Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Poplulation control was Re: OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Poplulation control was Re: OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
|
|
| Clark F Morris 2008-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:02:59 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:50:44 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>
>That is true. I'd like to see a consumption tax imposed. If you
>build cars and small trucks (which includes vans, mini-vans, SUVs and
>pickup trucks) and they get less than 30 MPG, you are assessed a 1%
>per vehicle tax on the MSRP. This cannot be passed on to the buyer.
>If you own vehicles in a non-commercial entity that get less than 30
>MPG you are assessed a 1% tax on the purchase price every year you own
>that vehichle.
>
>If you build and sell vehicles that run on alternative fuels and/or
>get more than 30 MPG, you get a 2% credit on the MSRP to apply against
>any 1% taxes.
>
>If you own those same vehicles, you get a 2% of the purchase price tax
>credit every year you own the vehicle for 10 years.
>
>In addition, the way the MPG are calculated by the EPA needs to be
>changed. The way it is now, it is not accurate. Let a non government
>group, Consumer's Union for example, calculate it.
>
>
>Good ideas indeed, but it takes about 10 years to build a nuclear
>plant.
>
>
>That'll never fly in the USA. We are not China.
>
>
>True.
As a US citizen living in Canada, I note that major portions of
Europe, the US and Canada are not having enough children to keep the
population steady. A good social security and pension system seems to
work wonders in keeping populations down. Urbanization also helps
since children no longer are of as much economic benefit. Again a
pension system gives people the feeling they don't need to have
children to take care of them in their old age. In short, you don't
need to be a drastic as China to curb the population.
Clark Morris
>
>
>Regards,
> ////
> (o o)
>-oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>"Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!."
>-- Groucho Marx
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Remove nospam to email me.
>
>Steve
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> As a US citizen living in Canada, I note that major portions of
> Europe, the US and Canada are not having enough children to keep the
> population steady. A good social security and pension system seems to
> work wonders in keeping populations down. Urbanization also helps
> since children no longer are of as much economic benefit. Again a
> pension system gives people the feeling they don't need to have
> children to take care of them in their old age. In short, you don't
> need to be a drastic as China to curb the population.
Don't know about the other countries you mentioned, but since Roe Vs.
Wade, the United States alone has killed more than 50 million unborn
children.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-26, 3:55 am |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:jrKwj.93982$rc2.79267@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Don't know about the other countries you mentioned, but since Roe Vs.
> Wade, the United States alone has killed more than 50 million unborn
> children.
I don't know what country Judson lives in <G>, but since Roe vs Wade there have
been ZERO " children" killed as a result of that change. There have been many
pregnancies terminated, but as defined in the US today, no CHILDREN have been
killed by this.
(I think there have been some adults wounded if not killed since that decision,
but I don't hold the behavior of some extreme anti-abortionists to be directly
related to the decision, only to the value the place on the lives of adults who
disagreee with them.)
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what country Judson lives in <G>, but since Roe vs Wade there have been ZERO " children" killed as a result of that
> change. There have been many pregnancies terminated, but as defined in the US today, no CHILDREN have been killed by this.
Please note that I said "unborn children". Do you say that the unborn
babies who are alive right now are not the children of their mother?
Many of them (partial birth abortions) were killed seconds before full
birth. By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
part of the head, is not a child of the mother? Obviously, the twisted
and perverted logic that permits one to murder their own flesh and
blood for the sake of convenience.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <kyWwj.109788$L%6.21812@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
>being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
>part of the head, is not a child of the mother?
Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.
Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.
Para-natally what is coming-into-being is a child.
Post-natally what exists is a child.
(Not, of course, that this sort of logic seems to be frequently considered
by those bandying about terms like 'murdering babies' and 'killing
children'.)
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
> pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.
>
> Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.
>
> Para-natally what is coming-into-being is a child.
>
> Post-natally what exists is a child.
>
> (Not, of course, that this sort of logic seems to be frequently considered
> by those bandying about terms like 'murdering babies' and 'killing
> children'.)
Right. It only gets "bandied about" by those morally bankrupt enough
not to know or care; those who hide behind technical definitions
created and used for the purpose of doing murder while claiming
innocence.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <XUWwj.109797$L%6.53943@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Right. It only gets "bandied about" by those morally bankrupt enough
>not to know or care; those who hide behind technical definitions
>created and used for the purpose of doing murder while claiming
>innocence.
Mr McClendon, you've responded to the mote and ignored the beam. Second
request: what is logically 'twisted or perverted' with differentiating
between pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions?
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Mr McClendon, you've responded to the mote and ignored the beam. Second
> request: what is logically 'twisted or perverted' with differentiating
> between pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions?
You're doing precisely what you accuse me of. It is you who brought
up technical issues of abortion when the real issue was population and
I related 50 million abortions, which obviously have had a serious impact
on the population of the U.S. Perhaps you are so obtuse as to think that
the definition of whether an abortion is murder makes a difference
whether or not the population is affected by the death of 50 million
unborn babies?
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <xyXwj.109826$L%6.47869@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>You're doing precisely what you accuse me of.
Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic and I supplied a possible
answer; you've not addressed how that answer fails. Third and final
request: what is logically 'twisted or perverted' with differentiating
between pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions?
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic and I supplied a possible
> answer; you've not addressed how that answer fails. Third and final
Good.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| I place statements (at least dealing with legal issues in the US) about
"unborn children"
in the same category as information about
- unmarried spouses
- living corpses
Or any other "impossible" situation.
If parents who go to a maternity ward for the birth of their first child, it is
said they (she) is EXPECTING her first child. Such parents (for all legal
purposes that I am aware of in the US) have ZERO children before such a delivery
of a child.
I fully understand that there are individuals, religions, and otherwise in the
US that want to state that pre-birth that part of a woman's body is already a
CHILD, but I don't think that corresponds to current US law. (And if you aren't
talking about US law, then why mention Roe v Wade?)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kyWwj.109788$L%6.21812@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Please note that I said "unborn children". Do you say that the unborn
> babies who are alive right now are not the children of their mother?
> Many of them (partial birth abortions) were killed seconds before full
> birth. By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
> being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
> part of the head, is not a child of the mother? Obviously, the twisted
> and perverted logic that permits one to murder their own flesh and
> blood for the sake of convenience.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
| |
|
| In article <jFXwj.109829$L%6.28507@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Good.
Thrice asked and thrice refused, Mr McClendon... no more needs be said.
DD
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:xyXwj.109826$L%6.47869@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
> You're doing precisely what you accuse me of. It is you who brought
> up technical issues of abortion when the real issue was population and
> I related 50 million abortions, which obviously have had a serious impact
> on the population of the U.S. Perhaps you are so obtuse as to think that
> the definition of whether an abortion is murder makes a difference
> whether or not the population is affected by the death of 50 million
> unborn babies?
Ignoring (again) that I don't think that abortion resulted in the death of any
(much less 50 million) babies,
If one is simply asking how abortions have impacted population growth/decline,
then I think there is probably a relationship (although it may be more complex
than simply how many abortions there have been - as it may also need to include
how many prgnancies have occured and gone to term - from womene who thought they
COULD have an abortion).)
Of course there are lots of other "loaded and not so loaded" issues that
certainly also impact "population growth/decline"
- concom use
- birth control pills, et al
- alchahol and drug use
- cars and easy transportation and privacy availability
- rise and fall of respect for Church,parents, etc
- availability of "wellfare" (state and private charities)
- women in the workforce (and medical advances for later pregnancies)
- easy availabitity of guns in low economic areas
- artifical means to reach pregnancy
I must have missed the note that moved from "global warming" to "population
control" so I don't know how "abortion" got into the thread.
I doubt that there is anyone in this group (or elsewhere) who thinks that
ANYTHING related to "population control, grown, or decine" has a SIMPLE
explanation.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:48 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Please note that I said "unborn children". Do you say that the unborn
>babies who are alive right now are not the children of their mother?
>Many of them (partial birth abortions) were killed seconds before full
>birth. By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
>being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
>part of the head, is not a child of the mother? Obviously, the twisted
>and perverted logic that permits one to murder their own flesh and
>blood for the sake of convenience.
Isn't there a passage in the Bible defining when the head passes
through the birth canal as when the being becomes a person?
At any rate, lots of pro-life people don't define all embryos and
fetuses as people, they don't hold funerals for miscarriages, and many
even allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. Obviously
that later subset of the pro-life movement don't believe that they are
children.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:06:45 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
>pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.
>
>Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.
In this discussion, it sometimes is necessary to separate out foetus
from embryo, as many believe that abortion of one is wrong, and the
other is not. This occurs at "quickening", and when human brain
activity starts, both criteria have been used.
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
|
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:jrKwj.93982$rc2.79267@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Don't know about the other countries you mentioned, but since Roe Vs.
> Wade, the United States alone has killed more than 50 million unborn
> children.
> --
Perhaps you should look into the percentage of pregnancies that terminate
spontaneously in the first month. It's quite startlingly high - perhaps 20%
or more. God's work?
PL
| |
|
| In article <pdi8s3pd3pujcs0pjedvoracg4687ojuju@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:06:45 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>In this discussion, it sometimes is necessary to separate out foetus
>from embryo, as many believe that abortion of one is wrong, and the
>other is not.
An interesting differentiation, Mr Brazee... but in this thread there
seems no longer to exist any discussion between Mr McClendon and me.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I must have missed the note that moved from "global warming" to "population control" so I don't know how "abortion" got into the
> thread.
As for why the original comments were made about population growth in
the first place, you will need to ask the OP.
But abortion came up very simply. A comment was made that people in
certain western countries including the U.S. were not reproducing enough
to make strong population increase a problem, and I listed over 50 million
abortions in the U.S. within 40 years as a factor.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should look into the percentage of pregnancies that terminate
> spontaneously in the first month. It's quite startlingly high - perhaps 20%
> or more. God's work?
The 50+ million is actual abortions performed in the U.S., not miscarriages.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ... I find it interesting
>that you mention killing babies where the head is still in utero and
>the body already expelled. Perhaps I can help? In the UK we would
>ensure that such breach births are dealt with by caesarean operations.
>Usually this works out fine for baby and mother.
>
>So, what really is going on in the births that you mention? I presume
>that you have a maximum age limit before termination is disallowed or
>are you putting a pro-life/anti-abortion slant on it?
They are called "partial birth abortions" and are legally performed in
the U.S. The pro-death people claim it is "for the health of the mother"
which is so blatantly stupid as to defy belief that anyone would claim
this. How could it *possibly* be detrimental to the health of the
mother for the baby to be pulled out another 3 inches without killing
it? Only an idiot or someone bent on dealing death to innocent babies
would think that holding the top of the baby's head in the birth canal
long enough to stick scissors into its head and suck out the brain
would be better for the mother than pulling the baby completely out and
letting it live. Those who promote such horrible barbarisms are beyond
reason, morality and common sense. In my opinion, they are in the same
class as the most heinous of criminals who ever walked the planet,
for they do this to innocent babies who would be delivered healthy and
whole, if not physically prevented from doing so in order to murder
them. The prime function of government is to protect the innocent and
the helpless, yet our government condones mass murder of the very most
innocent and helpless, all in the name of convenience. There is no
language to describe my extreme contempt and disgust for this practice,
or anyone who would attempt to justify it. Such people have no right
to claim any sense of morality.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:31:32 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>They are called "partial birth abortions" and are legally performed in
>the U.S.
How many of these were legally performed in 2007?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> 50 million abortions does not equal 50 million cases of reproduction
> denied. Many foetuses would spontaneously abort whether or not man
> gets in the way.
The difference is negligible. You don't abort zygotes, you abort fetuses.
Once the fetus reaches the point where most are aborted, the number of
spontaneous miscarriages goes way down.
> Where do you get your 50 million figure from? It had better not be one
> million a year for 50 years as that would be all too easy to refute.
Just Google'ed >"how many" abortions in the us< and the first page that
popped up was:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online...hem_both_17.asp
Just a quick calculation shows roughly 1.5 million per year for roughly
35 years since Roe vs Wade = approximately 52 million.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> How many of these were legally performed in 2007?
Sorry, should have said "were legally performed". The fact remains that
the pro-death people are still pushing for it. Fortunately, the Supreme
Court made a ruling to uphold the ban in 2007. Meanwhile, millions of
other innocent babies are being slaughtered for convenience earlier in
the pregnancy. http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:
>
> I must have missed the note that moved from "global warming" to
> "population control" so I don't know how "abortion" got into the
> thread.
> I doubt that there is anyone in this group (or elsewhere) who thinks
> that ANYTHING related to "population control, grown, or decine" has a
> SIMPLE explanation.
Ronald Reagan said: "Those who think there are not simple solutions have
just not tried hard enough."
There are compelling arguments on both side of the abortion issue. After
studying all the ramifications, I've come down on the side of abortion on
demand.
Abortion reduces the number of liberals in society. (See "Roe Effect")
It was estimated there were 72,000 legal abortions in Florida in 1982. Had
the pregnancies gone to term, those 72,000 non-aborted fetuses would have
been eligible to vote in 2000.
Bush won Florida by 582 votes. Winnning Florida won him the election.
The liberals are fighting back, though. There is a big push to
re-enfranchise felons.
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-26, 6:55 pm |
| You said something like this way back at the beginning of this thread. When
I complained about it you assured me it was a joke. Well?
PL
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13s942o52i4ud54@corp.supernews.com...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
> Ronald Reagan said: "Those who think there are not simple solutions have
> just not tried hard enough."
>
> There are compelling arguments on both side of the abortion issue. After
> studying all the ramifications, I've come down on the side of abortion on
> demand.
>
> Abortion reduces the number of liberals in society. (See "Roe Effect")
>
> It was estimated there were 72,000 legal abortions in Florida in 1982. Had
> the pregnancies gone to term, those 72,000 non-aborted fetuses would have
> been eligible to vote in 2000.
>
> Bush won Florida by 582 votes. Winnning Florida won him the election.
>
> The liberals are fighting back, though. There is a big push to
> re-enfranchise felons.
>
>
| |
|
|
| HeyBub 2008-02-26, 9:55 pm |
| tlmfru wrote:
> You said something like this way back at the beginning of this
> thread. When I complained about it you assured me it was a joke.
> Well?
I think Reagan was making a joke.
"Roe Effect" (also known as "Eating the seed corn")
"The Roe effect is a hypothesis about the long-term effect of abortion on
the political balance of the United States, which suggests that since
supporters of abortion rights cause the erosion of their own political base,
the practice of abortion will eventually lead to the restriction or
illegalization of abortion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect
Felon voting:
"In Florida, individuals convicted of a felony are stripped of their civil
and voting rights, even after completion of their sentences."
http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting..._voting_ban.cfm
"Most felons released from prison will have their voting and other civil
rights restored under a rule approved Thursday by Republican Gov. Charlie
Crist and the state clemency board."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...ns-rights_N.htm
| |
| Rick Smith 2008-02-27, 7:55 am |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:sG_wj.109906$L%6.96757@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> They are called "partial birth abortions" and are legally performed in
> the U.S. The pro-death people claim it is "for the health of the mother"
> which is so blatantly stupid as to defy belief that anyone would claim
> this. How could it *possibly* be detrimental to the health of the
> mother for the baby to be pulled out another 3 inches without killing
> it? Only an idiot or someone bent on dealing death to innocent babies
> would think that holding the top of the baby's head in the birth canal
> long enough to stick scissors into its head and suck out the brain
> would be better for the mother than pulling the baby completely out and
> letting it live. Those who promote such horrible barbarisms are beyond
> reason, morality and common sense. In my opinion, they are in the same
> class as the most heinous of criminals who ever walked the planet,
> for they do this to innocent babies who would be delivered healthy and
> whole, if not physically prevented from doing so in order to murder
> them. The prime function of government is to protect the innocent and
> the helpless, yet our government condones mass murder of the very most
> innocent and helpless, all in the name of convenience. There is no
> language to describe my extreme contempt and disgust for this practice,
> or anyone who would attempt to justify it. Such people have no right
> to claim any sense of morality.
Mr McClendon, you seem to have a peculiar sense of morality that
also seems out of place with respect to governments in the U.S.
It may take some getting used to; but neither religion nor its
adherrents have a lock on morality.
There is, what may be described as, an "American morality"--implied
by the U.S. Constitution--that is based on rights. Moral behavior is to
respect the rights of others--immoral behavior is to offend those rights.
The primary function of all governments, where the U.S. Constitution
has effect, is to protect the rights of the people. Within the context of
this "American morality", those who attempt to impose their particular
morality and, in so doing, offend the rights of others, are immoral.
I have no interest in how the procedure is done, only in whether the
procedure will, in some way, violate the rights of the woman. This
is, in the U.S., the proper moral obligation for this matter.
| |
|
| In article <13s9i26k5lnos36@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>tlmfru wrote:
>
>I think Reagan was making a joke.
From
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...07?dmode=source>
--begin quoted text:
Oh, come *on* now, Mr Smith... can't you see the *smiley*? What's the
matter, don't you know that *anything*, no matter how hurtful or hateful
or degrading or bigoted, can be un-said if it is followed by 'What's the
matter... can't take a *joke*?'
You'd know that if you listened to more Talk Radio, that's for sure... at
least that's where *I* learned it.
--end quoted text
So it seems here, likewise... but in this case it seems like the person
saying it can make assumptions about what someone else thought and doesn't
even have to own up to making a joke.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:16:35 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>Here's a handy statistic: average number of lifetime abortions per woman in the US: 1.0
Except that any statistic that uses "average" requires further
definition.
And in this case, maybe it can be confusing when there are women who
stopped being fertile about when abortions became legal - how did they
determine the woman's lifetime for this statistic.
| |
|
| In article <2kh9s35n5m9dqcu3gk05f029djah2sj5s9@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
[snip]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...e_United_States
>
>Here's a handy statistic: average number of lifetime abortions per woman
>in the US: 1.0
Here's an equally handy statistic: average number of testicles per human
being in the world: less-than 1.0.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:08:11 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>Here's an equally handy statistic: average number of testicles per human
>being in the world: less-than 1.0.
Again, that depends on how you define things. Since lots of non
humans have testicles, the number of testicles in this world divided
by the number of human beings is significantly greater than 1.0.
| |
|
| In article <k80bs3le5m4ih9je8jtschmiv1pv908bbq@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:08:11 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>Again, that depends on how you define things.
Actually, it depends more on my sloppiness; my error and apologies for
leaving 'testicles' as unqualified instead of referring to them as 'live,
human testicles' as I had intended.
DD
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:58:17 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>You're doing precisely what you accuse me of. It is you who brought
>up technical issues of abortion when the real issue was population and
>I related 50 million abortions, which obviously have had a serious impact
>on the population of the U.S. Perhaps you are so obtuse as to think that
>the definition of whether an abortion is murder makes a difference
>whether or not the population is affected by the death of 50 million
>unborn babies?
Serious impact on the population of the U.S. By whose account? The
current poplation growth of the U.S. stands at .894 %. The birth rate
is 14.16 births/1,000 population (2007 est.) and the death rate is
8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.).
Since 1990, United States population has grown by 38 million people—an
unprecedented 15 percent increase. In town after town throughout the
U.S., communities are finding that population growth is overcrowding
schools, clogging roads, swallowing up open space, taxing the
environment, and raising the cost of living for all.
And you say there's been some "serious impact"? Prove it.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!."
-- Groucho Marx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:54:24 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>Sorry, should have said "were legally performed". The fact remains that
>the pro-death people are still pushing for it. Fortunately, the Supreme
>Court made a ruling to uphold the ban in 2007. Meanwhile, millions of
>other innocent babies are being slaughtered for convenience earlier in
>the pregnancy. http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
They're not babies until they are born. Mother's carry a fetus. They
don't carry a baby. And the Supreme Court was wrong in upholding that
ban. Because of it mothers and they're unborn fetus have died because
the doctor's hands were tied. I'm sure that make you Anti-Abortion
people very happy. And if you must know, I personally oppose abortion
but I am Pro Choice.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!."
-- Groucho Marx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| "terminology" is always a clue to emotional intent.
Pro-Life vs Anti-Abortion
Pro-Choice vs Pro-Abortion
"partial birth abortion" vs "late term abortion" (and these two MAY not be
identical but are often used for similar situations)
" health of the mother" vs "abortion on demand" (definitely different, but you
can often substitute one for the other in emotional arguments - and get amazing
differences in results
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:24388f04-7f07-4432-ad13-3bcd41ad4149@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 20:31, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Don't bother giving me links to partial death abortions. I looked them
> up for myself:
>
> <quote>
> Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X), also known as
> intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E), dilation and extraction
> (D&X), intrauterine cranial decompression and controversially in the
> United States as partial birth abortion, is a surgical abortion
> wherein an intact fetus is removed from the uterus via the cervix. The
> procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus that is
> developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.
>
> Though the procedure has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17%
> (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in 2000
> according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute
> survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate.
> </quote>
>
> The crucial word is FOETUS. A foetus is not a child and a "partial
> birth abortion" is not the same as a full-term birth.
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| Nope, it was NOT me talking (for that last quote) . Somewhere a reply got lost
(or lost the attribution)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88d43e-9b4f-47ac-bb24-75e23d0c7b4b@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 22:19, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whoo! Is that really you talking Bill?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-27, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You say much about your stance in the following. The fact that this
> is, in my opinion, a more emotive topic than evangelism means that I
> can understand your position. My one comment is posted below.
>
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> How about if some idiot of a midwife or doctor did not realise that
> the babies' head was too big to pass through the birth canal and that
> the baby was already dead (it only takes three minutes of constriction
> around the neck to kill or cause permanent brain injury). The
> circumstances will explain why the action was taken. Do you have any
> links to medical literature (and I don't mean anti-abortion
> propaganda) which detail these deaths?
The baby's head must be virtually out of the birth canal to do a partial
birth abortion, because the doctor inserts surgical scissors just under
the base of the skull at the top of the neck, into the brain. A simple
epeziotomy is not life threatening. Remember, the baby still has to be
delivered after it's dead, and killing it first simply keeps the birth stress
on the mother for a longer period.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <Tzkxj.332682$1x.133045@fe05.news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>"terminology" is always a clue to emotional intent.
>
> Pro-Life vs Anti-Abortion
> Pro-Choice vs Pro-Abortion
Hmmmmmm... I wonder what kind of intent might be garnered from a proposing
of terms like 'pre-natal', 'para-natal' and 'post-natal'?
Some utterly fiendish agenda, assuredly... not even worth responding to,
some might say... or not-say.
DD
| |
| Robert 2008-02-27, 9:55 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:29:05 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:16:35 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>Except that any statistic that uses "average" requires further
>definition.
>
>And in this case, maybe it can be confusing when there are women who
>stopped being fertile about when abortions became legal - how did they
>determine the woman's lifetime for this statistic.
It's a statistical average.
In 1990, the peak year:
1.6M (abortions per year) * 85 (life expectancy) / 140M (female population) = 1.0
In 2005:
1.2M * 85 / 150M = 0.7
Confirmation:
1990: 27 (abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44) * 30 (years) = 0.8
2005: 19 * 30 = 0.6
This set is lower because most women having abortions are aged 15-25. Including 35-44 in
the statistic produces an artifically low rate.
| |
|
| In article <dn7cs395909tpqluoqbtfb005bek1qdpi9@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:29:05 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>woman in the US: 1.0
>
>It's a statistical average.
>
>In 1990, the peak year:
>
>1.6M (abortions per year) * 85 (life expectancy) / 140M (female
>population) = 1.0
Wow, a 'statistical average'? Like:
Three guys in a bar. Each has a net worth of US$200,000 so their average
net worth is US$200,000.
Bill Gates walks in so everyone should get happy; their average net worth
now makes them billionaires.
*That* kind of 'statistical average'? 'There are lies, damned lies and
statistics.' - M Twain.
DD
| |
|
| In article <0zyxj.82260$vt2.22767@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Or one might chose to look beyond the surface and see that the issue
>is to what purpose the is taxonomy applied.
Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic. Given that terms should
be defined before manipulating them logically a division into categories
(taxonomy) was proposed as a basis for dealing with logic.
You were asked, thrice, how that proposal failed.
You refused, thrice, to demonstrate how the taxonomy was flawed and seem
to base your responses on an a priori rejection, not a logical one.
Thrice asked, thrice refused, no more needs be said.
DD
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-28, 6:55 pm |
| Judson,
Weren't you the one who, in another thread, was talking about "justified" and
"justified" killings or some other distinction related to
Thou shalt not Kill
versus
Thou shalt not commit murder
If you think that type of "taxonomy" is important (actually required by YOUR
believes), then it seems pretty strange to not even be able to discuss a
difference between
pre-, para-, and post-natal
Explain to me how the statement,
"Then, realizing it is used for the purpose of deceiving people into
committing the most heinous of crimes and claiming innocence because of the
particular taxonomy rather than looking at the reality, see past the
trivialities of taxonomy to the truth of the deceit."
applies to one taxonomy, but not the other - unless it is the (usual circular
logic) that if you think one way, then the distinction is important
(appropriate) but if you think another (believe something else) then it is
"onerous".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:0zyxj.82260$vt2.22767@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Or one might chose to look beyond the surface and see that the issue
> is to what purpose the is taxonomy applied. Then, realizing it is used
> for the purpose of deceiving people into committing the most heinous
> of crimes and claiming innocence because of the particular taxonomy
> rather than looking at the reality, see past the trivialities of taxonomy
> to the truth of the deceit. Of course, to do that, one must be interested
> in more than trivial arguments used to deceive and distract from the
> real issues involved. Murder of innocent unborn babies is murder of
> innocent unborn babies, no matter what taxonomy one chooses to use
> to mask the fact. Therefore, anyone arguing otherwise has already cast
> aside any pretense of morality, or reason. An obvious corollary is that
> there is no point arguing with people who advocate and defend mass
> murder of the most innocent and helpless for the sake of convenience.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-28, 6:55 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ynFxj.296395$9w2.178959@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Judson,
> Weren't you the one who, in another thread, was talking about "justified"
> and "justified" killings or some other distinction related to
> Thou shalt not Kill
> versus
> Thou shalt not commit murder
>
> If you think that type of "taxonomy" is important (actually required by
> YOUR believes), then it seems pretty strange to not even be able to
> discuss a difference between
> pre-, para-, and post-natal
>
> Explain to me how the statement,
> "Then, realizing it is used for the purpose of deceiving people into
> committing the most heinous of crimes and claiming innocence because of
> the particular taxonomy rather than looking at the reality, see past the
> trivialities of taxonomy to the truth of the deceit."
>
> applies to one taxonomy, but not the other - unless it is the (usual
> circular logic) that if you think one way, then the distinction is
> important (appropriate) but if you think another (believe something else)
> then it is "onerous".
>
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:0zyxj.82260$vt2.22767@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
"Look, don't play the slippery eel with me, that parrot is definitely
deceased." John Cleese (Python's parrot sketch).
Judson is master of the slippery eel.
Apart from the anomaly in position which you noted, did you see how,
suddenly, the unborn are now "innocent"?
Judson's infallible and literal Holy Bible states:
Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother
conceived me." (So, from the moment of conception we're all in sin...)
Romans 3:23 "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory." (no
exceptions there for babies...or anyone else.)
So, no way, (if you accept Judson's position on the Bible) can a zygote and
whatever it subsequently develops into, be sinless.
Unless Judson decides that using "innocent" carries more emotive weight for
his argument, but that would be unashamedly "slippery eel"...
I have to say that reading some of Judson's more hghly emotional and
ghoulish posts lately (like the one describing pushing scissors into baby
brains) simply reinforces my belief that some terminations in the womb may
actually make the world a better place...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
|
|
|
|
|
s of concepetion and 98.6% are in the first