March for Life 2009
Today is the March for Life 2009. Throngs of pro-life activists will flood Washington, D.C.
You will barely hear about it in the MSM.
Go here for more info.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 CommentsFirst, they came for the Catholics
January 31, 2012 10:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
181 CommentsThe March for Life 2012
January 23, 2012 10:21 AM by Michelle Malkin
132 CommentsShredding Kathleen Sebelius
October 28, 2011 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 CommentsAccording to Nancy Pelosi, 11 House Democrats are Willing to Allow Women to ‘Die on the Floor’
October 14, 2011 08:46 AM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsJoe Biden ‘Fully Understands’ China’s ‘Millions of Children Left Behind’ Policy
August 22, 2011 07:01 PM by Doug Powers
59 Comments
The victims of nationalized health care
July 5, 2011 02:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Abortion
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
MtsEdge:
You are missing my point completely.
First:
Ancient Egyptian children were actual BORN children (presumably not fertilized eggs).
Second:
I used “god” in this thread only because Sam Harris used it. I agree with Harris’ point that a fertilized egg doesn’t nessecerily make a fully formed human.
I have felt it kick, and we have decided on a name.
Furthermore, we purposely avoided naming it until after the first trimester because of our share ideology on this partiular topic.
Stalin come to mind.
My point to ZERO is that it is constitutionally dangerous for any government to draw an arbitrary line, when life and death begin. In the final analysis, evil people do obtain power and you had better have some legal protection that can confine them.
Well said.
Englishqueen:
Fine, but don’t force that only option on my family.
So if you wife miscarried at 12 weeks, you wouldn’t have cared, but suddenly the next day you would have?
So is this your first?
How sad. Just, how sad.
No, sad is forcing a mother to give birth to a child that (for example) would lead a short and painful life.
All this is an aside though. I am in general agreement that abortion shouldn’t become a frequent form of birth-control.
John:
Stop asking silly questions I have already answered (albeit indirectly).
Obviously, the further along the pregnancy goes, the more attached I will become. It’s not digital, it’s ananlog.
Yes, it’s my first, though I have several nieces and nephews and it’s really immaterial because there are countless “pro-choice” folks that have more than one kid.
Trollman:
If you are going to try and make some point that I think a child of 4 is somehow “less” than a man of 30, well then, I agree.
Afterall, 4 yr olds aren’t allowed to vote.
Does that mean I think it’s ok to kill them?
Of course not.
Hey did you know that we’ve created 4 million refugees in Iraq?
I sure hope none of the Iraqi women living in tents in Syria had any abortions because then you comfortable, well fed people would heap scorn on them.
Now get out there and march for life!
No. Sad is throwing your child in the trash bin like a piece of paper with a typo.
“Nope, you’re imperfect. So we’re not going to let you know love and comfort in the few weeks/days/hours of your life…we’re going to rip you apart in the womb and try again. Oh, look how humane we are.”
I highly suggest you talk to parents in that situation and see just how your position is the exact opposite of compassionate.
WOW
I couldn’t say this to very many people in this world, but I really respect you EQ.
It’s not a silly question when you’re the one picking arbitrary dates for it being a life and explaining how you picked an arbtrary date to name it.
BTW, It won’t be immaterial after you’ve seen it. That may just be your moment of enlightenment.
P.S. Congratulations.
Congrats zero on your first baby! You might find that having a baby can change your views on some things.
I was pro-life before having a child, but having had children, it changes the way I look at babies. I now adore babies and even get a bit gaga-googoo around them.
There is a lady at my church that has a premature baby. She is so adorable. It makes me angry when people try to argue that such are not really humans (as they would if the baby was currently inside the womb rather than outside of it).
I hope you’ve picked a good name and not one of those Hollywood-children’s names…
If you know any parents of polyploids let me know. Doubtless any polyploid that survives more than a day would probably be huge news.
Your guy is president, why don’t you write him about it?
He thought of a bumper-sticker so he could exempt himself from thorny moral issues the rest of wrestle with.
Fine, but don’t force that only option on my family. Said Zeroangel.
It’s not your family’s decision to make when someone dies…you are not God.
And the infant has not been ruled a death sentance for a crime.
A fatal prenatal diagnosis is no different in my mind than my toddler being diagnosed with something like lukemia.
I would never put a gun to his head and kill him to “end his suffering” any more than I’d let an abortionist destroy my unborn child in the womb.
Read some stories from families who decided to carry to term after a fatal prenatal diagnosis. They are the definition of parental love and selflessness that we should all strive for.
We’ve chosen Bonsai Frankenstein Deaux.
zeroangel said:
But we don’t then reason that a 4 year old is less human, only less mature.
zeroangel said:
Because they are fully human. Now go and apply this logic elsewhere, and you will join the light side of the force.
John:
..and I explained my reasonsing countless times and was very honest and clear about my position.
Throwing up some ridiculous notion that I went from not caring to caring in one instant (when I have repeatedly indicated that’s not the case) IS silly.
Hey ZERO
Here is your arbitrary decision.
http://www.idude.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/abortion2.jpg
I don’t have time to search for polyploid stories, but here are a few about Trisomy 18, another fatal ailment often diagnosed in pregnancy.
There are many more. And prenatal hospice resources, groups that do photos for parents of stillborns, support groups, etc.
Was anyone AT the march? The speakers are generally the same people each year; was there anyone new and exciting this time around?
Bambi probably got mentioned. I assume there was some booing regarding his actions today.
Has there been any media coverage of the event to speak of?
John Deaux–
whew; at least you didn’t choose
Poppinfresh Deaux
Right OK,
This is getting to be too many replies to respond to at once.
No, I will not. From where I am standing some of the positions expressed here are immoral. Nothing is going to change this viewpoint in me anymore than you could convince me of the Christian version of “god.”
I have clearly expressed my POV and I feel I don’t need to carry this on any further.
This debate usually ends in the same way the “religion” debates go which is probably why so many people make a point to avoid them.
I am not an evil person just because I say things like, “A single-cell that could possibly develop into a human does NOT deserve more rights then the actual human it happens to be inside of.”
Nor am I an evil person to suggest that it might actually be more humane to end the “life” of a fetus doomed to a short and painful life before it can feel “pain.”
I could go on, but it won’t matter. There are some of you on this board that will continually resort to straw man, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion to make the case that I am either 1. evil or 2. ignorant because I am only on my first child.
Take care all.
PS. FamilyMan #223: Strawman. Obviously that is not a 1st trimester abortion.
Words. Fail. Me.
No, with all due respect, you are avoiding my question.
When you learned your wife was expecting, did she tell you that you were going to have a fetus???
I hope when you see your newborn baby’s face that your heart will be changed. Best wishes to you and your wife, and especially to that baby.
englishqueen–is that GOOD FAIL or BAD?
One more thing, MtsEdge asks an honest question and deserves an honest answer:
She said she was “pregnant” and we purposely refered to it as a “fetus” in the first trimester.
zeroangel said:
I’m not asking for more rights, just the most basic right of all – the right to life.
And a 12-week old fetus is not a single-celled organism.
ZERO
This is why arbitrary law is dangerous.
http://bettman.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/dachau.jpg
FamilyMan, I think zero gets it. That is why he has tried to minimize his position. He went from arguing for abortion for all during the first trimester, to “what about the deformed?” He went from defending 12 weeks to “what is so bad with getting rid of a single-celled organism?”
That is why I have been so hard on his case. He gets it, and only his pride is getting in the way.
Trollman:
Oh for goodness sakes! NO. They were only examples. For the record, I am OK with first trimester abortions for all the reasons I cited earlier.
The concerns of the woman in question are far more important than a single cell (on the extreme end) or a 12 week old fetus (on the far end of MY spectrum).
At least we can agree to disagree but stop misrepresenting what I say after the fact. It is truly annoying.
You are not the law. The spectrum must be agreed on by a court of law working under the protection of our constitution.
A spectrum implies an arbitrary standard. That is a socially and constitutionally dangerous position.
Isn’t this exactly what Roe v. Wade did?
FamilyMan:
Yes, of course I was asserting my belief that “I am the law.” *channeling Judge Dred*
I was also suggesting that we throw out the Constitution.
Do you even know what a strawman is?
Must I run the risk of having to explain my point a million times over just to ensure that MY point is actually made and not the point that you think I am making?
Honeslty, I want to be able to walk away from this thread. By all means, go on to call me morally bankrupt and heartless, etc, but please stop misrepresenting my position!
Chapoutier! oh thank IPU!
YUP
From Positive Law judges.
That was truly a corruption of the language. They pushed the gray level completely off the spectrum.
So what you meant was “The spectrum must be agreed on by a court of law working under the protection of our constitution and reach the conclusion I agree with.”?
Well heck, If I knew you were an anarchist, we could have saved a lot of time.
No chap
Keep the spectrum within reasonable normal human perception.
Some people play with sarcasm the way other people play with fire.
In the end, everyone gets burned (or “flamed”) and nothing constructive comes out of it.
*smile*
And I take it your definition of normal reasonable human perception would allow for none, correct?
chapoutier said:
No, he meant that 5 people can’t make the Constitution mean whatever they feel like. Or else, what is the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
zeroangel said:
Another irrational point. That fetus is a person that will lead a life, maybe even become the next president of the United States, all things being equal. One person’s concerns don’t outweigh another’s.
Do you really want to be internally consistent with your justification for abortion? Then you truly are evil. If not, but willingly remain inconsistent for no good reason, then you are at best morally bankrupt. Remember that the next time you try to lecture folks that you’re just as moral as Christians, etc.
That sounds nothing like what he said. I would prefer he answer himself. He’s a big boy.
OH! chap
Can we agree that drawing out the gray levels that include Wicken theology as a stretch. I’m exaggerating, but I see the decisions on Roe V. Wade as a stretch of the necessary precise language of law.
chapoutier said:
Even some liberals who support abortion have the honesty to admit Roe v. Wade is bad law. Apparently chap ain’t one of them.
chapoutier said:
Only to someone who lacks common sense. That was his fault, taking common sense for granted. Some folks are liberal, thus it can’t be assumed.
That si not what I said at all. I am just trying to figure out what FamilyMan is saying. He said:
The “spectrum” from context being the range of permissilble times an abortion may be performed. I thought it a strange comment. But in actuality, this is exactly what Roe set out, spectrums of increasingly conscripted abortion rights.
Family replied something to the effect that this is indeed what Roe did, but seemed to think it was still wrong. He clarified his problem with Roe by saying that the spectrum must be confined to “reasonable normal human perception”.”
So I am really trying to figure out if Family objects to all abortions because he does not think reasonable perception would allow for an or if he does think there is a possibility for some form of abortion rights, but that Roe was just decided poorly.
If it is the former, it seems disingenuous to say that 1) there is a spectrum and 2) to say that the court should decide the spectrum, since a court can only decide controversies, and in Family’s mind, there would be none. If it is the latter, I am just curious as to what spectrum Family would allow.
Thanks for the help Trollman.
I’ve been working on my business since 3 AM and the old brain is slowing down.
Trollman:
Apparently my point can’t NOT be subjected to strawman.
Thanks, but I’ll just do well to remember that this is coming from someone who posits that in the distant past a purely good and benevolent super-being insisted that women must marry their rapists. On top of that, I’ll try to remember that you actually make a living (in part) by trying to reconcile this nonsense to yourself and others.
FamilyMan said:
Even so, it is still too fast for chap.
Trollman, either butt out or try to keep up with what I am actually asking.
zeroangel said:
Nice rhetorical trick, take something, divorce it from its original context, and then try to get people to judge it in their own context rather than in the original context. Of course, that is a tad dishonest, but there ya go.
Its always a matter of context when its something embarassing to modern values, isn’t it? That is awfully convenient.
chapoutier said:
Which, by judicial fiat, I interpret to mean “Abortion is immoral.” For once, we agree!
Keep in mind, I am not a judge, nor do I have a law degree, but that just makes my judicial fiat even more “fiaty.”
This should explain our problem chap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
Very nice, love that movie. And if I am misstating you I do apologize. I just would ask you to show me where and how.
chapoutier said:
Nah, context is never important before passing judgment.
Furthermore, I believe lot of things that are “embarrassing to modern values,” and yet I don’t attempt to “explain away” with appeals to context.
I’m pro-life, against same-sex marriage, etc. Context is the friend of the honest seeker, and the enemy of those who seek to deceive.
And please don’t give me a night in the Box.
By embarassing to modern values, I of course mean the things we ALL agree today are horrible, yet find countenance in the Bible, like slavery. There are plenty. And its always pooh poohed away by either an appeal to “context” or arguing that the Old Testament doesn’t apply anymore because of the New testament, except of course when the Old Testament DOES still apply. Its truly baffling.
chapoutier said:
Only to the ignorant.
Tell me, since you seem so sure that the context doesn’t matter, what would likely happen to a woman who was raped within the context of the time & culture in which this OT command was given?
Where did I say context doesn’t matter? I actually do think context matters. I just am curious as to what moral lessons in the Bible can be taken as timeless and which ones can be ignored because of context. Maybe someone should go through with a highlighter and mark the parts of the Bible that are immutable in blue and which are not in yellow.
Funny thing is I’ll bet if you had asked someone to do the exact same thing 1000, or 400 years ago, or 1000 years from now, the colors would differ mightily.
chapoutier said:
zero made a criticism about a specific passage in the Bible. I responded that, in regards to criticizing this specific passage, understanding the context of that passage is paramount. To which, you responded with a snarky:
Now you want to change from a specific criticism to a general criticism. Run, chap, run! Well, does the context change how offensive/reasonable this passage seems to the modern mind, or is it completely irrelevant?
chapoutier said:
Perhaps if you bothered to learn about something before criticizing it, it would help you refrain from embarrassing yourself.
Good point.
It is precisely because they fear that they are doing something wrong – evil,even – that abortion supporters, enablers, allowers, “live and let livers”(ouch!), whatever term one applies to those who are not against abortion attempt to arbitrarily define conditions so that there is no “someone” who is being killed.
No one being killed…Presto! – no problem!
Hence, the “ability to live outside the womb”, or “after the first trimester” as examples of arbitrary points being picked to allow the fetus to live, to not be aborted (in the general, 98 whatever percent of cases we are discussing here).
To repeat – because it is true – the supporters of abortion adhere to a fundamentally, diametrically, irreconcilably opposite worldview from those of us who view abortion as akin to murder.
They will ferociously deny it, and will instead mock and attack those who call them out on it; but, it’s the truth.
As I’ve said before, why else would these folks we are talking about have an easily predictably opposite position on virtually, if not actually, every topic discussed here at MM?
Could not have stated it better than he did in his own words.
As I’ve said,…a fundamentally, diametrically, irreconcilably opposite worldview.
It is unfortunate, but it is a waste of time for us to try to convince the opposite worldview-holders of their error.
They know only words and numbers, the language of lawyers and merchants; and they therefore try to define life, love, God, for example, in the inadequate, limited terms of words and numbers.
Yeah, I can imagine what her reaction would have been if I had told my then girlfriend/fiancee that I loved her because I toted up her positives and negatives (she had/still has none, BTW), and she ended up with a net positive; or that I wanted to marry her because I had done a dollars and cents analysis, and found that we’d do better financially if we married.
My mother carried a CORPSE to term, because she felt that was the proper and Christian thing to do.
Women, especially women on the left, don’t seem to have that kind of courage or commitment to personal ideals any more.
Trollman:
Of course, it would be too much trouble for the creator of the universe to show up in front of Abraham (or others) and lay out serious reasons and justifications on why one should NOT be a misogynist.
One must wonder why that wasn’t in the Bible?
granite:
False. I have often expresseed whole hearted support for the war on terror and fiscally conservative policies. Then again, there is little point in posting “I agree.”
Chap:
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson take a crack at that?
Granite (again):
Right, because that’s what I did with my wife. Unbelieveable!
PK:
Sounds rather unhealthy and ill-advised, don’t you think?
zeroangel said:
In Leviticus 19:18b & in Deuteronomy 28:15ff, God essentially does just that.
But if you are convinced you have a good objection, then why not do the following: Hey, why don’t we just make it a law that there is no money? Instead, we’ll just tell everyone to work hard and not be greedy, then every thing can just be “free.” Wouldn’t that make things all better?
trollman,
Maybe you missed the part where I said I do believe context is important. Go back and read again. It’s there. I’ll wait…
Okay?
Now my question is why such an analysis is not applied to all the lessons the Bible seeks to impart. It only seems to apply to the really embarassing parts of the Bible.
chapoutier said:
Yeah, it’s there, after the fact, but it is there.
chapoutier said:
There is actually a good answer for that question.
It “seems” that way to some because some people have a cynical, hyper-critical view of the Bible, God, etc. They assume that, because the Bible is ancient, that it includes an ancient, backwards view of morality, etc.
The Bible actually teaches, however, a morality that is still superior to any moral system yet devised by man.
So naturally, as someone who is predisposed to dismiss the Bible, any part that at first appears difficult is jumped upon. Obviously, you’re not going to pounce upon such passages as “love your neighbor as yourself” since that makes good sense to you.
Actually bothering to explain the passage only gets in the way of your goal – making the Bible appear ridiculous. It is an annoyance to you, and thus appears to happen “all the time.”
The Bible is a book that was written in a different time, place, culture, & language. It is a very large book that covers some of the deepest questions known to man, and deals with them in a deep manner. Is it really that surprising that some, especially those who have not bothered to study it, and have a motive to dismiss it, misunderstand parts of it?
Let’s be honest. Roe v Wade should
have beenbe a states’ issue.why would you assume I haven’t studied the Bible? Iwent to a catholic college. We were Required to take religion classes. And I always felt the best professors I ever had were priests.
And I agree that it is an important text. What I am not willing to say is that it is infalliable. You still, by the way have not explained to me which moralites are contrxtually dependent and which are not. Claiming “you’re just a hater. You wouldn’t understand” is a poor excuse.
chapoutier said:
Nor was I, at least at first. I assumed there must be some errors in it, surely. But after a few years study, studying the alleged errors & contradictions, history, archaeology, etc., I did finally come to the confident conclusion that it is inerrant, etc.
chapoutier said:
Well, I could answer your question, but not in the span of a forum post. Not everything can be explained with an answer that fits on a notecard. What you want me to teach you in a few minutes, took me years of study before I had a decent grasp on the subject matter.
And given some of your previous comments, such as:
I doubt you have an open mind on the matter.
Now take the Gospels, for example. They focus on Jesus’ earthly ministry & death. Jesus was a Jew, born under the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant), and remained under that Law until He died on the cross. So much of what He teaches in the Gospels applies to those under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant (but not necessarily under the New Covenant).
However, this is also a time of transition. Jesus is preparing people to receive the New Covenant, so some of what He teaches applies to people under the New Covenant and not the Old.
Then some of His teachings apply to people under both Covenants – some commandments are based upon unchanging principles, other commandments are only directed to a specific people for a specific time, in a specific context, etc.
I can give you some general rules of thumb, but it is much like teaching the English language, the rules aren’t absolute. “I” comes before “E” accept after “C,” except for those times when “E” does actually come before “I.” To the one learning English, this may seem strange, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right way to spell any given word.
I could probably be more helpful if you have a specific passage in mind, but somethings defy a simple formula.
Trollman:
Well I just so happen to have my handy Bible right here on my bookshelf. I received this about 20 years ago while in Sunday school (IIRC). Interestingly, (but for no apparent reason), it was right next to my book on Norse mythology.
I am not going to bother to quote, as I am sure you have yours handy.
Deuteronomy 28:15-20 basically has a bunch of stuff about how this benevolent, loving, kind, caring god will basically pwn your sh*t and make your life miserable if you don’t listen to him.
I don’t see anything along the lines of, “listen guys, NO means NO, and furthermore, it’s not cool for you to a force a woman to marry her rapist.”
Leviticus 19:18 is simply the all too well known “Golden Rule.” Something humanists ascribe to as well. It didn’t convince the ancient peoples to stop being misogynists though.
I don’t understand your point about money, no where do I express support for Communism nor does it naturally follow that I should based on anything I said.
I won’t disagree with that, but you will lose me when you start claiming that it is “divine” and that a benevolent, all-powerful creator being wrote it. Further, back to the point, you can moralize and make statements like:
…as much as you like, just remember you look patently ridiculous based on the following facts:
1. You seem to think Genesis is metaphorical and not literal because you support evolution.
2. Despite your objection to Genesis, you try to argue that even nonsense like women marrying their rapists is on some level divinely inspired because “god” had to appeal to the culture at the time.
3. You seem to think atheists, and presumably Christians that are pro-choice are “morally bankrupt” yet you make a living out of trying to reconcile the idea (in part) that a benevolent, all-powerful super-being could not have possibly condoned the idea of a woman marrying her rapist.
Is it even the least bit possible that Christianity is no more likely than the Norse myths?
zeroangel said:
How is a good God supposed to react to evil people? Should He say to Hitler “Aw, that’s OK.” Or should a good God make sure the wicked perish?
zeroangel said:
Sometimes there isn’t an ideal solution. It was simply a matter of making the best out of a bad situation. I don’t see much point in rehashing this passage with you since we’ve already been over that passage in depth on other threads.
zeroangel said:
My point wasn’t about communism. I was making the point that not all ideas that sound good in theory are actually workable in the real world.
zeroangel said:
I leave the door open for a figurative interpretation, but I heavily favor the literal interpretations of Genesis. There are actually several “literal” interpretations of the Genesis creation account. Not all literal interpretations are in conflict with an old earth, or with evolution for that matter.
And my view on evolution isn’t as simple as accepting or rejecting it. A lot of it makes sense to me; some things, though, I am highly skeptical of. I have an open mind to it.
zeroangel said:
The reason why I think all of the Bible is divinely inspired is because:
1. based upon historical and prophetic evidence, I believe Jesus is divine.
2. Jesus endorsed the Bible as being inspired by God and infallible.
3. If you accept those two premises, than the conclusion is perfectly logical.
zeroangel said:
I wouldn’t call what I do “making a living.” I couldn’t live off of what I make preaching & teaching. I had a degree from a major university that I could use to make money, but after graduating and entering the workforce, I found God, and developed a passion for studying the Bible.
So I quit my job, at the loss of a few years’ wages, I went back to school to study the Bible. All so I can now help out little bitty churches in small towns who are not able to support a preacher. Yes, I am now rolling in the dough, and I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for zeroangel and his puppy Scooby-Doo!
zeroangel said:
Have I studied the Nordic myths? No. Life is short, it isn’t practical to study every religious belief in the history of the world. But I have spent a lot of time examining some of the prominent religions, as well as a lot of time examining the Christian faith.
Have I ever genuinely questioned “Is Christianity true?” “Does God really exist?” I’ve spent more time struggling with such questions than most here would probably believe. Some people are sure of their convictions because they have never questioned them. Others are confident precisely because they have questioned them. That is what I have done.
Take the Bible, for instance. I have spent many a night staying up into the wee hours of the morning, seriously sweating over certain issues. I did not start out with the opinion that it is inerrant, but that is where my studies pointed me.
Trollman:
Not a single reference to me being immoral or evil.
Excellent. I can let that stand.
One quick question: have you ever talked to or met a pastor or preacher that later became an atheist? They do, of course, exist. I think that would be something worth your time wouldn’t it?
Have a nice evening pastor.
said:
In my experience, preachers turned atheists make the best atheists.
What I mean by that is, they at least have some knowledge of the Bible. Which often leads to superior questions and challenges than Joe-Sixpack-Atheist, who’s only exposure to the Bible is what they’ve read on some atheist site (much like liberals who only get their information from HuffPo, then come here and talk smack).
That reminds me of an atheist website I ran across years ago. He wasn’t a former preacher, but he used to be a devout Christian and serious student of the Bible. He recommended to his fellow atheists that, unless they had first studied the Bible in depth, to keep their mouth shut or else they’d likely end up embarrassing the atheist’s cause.
Tis true!
Trollman:
Of course, the validity of any statement (including any assertion about the nature or existence of God) isn’t anymore or less valid based on the education level of the person making the statement. Simply, they might just have a harder time explaining their views.
I wonder, would you demand the same of theists? That is, should theists keep their mouths shut unless they have seriously studied atheist literature?
An afterthought:
Must an atheist study the Bible alone?
Is an atheist that was a serious student of the Koran (as one example) worthy of opening his/her mouth?
As the sun sets on the second full day of the administration of Hope and Change, as the ink dries on our President Obama’s executive order to close GiTMO, and as a hundred thousand or so right to lifer high school kids and adults who marched in Washington on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade board their buses for the long ride home, I find myself … asking liberal friends of mine, whom I love, one thing: If it is considered torture to pour a bucket of water over the head of one who wishes to kill you and I, what is it called when one evacuates the brain tissue from the skull of a developed fetus who obiously wishes to do no one harm at all? How does one reconcile the two?
I don’t know. I’m just asking. Perhaps the answer lies in the Army Field Manual.
Lan astaslem,
John
I wonder how long it will be before the national government sets up “guidelines” for abortion; in other words, who will survive and who will be aborted. Like the complaints about people’s habits being a burden on our healthcare system, will the unborn be subject to such scrutiny?
I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if such “guidelines” came out rather soon.
In fact, the socialists/atheists may already have them developed and “waiting in the wings”.
Remember, these are opposite worldview-holders we are confronted with.
Nothing from them would surprise me.
Depress me, yes.
Enrage me, yes.
Damage me, yes.
But, surprise?…nope, nothing.
They may call themselves well intentioned.
But, again, nothing from these dangerous, socialist, atheist, parasitic fools, who ignore the law of unintended consequences, would surprise me.
Just wait.
granite:
Right, in our secret atheist meetings on Sunday mornings we get together and work stuff like this out. In fact chap and I already have a plan worked out that we discussed last weekend while doing drugs and cheating on our spouses in Vegas together.
Do you actually believe what you are saying or is this just more rhetoric?
I forget where exactly, but one European contry has given rights to physicians to make those decisions for women who are pregnant, and not necessarily with their consent. But it’s all about what is fair and compassionate for the system.
Jangar:
It’s the Netherlands and called the Groningen protocol.
Further, you are not correct, it is NOT legal and the source of heated debate.
Here are some links:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/10/959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
Some highlights:
Confronted with a patient in the third category, it is vital for the medical team to have as accurate a prognosis as possible and to discuss it with the parents.
Euthanasia of children under the age of 12 remains technically illegal; however, Dr. Eduard Verhagen has documented several cases and, together with colleagues and prosecutors, has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. Prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this Groningen protocol is followed.
I am rather uncomfortable with it myself, but let’s try to at least be accurate.
The only countries (to my knowledge) that actually force abortions are China and North Korea.
…oh and sorry, it’s about euthanasia, not abortion.
In any case, if that wasn’t the one you were thinking of please let me know. I recall that being the most contraversial
…since I am nitpicking, I might as well do it to myself as well.
Flyoverman in #195 is technically correct.
I should have been more accurate and said that using somatic cell nuclear transfer, the nucleaus of a skin cell has all the information required to grow into a human being.
more bad new for the hairygod of evolution darwin, and his mad-dog supporters…
link
if the tree of life is wrong, then so is evolution.
So a simplified model used to explain a complex notion in its nascency turns out to be flawed. Wow. Knock me over.
That is like saying because the first astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth that astronomy is wrong.
…enter right4life and utter fantasy and make-believe.
http://www.dinotopia.com/
this from someone who thinks the mechanism for evolutino is evolution!!
you’re a shameless moron.
hey less than zero, looks like the truth hurts!!
your entire life is based upon a lie…too funny!
I know this is a waste, but if there is no tree of life, then common ancestry is wrong…and so is evolution…duhhhhhh
http://www.dinotopia.com/images/home/chorus.jpg
right4life:
Is that you on the right?
This is really really sad on your part. Glom onto any new discovery in evolution that changes our thinking and pretend like its a house of cards that just comes tumbling down.
Simpleton.
And with that I have had enough of right4life.
you’re the parrot…parroting darwin’s lines…too funny!
and like the parrot, you don’t understand the lines you mouth..
it is a house of cards, moron. and what is the mechanism for evolution again??
while you’re at it explain:
structuralism, evo-devo and epigenetics
oh and jacka** chap, you forgot the next few lines…
*smirk*
150 years of lying for darwin..
a web of life is CREATIONISM…duhhhhh