   Don't understand old sayings?  It means that you're not prepared to do what   
   you tell other people they should do.  Another word for that is hypocrite.   
      
   --   
   June G   
   # 364   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)