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:7943568.0403040258.4c68306d@posting.google.com...
> "junegill" wrote in message
news:...
> > "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.
>
> OK. Put your husband online, and I will tell him that you are an
> adulterer.
No, I'll bring him to the US in September and you can tell him to his face.
Besides, I haven't asked for a sign.
It is your purpose to promote adultery, so whether or not
> you do anything outside your marriage, you are an adulterer in
> purpose, the same as Larry Flynt is an adulterer, even though he is
> paralysed and can only participate in adultery by promoting
> pornography.
Well, let me see if I've got this right: there are theists, who believe in
God or gods and there are adulterers, who don't, right? So we can eliminate
the word 'atheist' from the English language, OK? Now, what are we to call
atheists (oops, adulterers) who actually have extra marital affairs?
Obviously we need a new word. Oh, and what do you call a married Christian
man who has sex with someone who isn't his wife? Can't be 'adulterer', can
it, because he believes in God? So we need yet another new word to describe
that ... what do you suggest? I think this is rather confusing.
> > > 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.
>
> Send him on over.
OK, or better yet, my son - a big, strong, occasionally aggressive
26-year-old, who's very protective of his mother.
> > > > 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?
>
> Absolutely. What did you think they were?
Spontaneously aborted embryos.
> > > You might do better to ask someone in the medical profession.
> >
> > Right. The medical profession call them spontaneously aborted embryos.
Are
> > embryos children?
>
> Absolutely. What did you think they were?
Well, if they're children and they abort spontaneously, then that must be
God's doing, mustn't it? Since 75% of all fertilised eggs/embryos
spontaneously abort, that makes your God the most prolific abortionist of
them all, so obviously He doesn't care about things, which haven't been
born.
> > > > > > 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.
> No, it was not a life for a life.
How can you say that when Exodus 21:23-25 plainly states:
'But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for
wound, bruise for bruise.'
If you maintain that it wasn't a life for a life, then you are just plain
lying.
If you had read the book you would
> know that there were designated cities to which a person who caused an
> accidental death could flee until the accidental death could be
> resolved by judges.
But I have read the book: cover to cover, and those designated cities had
nothing to do with that particular text. The assailant might have fled to
one of those cities if he'd accidentally killed the pregnant woman, but not
if he only killed the foetus, because it states specifically that he would
only have to pay a fine to the woman's husband, so his life wouldn't be
endangered and there would be no point in him fleeing.
> > > > > 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.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
