She was just a fetus, why get all upset about it?

Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:10:11 -0800

--------
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> nenslo wrote:
> >
> > "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> > >
> > > Moderated discussion groups are worthless, you're seeing only
> > > what someone else wants seen. Instead, call it a web page with
> > > predefined content, 'cuz that's basically what it is... it's NOT
> > > a discussion.
> > >
> > Doesn't seem to be much of a discussion with you either, just you
> > delivering a monologue.
>
> Replies are monologues... yours for instance... you posted what
> you wanted to say about whatever you were replying to.
>
> It's up to anyone else, to reply back with their monologue.
>
> It's not a duplex medium... it's simplex.
>

Okay. Having read your previous posts, and given them some thought,
this is what I think. It appears to me that your assertion is that, to
be consistent, it is necessary to treat or think about the recently
murdered nine year old girl and the past present and future victims of
abortion in the same manner. I think if that type of "consistency" were
applied consistently, it would be necessary to treat or think of a nine
year old person the same way we do an eighteen year old person, granting
them the privilege of voting, drinking, marriage and joining the
marines, among others. Your statements appear to me to indicate that
consistency is good, or is better than inconsistency. I believe that a
form of consistency which requires us to treat things which are not the
same as if they are the same, is not necessarily good, or better than
inconsistency. In fact, I think treating things which are different as
if they were the same is a form of insanity. An unborn person is not
the same as a nine year old person. They are different, not the same.

I believe you have come up with statements for the purpose of condemning
or invalidating a certain viewpoint and the people who hold or assert
that viewpoint, and not out of any desire to show respect for the
deceased or to honor her life or the lost potential in the lives of
victims of abortion. If we use such tragedies as a mere tool to voice a
condemnation of others, we should be ashamed to pretend we really care
about the victims of those tragedies. Which to my mind is hardly a
christian way of treating people, pretending to care about their
suffering, just to use them as a ploy or weapon to hit other people
with. I, however, am not your judge. You have a right to act any way
your conscience dictates.


Posted by:: "John P. Boatwright"
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:02:32 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:
>
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:

> > Replies are monologues... yours for instance... you posted what
> > you wanted to say about whatever you were replying to.
> >
> > It's up to anyone else, to reply back with their monologue.
> >
> > It's not a duplex medium... it's simplex.
> >
>
> Okay. Having read your previous posts, and given them some thought,
> this is what I think. It appears to me that your assertion is that, to
> be consistent, it is necessary to treat or think about the recently
> murdered nine year old girl and the past present and future victims of
> abortion in the same manner.

They are the same person being killed, yes.

The baby in the womb, becomes that 9 year old, or 1 year old, or 20 year
old, or 100 year old person that eventually dies.

It's the same person, yes... and they eventually die, or get killed.

> I think if that type of "consistency" were
> applied consistently, it would be necessary to treat or think of a nine
> year old person the same way we do an eighteen year old person, granting
> them the privilege of voting, drinking, marriage and joining the
> marines, among others.

You're talking about a different matter, their privilages or rights
as "that person" change over time.

> Your statements appear to me to indicate that
> consistency is good, or is better than inconsistency. I believe that a
> form of consistency which requires us to treat things which are not the
> same as if they are the same, is not necessarily good, or better than
> inconsistency. In fact, I think treating things which are different as
> if they were the same is a form of insanity. An unborn person is not
> the same as a nine year old person. They are different, not the same.

I'm saying it's the same person dying, or being killed at "X" years
old.

I'm then looking at the "value" of that person vs. time, and saying that
well, I'll let you see the value directly:

"Joe Blow" good guy, he works hard all his life, gives to his community
at every chance he can, he helps others, he marries a nice woman that
thinks like he does, they have wonderful kids that also help others and
they all eventually help 100,000 people in some poor country, that
otherwise
would have starved, and never found God.

What is "Joe Blow"'s value vs. time?

Let's say "Joe Blow" dies at 100 years old, old age, he helped no one
at 100, he actually needed help himself to keep living. You might say
that "Joe Blow" had 'negative' value at 100 because of it... that his
net value as a person began to decline at 100 as he came crashing into
his eventual death.

Or, let's say "Joe Blow" is killed at 30 years old, BEFORE his last
2 kids were born, the two kids that helped others more than the rest
of his kids... now "Joe Blow"'s net value has dropped vs. that when
he was dying at 100.

Or... let's say "Joe Blow" was aborted in the womb... now there's
no returned net value from "Joe Blow"'s life... his entire potential
was wiped out as the "doctor" ripped his arms and legs off and crushed
his skull to suck out his brains.

So let's review "Joe Blow"'s potential vs. years old that he'd die:

* 100 years, dying of old age: vast potential was realized
* 30 years, murdered on street: only partial potential realized
* 0 years, killed in the womb: no potential was realized

Do you see what's happened as you kill "Joe Blow" earlier and
earlier in his life?

As you kill him sooner, the value he would have brought, is thrown
away that he originally had. He's still the same person he always
was, but in killing him sooner, his potential is being stolen away,
destroyed... the God given value that "Joe Blow" had, that God gave
him for his life, is being destroyed by those killing him at some
point in his life.

> I believe you have come up with statements for the purpose of condemning
> or invalidating a certain viewpoint and the people who hold or assert
> that viewpoint, and not out of any desire to show respect for the
> deceased or to honor her life or the lost potential in the lives of
> victims of abortion. If we use such tragedies as a mere tool to voice a
> condemnation of others, we should be ashamed to pretend we really care
> about the victims of those tragedies.

My point was, IF I'm going to be consistent in the potential of that
SAME person, I should be MORE upset over her death, the younger she
is that she is killed... as the younger she is, the less time she's
had to bring joy and benefit to those around her.

Killing her in the womb... would have been MUCH worse than her being
killed at 9 when no one would have received any benefit from being
around her.

> Which to my mind is hardly a
> christian way of treating people, pretending to care about their
> suffering, just to use them as a ploy or weapon to hit other people
> with. I, however, am not your judge. You have a right to act any way
> your conscience dictates.

I am amazed that the discussion group participants often times
presented themselves as being all for "free speech", yet when
they don't want to be confronted by the value of a person in the
womb... they delete the discussion in order to ignore the point
made, as if it had never been said.

It's NEVER free speech in a moderated discussion group.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


Posted by:: "Blackout"
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:58:36 -0700

--------

"John P. Boatwright" wrote

> Do you see what's happened as you kill "Joe Blow" earlier and
> earlier in his life?

yes, and I will pray to jesus that someday someone goes back in time and
kicks your pregnant mother in the stomach and erases all traces of your
existence




Posted by:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 21 Mar 2005 09:22:36 -0800

--------
< and
kicks your pregnant mother in the stomach and erases all traces of your

existence >>

I tried that, how do you think he got that way in the first place?



Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:55:50 -0800

--------
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:02:32 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
wrote:

>They are the same person being killed, yes.
>
>The baby in the womb, becomes that 9 year old, or 1 year old, or 20 year
>old, or 100 year old person that eventually dies.

then by the same logic, using a condom should be prosecuted as murder.
Just as the baby in the womb becomes the 9 year old girl, the sperm
that the condom catches -would- have become the baby which becamse the
9 year old girl.

Aren't absolutes fun?

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"If you shoot a mime, should you use a silencer?"
---Steven Wright.



Posted by:: "frater S.O.D.D.I."
Date: 21 Mar 2005 18:04:10 -0800

--------

Zapanaz wrote:

> then by the same logic, using a condom should be prosecuted as
murder.
> Just as the baby in the womb becomes the 9 year old girl, the sperm
> that the condom catches -would- have become the baby which becamse
the
> 9 year old girl.
>
> Aren't absolutes fun?


And why stop there?

Simply by NOT fucking someone you stop the sperm/egg combo from
becoming a fetus, thus preventing the fetus from becoming a 9-year old
girl...

And that baby was meant to be born!

THE CHASTE ARE MURDERERS!



Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:37:23 -0800

--------
On 21 Mar 2005 18:04:10 -0800, "frater S.O.D.D.I."
wrote:

>
>Zapanaz wrote:
>
>> then by the same logic, using a condom should be prosecuted as
>murder.
>> Just as the baby in the womb becomes the 9 year old girl, the sperm
>> that the condom catches -would- have become the baby which becamse
>the
>> 9 year old girl.
>>
>> Aren't absolutes fun?
>
>
>And why stop there?
>
>Simply by NOT fucking someone you stop the sperm/egg combo from
>becoming a fetus, thus preventing the fetus from becoming a 9-year old
>girl...
>
>And that baby was meant to be born!
>
>THE CHASTE ARE MURDERERS!

GOD IS COMING, AND HE BETTER NOT FIND ANY LAZY SPERMS IN YOU, SINNER!
YOU BETTER GO GET PROCREATING -NOW-!

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Time is what yuou measure with a clock. to measure anything wiht a
clock, you have to look at it. To look at it, light has to move from
it to you. Therefore nothing can go faster than light.



Posted by:: "Blackout"
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:31:06 -0700

--------

"frater S.O.D.D.I." wrote

>
>> then by the same logic, using a condom should be prosecuted as
> murder.
>> Just as the baby in the womb becomes the 9 year old girl, the sperm
>> that the condom catches -would- have become the baby which becamse
> the
>> 9 year old girl.
>>
>> Aren't absolutes fun?
>
>
> And why stop there?
>
> Simply by NOT fucking someone you stop the sperm/egg combo from
> becoming a fetus, thus preventing the fetus from becoming a 9-year old
> girl...

EVERYTIME YOU DON'T JACK OFF AND KNOCK UP WOMEN WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL SPERM
CELL YOU'RE KILLING ANOTHER 6 MILLION JEWS




Posted by:: "John P. Boatwright"
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:53:49 GMT

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:02:32 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
> wrote:
>
> >They are the same person being killed, yes.
> >
> >The baby in the womb, becomes that 9 year old, or 1 year old, or 20 year
> >old, or 100 year old person that eventually dies.
>
> then by the same logic, using a condom should be prosecuted as murder.
> Just as the baby in the womb becomes the 9 year old girl, the sperm
> that the condom catches -would- have become the baby which becamse the
> 9 year old girl.
>
> Aren't absolutes fun?

A sperm is not a person.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:59:53 -0800

--------
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:53:49 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
wrote:

>A sperm is not a person.
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>

wook!

The heck with logic, huh?

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
And the first one burst into the saloon with a ripped-off penis speared
right through his hat and yelled "DEAR GOD, RUUUUN!! LESBIANNNNS!!!"

- Hellpope Huey



Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:57:33 -0800

--------
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> I'm saying it's the same person dying, or being killed at "X" years
> old.
>
> I'm then looking at the "value" of that person vs. time, and saying that
> well, I'll let you see the value directly:
>
> "Joe Blow" good guy, he works hard all his life, gives to his community
> at every chance he can, he helps others, he marries a nice woman that
> thinks like he does, they have wonderful kids that also help others and
> they all eventually help 100,000 people in some poor country, that
> otherwise
> would have starved, and never found God.
>
> What is "Joe Blow"'s value vs. time?
>
> Let's say "Joe Blow" dies at 100 years old, old age, he helped no one
> at 100, he actually needed help himself to keep living. You might say
> that "Joe Blow" had 'negative' value at 100 because of it... that his
> net value as a person began to decline at 100 as he came crashing into
> his eventual death.
>
> Or, let's say "Joe Blow" is killed at 30 years old, BEFORE his last
> 2 kids were born, the two kids that helped others more than the rest
> of his kids... now "Joe Blow"'s net value has dropped vs. that when
> he was dying at 100.
>
> Or... let's say "Joe Blow" was aborted in the womb... now there's
> no returned net value from "Joe Blow"'s life... his entire potential
> was wiped out as the "doctor" ripped his arms and legs off and crushed
> his skull to suck out his brains.
>
> So let's review "Joe Blow"'s potential vs. years old that he'd die:
>
> * 100 years, dying of old age: vast potential was realized
> * 30 years, murdered on street: only partial potential realized
> * 0 years, killed in the womb: no potential was realized
>
> Do you see what's happened as you kill "Joe Blow" earlier and
> earlier in his life?

Let's say Joe Blow becomes a child molester and one of the times he is
out of prison he kidnaps and murders a nine year old girl. Let's say he
joins a terrorist organization and sets off a bomb which collapses an
office building onto a maternity hospital killing everyone inside, and
part of the building also falls onto an infectious disease research
center, releasing two dozen monkeys which are carriers of a new type of
incurable smallpox. Let's say he becomes a twisted supergenius who
invents a way of driving pulsed vibrations into the planetary core which
will cause all the continents to flip over, killing everyone everywhere.
Let's say he never does anything of note or worthwhile in his whole
life, good or bad, just goes to work, watches TV, and eventually dies.
Let's just make up anything we want. All imaginary things are equal.

I bet the guy who killed that little girl was a cute little kid himself
once. If he'd been killed then everyone might have mourned the lost
potential, but if we could show them the suffering he would have brought
into the world I bet they would more likely be glad he went when he did.


>
> My point was, IF I'm going to be consistent in the potential of that
> SAME person, I should be MORE upset over her death, the younger she
> is that she is killed... as the younger she is, the less time she's
> had to bring joy and benefit to those around her.

Or sorrow and affliction, depending on the circumstances. Some babies
are a blessing, and some are a punishment. I personally have known
people whose lives were ruined by an unwanted child. Potential, in the
non-electrical sense, is an imaginary thing. It is a "what if," and
everything which comes after that "if" is solely the creation of your
mind, having no real existence.

>
> I am amazed that the discussion group participants often times
> presented themselves as being all for "free speech", yet when
> they don't want to be confronted by the value of a person in the
> womb... they delete the discussion in order to ignore the point
> made, as if it had never been said.

I agree with you. I would add that I think "free speech" is highly
overrated. A healthy censorship tends to limit free expression to
those who are smart enough to outsmart the censors.


Posted by:: "John P. Boatwright"
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:08:32 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:
>
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:

> > Do you see what's happened as you kill "Joe Blow" earlier and
> > earlier in his life?
>
> Let's say Joe Blow becomes a child molester and one of the times he is
> out of prison he kidnaps and murders a nine year old girl. Let's say he
> joins a terrorist organization and sets off a bomb which collapses an
> office building onto a maternity hospital killing everyone inside, and
> part of the building also falls onto an infectious disease research
> center, releasing two dozen monkeys which are carriers of a new type of
> incurable smallpox. Let's say he becomes a twisted supergenius who
> invents a way of driving pulsed vibrations into the planetary core which
> will cause all the continents to flip over, killing everyone everywhere.
> Let's say he never does anything of note or worthwhile in his whole
> life, good or bad, just goes to work, watches TV, and eventually dies.
> Let's just make up anything we want. All imaginary things are equal.

You ignored the point being made.

You also expect me to care intensely about the 9 year old girl being
killed... "just because she's nine and on TV", and then I'm supposed
to ignore her if she's having her arms and legs ripped off in the womb.

I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.

The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
realized from the killer killing her in the womb.

> I bet the guy who killed that little girl was a cute little kid himself
> once.

Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able.

> If he'd been killed then everyone might have mourned the lost
> potential, but if we could show them the suffering he would have brought
> into the world I bet they would more likely be glad he went when he did.

When did you realize that you rather than God, gets to decide who dies?

Cain realized such prior to killing Able.

The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.

> > My point was, IF I'm going to be consistent in the potential of that
> > SAME person, I should be MORE upset over her death, the younger she
> > is that she is killed... as the younger she is, the less time she's
> > had to bring joy and benefit to those around her.
>
> Or sorrow and affliction, depending on the circumstances. Some babies
> are a blessing, and some are a punishment. I personally have known
> people whose lives were ruined by an unwanted child.

The high priests didn't want Jesus, they had him killed. Jesus
showing up, was ruining their positions, they were starting to
look bad to the others there at the time.

It's all in your perspective as to whether or not someone is
a blessing or not in their showing up.

> Potential, in the
> non-electrical sense, is an imaginary thing. It is a "what if," and
> everything which comes after that "if" is solely the creation of your
> mind, having no real existence.

God apparently took the time to start making the baby, who are
you to say he was right or not in making your brother?

> > I am amazed that the discussion group participants often times
> > presented themselves as being all for "free speech", yet when
> > they don't want to be confronted by the value of a person in the
> > womb... they delete the discussion in order to ignore the point
> > made, as if it had never been said.
>
> I agree with you. I would add that I think "free speech" is highly
> overrated. A healthy censorship tends to limit free expression to
> those who are smart enough to outsmart the censors.

Moderated discussion groups are not worth the effort.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


Posted by:: Baldin Pramer
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:42:14 -0700

--------
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> nenslo wrote:
>
>>"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you see what's happened as you kill "Joe Blow" earlier and
>>>earlier in his life?
>>
>>Let's say Joe Blow becomes a child molester and one of the times he is
>>out of prison he kidnaps and murders a nine year old girl. Let's say he
>>joins a terrorist organization and sets off a bomb which collapses an
>>office building onto a maternity hospital killing everyone inside, and
>>part of the building also falls onto an infectious disease research
>>center, releasing two dozen monkeys which are carriers of a new type of
>>incurable smallpox. Let's say he becomes a twisted supergenius who
>>invents a way of driving pulsed vibrations into the planetary core which
>>will cause all the continents to flip over, killing everyone everywhere.
>> Let's say he never does anything of note or worthwhile in his whole
>>life, good or bad, just goes to work, watches TV, and eventually dies.
>>Let's just make up anything we want. All imaginary things are equal.
>
>
> You ignored the point being made.
>
> You also expect me to care intensely about the 9 year old girl being
> killed... "just because she's nine and on TV", and then I'm supposed
> to ignore her if she's having her arms and legs ripped off in the womb.
>
> I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
> ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
> actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
> like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.
>
> The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
> for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
> got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
> with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
> realized from the killer killing her in the womb.

No one will miss her if she is killed in the womb. If she is killed at
nine, her relatives will grieve because they already know her.

--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.


Posted by:: "John P. Boatwright"
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:00:19 GMT

--------
Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
> > ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
> > actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
> > like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.
> >
> > The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
> > for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
> > got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
> > with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
> > realized from the killer killing her in the womb.
>
> No one will miss her if she is killed in the womb. If she is killed at
> nine, her relatives will grieve because they already know her.

She's the same person being killed, in the womb, or at 9.

You're basically killing that girl of 9, that happy, joyful,
fun loving girl, before she's reached any of her potential to
either affect others, or to have others affect her... love
from her to others, and from others to her... it's all thrown
in the waste basket... arms and legs, bits of her head, neck,
ripped up toes, fingers, even her genitals, she's being horribly
raped in the womb, raped to death by a butcher... in the womb.

Why isn't everyone up in arms over her horrible rape and death
in the womb?

Regardless, people thank God that they were able to know the
person dying, for as many years as they were given, to have had
whatever time alotted, and that's why it's that much worse to
have lost them before they could have known them.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


Posted by:: John Cook
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:33:41 +1000

--------
How Fucked up is THIS shit....

John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
>>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
>>>ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
>>>actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
>>>like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.
>>>
>>>The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
>>>for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
>>>got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
>>>with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
>>>realized from the killer killing her in the womb.
>>
>>No one will miss her if she is killed in the womb. If she is killed at
>>nine, her relatives will grieve because they already know her.
>
>
> She's the same person being killed, in the womb, or at 9.
>
> You're basically killing that girl of 9, that happy, joyful,
> fun loving girl, before she's reached any of her potential to
> either affect others, or to have others affect her... love
> from her to others, and from others to her... it's all thrown
> in the waste basket... arms and legs, bits of her head, neck,
> ripped up toes, fingers, even her genitals, she's being horribly
> raped in the womb, raped to death by a butcher... in the womb.
>
> Why isn't everyone up in arms over her horrible rape and death
> in the womb?
>
> Regardless, people thank God that they were able to know the
> person dying, for as many years as they were given, to have had
> whatever time alotted, and that's why it's that much worse to
> have lost them before they could have known them.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Proof God described the planet density profile
> BEFORE science did:
> http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
> (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
>
> Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


--
John Cook


The Bandwidth of reality is Wonderfully wide


Posted by:: "angelicusrex"
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:50:40 -0700

--------


Pretty fucking fucked up.

A.R.




Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:56:55 -0800

--------
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> You ignored the point being made.

I tried not to. I really tried to read and understand what you said and
respond to it in an intelligent and respectful manner.
>
> You also expect me to care intensely about the 9 year old girl being
> killed... "just because she's nine and on TV", and then I'm supposed
> to ignore her if she's having her arms and legs ripped off in the womb.
>
I don't expect anything. I honestly don't care what you care about, it
is your choice entirely. I have never said or thought anything like
what you say there.

> I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
> ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
> actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
> like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.

People tend to develop feelings for people they know or people whom they
can recognize as a person, whereas a person they never knew, who was
never born, or who looks more like a steamed prawn than a person is a
lot harder to develop feelings for. Potential, in any case, is an
imaginary factor created by the observer.
>
> The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
> for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
> got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
> with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
> realized from the killer killing her in the womb.

The way I see it, her parents developed a bond of affection for her,
whereas people tend not to develop a bond of any kind with a person whom
they have never seen or whom they don't actually think of as a person.

>
> > I bet the guy who killed that little girl was a cute little kid himself
> > once.
>
> Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able.

I'm not sure what your point is with that. Every person who ever killed
anyone was probably a cute little kid with a lifetime of potential, good
and bad, ahead of them. So at some point every person, no matter how
bad they turned out, would have met your criteria for being valued.
Probably in the womb.
>
> > If he'd been killed then everyone might have mourned the lost
> > potential, but if we could show them the suffering he would have brought
> > into the world I bet they would more likely be glad he went when he did.
>
> When did you realize that you rather than God, gets to decide who dies?

I never did realize that, and I don't see what that has to do with my
statement above. Even the guy who killed that child was a child once,
and came under the criteria you have set for having potential and
therefore value. At what point does a person lose value in your eyes?
When they are nine? When they kill someone? When they are born? You
seem to indicate that the less a person has ACTUALLY lived, the more
potential they have and therefore the more value they have as people.

>
> Cain realized such prior to killing Able.

The way I recall the story, having just re-read it a moment ago, that is
never stated, indicated or implied.

>
> The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.

As I read the story, Cain's motive was anger and jealousy over the
praise which Abel got for his produce, and the lack of attention Cain
received for his work. I don't see the similarity in motivations at all.

> >
> > Or sorrow and affliction, depending on the circumstances. Some babies
> > are a blessing, and some are a punishment. I personally have known
> > people whose lives were ruined by an unwanted child.
>
> The high priests didn't want Jesus, they had him killed. Jesus
> showing up, was ruining their positions, they were starting to
> look bad to the others there at the time.
>
> It's all in your perspective as to whether or not someone is
> a blessing or not in their showing up.

My point exactly.

>
> > Potential, in the
> > non-electrical sense, is an imaginary thing. It is a "what if," and
> > everything which comes after that "if" is solely the creation of your
> > mind, having no real existence.
>
> God apparently took the time to start making the baby, who are
> you to say he was right or not in making your brother?

I have not said or thought anything like that. If, as you say, God took
the time to start making the baby, it seems to me that God also took the
time to make the abortionist, the nine year old child, and the guy who
raped and murdered the child. Who are you to say that God was right or
wrong in any aspect of his creation? If God made all that was made, and
there is nothing made which God did not make, your finding fault with
the actions of your own God seems a bit odd to me.


Posted by:: "Ad Absurdum"
Date: 27 Mar 2005 15:28:24 -0800

--------
But the psychic fallout of my own soul-suicide causes to me to fixate
on abortion, because of its symbolic similarity, as the manageable
scapegoat for my own inner rage at my complicity in the Eternal Murder
of Christ. Why you pissin' that neoTech jive in my face, nenslo? I'm
only asking you to pretend you care that I'm sorry i killed Christ
within myself, 'cause I don't really believe I'm sorry 'cause I'm a
slackless fuck. but I'll never get better if I keep being told that!
Don't you see or are you STUPID??? Is that so HARD???

You big meanie.



Posted by:: purple
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:03:42 -0500

--------
On 3/27/05 6:28 PM, in article
1111966104.856270.199960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Ad Absurdum"
wrote:

> But the psychic fallout of my own soul-suicide causes to me to fixate
> on abortion, because of its symbolic similarity, as the manageable
> scapegoat for my own inner rage at my complicity in the Eternal Murder
> of Christ. Why you pissin' that neoTech jive in my face, nenslo? I'm
> only asking you to pretend you care that I'm sorry i killed Christ
> within myself, 'cause I don't really believe I'm sorry 'cause I'm a
> slackless fuck. but I'll never get better if I keep being told that!
> Don't you see or are you STUPID??? Is that so HARD???

Yes.


The Great Bob Dobbs



Posted by:: "angelicusrex"
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:06:42 -0700

--------
(read to the end to see what Nenslo REALLY thinks of you and all human
kind...)

>> You ignored the point being made.
>
> I tried not to.

But you did anyway...Is that it, Nenslo?

> I really tried to read and understand what you said and
> respond to it in an intelligent and respectful manner.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Like I said, the guy is hilarious!


> I don't expect anything. I honestly don't care what you care about,

Then why are you talking to this person? Are you insane?

> it
> is your choice entirely.

Until you call the person a fucking dumbass and that you will murder them
and their entire family?

> I have never said or thought anything like
> what you say there.

Uhm WRONG. There's a whole shit load of rabid, morbid, homicidal posts about
"hacking people to pieces" which you wrote. So you are just a lying sack of
shit!

> People tend to develop feelings for people they know or people whom they
> can recognize as a person,

So this is why you have no feelings for anyone? Because you don't know
anyone? Is this why you want to kill everyone?

>whereas a person they never knew, who was
> never born, or who looks more like a steamed prawn than a person is a
> lot harder to develop feelings for.

Like I said, you have no feelings for anyone. Hell you don't even like the
steamed prawns you see around here!

> Potential, in any case, is an
> imaginary factor created by the observer.

Wrong. Everything of matter has potential energy. And can therefore
potentially "change." This is a scientific fact. Observers of other people
(those who are unprejudiced, not like you...) can actually see potential in
other people for acting in a good or evil way or for changing their present
condition in some manner. One does not normally "observe the imaginary."
When one does, this is called hallucinating. Since the vast amounts of
literature lead us to believe that people as observers do in fact observe
"potential" for things in others, we can safely assume these potential's
actually exist.
Smart ass.



> I'm not sure what your point is with that. Every person who ever killed
> anyone was probably a cute little kid with a lifetime of potential, good
> and bad, ahead of them.

I thought you just said "potential was in the imagination of the observer?"

> So at some point every person, no matter how
> bad they turned out, would have met your criteria for being valued.
> Probably in the womb.

Kids in the womb usually aren't cute.
Hitler was cute. You were cute, I was cute, everyone was cute as a kid
unless they were born as the Elephant Man or with hair-lips or conjoined
twins, etc. So not everyone is born cute. Oddly the ones not born cute,
usually wind up as loving, caring or talented human beings. But so do some
cute ones. So there is no bottom line here. People kill others for reasons
that go far beyond how "cute" they were as children. So both of you are
talking nonsense here.


> I never did realize that, and I don't see what that has to do with my
> statement above. Even the guy who killed that child was a child once,
> and came under the criteria you have set for having potential and
> therefore value. At what point does a person lose value in your eyes?
> When they are nine? When they kill someone? When they are born? You
> seem to indicate that the less a person has ACTUALLY lived, the more
> potential they have and therefore the more value they have as people.

You guys are arguing in a ridiculous illogical circle. First of all "god" as
a decision making being that controls life, does NOT exist. There is not one
shred of evidence for such a being. People who DO make the decisons on who
is to live or die, for instance, Gov. Jeb Buch or his brother, G.W. in fact
DO exist and our laws actually give many people that "God given right" to
kill others, in war, self-defense, in restricting someone from committing a
crime, escaping the law or prison, or even if the person with a food tube in
their throats signed a Living Will. Many people have the "right" to kill.
And all of us are capable of it whether we have the right or not. And these
potentialities are being proven every day. In fact Nenslo believes he has
the right to threaten tokill anyone he desires to and does so boldly, using
telephone lines. The law restricts and frowns upon death threats offered
on-line. Yet Nenslo threatens a lot of people. So listening to ANYTHING that
homicidal moron has to say is not in anyone's best interests.

>> Cain realized such prior to killing Able.
>

There was no Cain, nor an Able. This is a myth and a fantasy which is trying
to tell a moral fable. Which is, jealousy might bring irrational anger,
enough to kill. Yet God can forgive even that. However no such God exists,
as I said. So the point is moot.

> The way I recall the story, having just re-read it a moment ago, that is
> never stated, indicated or implied.

>> The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.

No, the abortionist is a medical doctor usually performing a legal operation
in order to save a person's life, whether from a potentially bad experience
in life later on, having an unwanted, unloved child who will indeed
"potentially" grow up to be a burden on society; or to literally save a
woman's life. This has nothing to do with Cain killing his brother out of
insane jealousy over the supposed graces proffered upon Abel by an invisible
God.

> As I read the story, Cain's motive was anger and jealousy over the
> praise which Abel got for his produce, and the lack of attention Cain
> received for his work. I don't see the similarity in motivations at all.

1 point to Nenslo. He can read for context!

>> The high priests didn't want Jesus, they had him killed. Jesus
>> showing up, was ruining their positions, they were starting to
>> look bad to the others there at the time.

Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments at hand. Jesus was
executed by the Romans. He was executed for trying to place himself over
Roman governorship by proclaiming himself King. jesus also KNEW this was
going to occur. If the High Priests had wanted him dead, they would have had
him stoned. However the High Priest had no jurisdiction in the case at all.
Again, Jesus being executed is a moot point.

>> God apparently took the time to start making the baby, who are
>> you to say he was right or not in making your brother?

All babies are "not" brothers simply by virtue of their being human.
Otherwise all humans are your brothers, even Hitler. Even Stalin. Even Pol
Pot. Even Nenslo! So to kill them, no matter what they did wrong is to kill
your brother. The whole scenario with Cain and Abel is to show that when you
act like God, you are merciful, even to those who killed without warrant or
excuse. Cain was forgiven, allowed to live, thrive, have many wives and a
huge family. What did Abel get? He got to be with God. Was that a fair
recompense? If so, then what is wrong with ALL dead people being with God?
What in fact could possibly be wrong with death itself? If nothing is wrong
with death, there is nothing wrong with abortion, murder, crucifixion or
Nenslo hacking someone to pieces. Is that where this is all heading? Stop
using the Bible to uphold your idiotic accounts of what is or is not moral.
You simply are not in any position to make such a decision.

> I have not said or thought anything like that. If, as you say, God took
> the time to start making the baby, it seems to me that God also took the
> time to make the abortionist, the nine year old child, and the guy who
> raped and murdered the child. Who are you to say that God was right or
> wrong in any aspect of his creation?

And who are you to take the life of a Spammer who wants to repair our
carpets, Nenslo? Or is that just your way of being "funny?" I'm sure your
friend here would not be arguing here if he or she knew you were such a
wretched, morbid soul.

> If God made all that was made, and
> there is nothing made which God did not make, your finding fault with
> the actions of your own God seems a bit odd to me.

God may have made all that was made. But He also made rules for us to
follow. The first one being Thou Shalt Not Kill. So you will promote God on
one hand as the progenitor of all, and yet you yourself feel no need to
abide by His rules. This is called hypocrisy. Why not just tell these people
that you hate everyone and often want to see them dead, that you worship
"Bob" not God. That you are a SubGenius, not a Christian. That you have a
foul mouth, a fouler disposition and a penchant for leading others into
verbal traps so you can call them idiots later on? Then this argument would
be OVER.

Here's what Nenslo really thinks:

"Allow ME a re-wording:

"SHUT UP"

That's what you said about my dick, but that was a lie too.

The solution is you all taking your fucking heads out of your asses for
even one second a day, you stupid fucking jerks.

You suck, that's what. Jerk

YOU ARE A DEAD MAN. AS OF THIS MOMENT

Not as tough as they are going to be. You can be murdered so this is
not a death threat.

I will hunt you down and hack you into pieces.

Come join fellow DUMBASSES for ME KICKING YOUR FUCKING ASS

THE PROBLEM IS YOU SUCK.

My problem is all these dumb jerks and how they all suck.

BRING BACK ME KICKING YOUR FUCKING ASS.

FUCK YOU

I don't, so it is, fuckface. Spam this newsgroup ONE MORE TIME and I
will murder your entire family. The choice is yours. Even respond to
this and I will hunt you down and CRIPPLE YOU. I will BLOW YOUR FUCKING
KNEES OFF and kick you in the face with your own feet.

It would only take a little more work than that to abduct him at
gunpoint, force him to dig his own grave, and bury him alive. Well a
lot more work actually.

I am the most sincere fucking bastard on earth."

(Then he must be sincere about these statements...)





AngelicusRex.




Posted by:: John Cook
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:22:51 +1000

--------
angelicusrex wrote:

BIIIIG Snip

Sigh... the good ole days...

I'm so COMPLACENT these days

I haven't had the, whatever, to put this much effort into a post for
YEARS - shit - must be gettin' old.
> AngelicusRex.
>
>

Sorry mate - you'll just have to be more Succinct

Some call it humor...

--
John Cook


The Bandwidth of reality is Wonderfully wide


Posted by:: "krustymadfaker"
Date: 27 Mar 2005 17:46:21 -0800

--------
John Cook barely wrote:

>Sigh... the good >ole days...


>I'm so >COMPLACENT >these days


>I haven't had the, >whatever, to put >this much effort >into a post
for
>YEARS - shit - >must be gettin' >old.

Yeah and kind of boring to. Take a trip to Dobbstown and take the ferry
to monster Island for a recharge. Working for Tom Ridge's hair piece
being a INDENT NAZI isn't working either!

Rev-Sci-Fi-entist KrustyMADfaker
"1980's sh*t! Pump up the volume!!! Stick Live Aid wrist bands to the
equation! Q-Bert not included!!"



Posted by:: "John P. Boatwright"
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:59:45 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:
>
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:

> > You also expect me to care intensely about the 9 year old girl being
> > killed... "just because she's nine and on TV", and then I'm supposed
> > to ignore her if she's having her arms and legs ripped off in the womb.
> >
> I don't expect anything. I honestly don't care what you care about, it
> is your choice entirely. I have never said or thought anything like
> what you say there.

Your assertion was:

"I believe you have come up with statements for the purpose of
condemning
or invalidating a certain viewpoint and the people who hold or assert
that viewpoint, and not out of any desire to show respect for the
deceased or to honor her life or the lost potential in the lives of
victims of abortion. If we use such tragedies as a mere tool to voice
a
condemnation of others, we should be ashamed to pretend we really care
about the victims of those tragedies. Which to my mind is hardly a
christian way of treating people, pretending to care about their
suffering, just to use them as a ploy or weapon to hit other people
with."

So basically, if I care equally or more about the lost potential
of the same person in the womb, and say such in a group setting,
I'm "abonormal" in saying such, and am: "to use them as a ploy or
weapon to hit other people with".

In other words, you expect that I'm attacking someone if I point out
the lost potential of the person, yes, person, being ripped to shreds
in the womb, vs. that same person dying at 9 years old after others
have had the chance to meet them, love them, and care about them.

My view is simply that I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that
same person being ripped to shreds and losing ALL potential in dying
so soon in their life... in the womb... that people should be very
happy that she was able to live on for 9 years, that they had that
time together... and thank God for it, be happy for the time they
got. Human beings eventually die, they don't last forever, be happy
for the time you had, be sadder that you didn't even get to know
the ones dying in the womb... 'cuz someone ripped their arms and legs
off in the womb... and no one cared about them or wrote a news report
about 'em.

> > I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
> > ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
> > actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
> > like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.
>
> People tend to develop feelings for people they know or people whom they
> can recognize as a person, whereas a person they never knew, who was
> never born, or who looks more like a steamed prawn than a person is a
> lot harder to develop feelings for. Potential, in any case, is an
> imaginary factor created by the observer.

She was the same person at whatever year she would have been killed.

> > The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
> > for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
> > got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
> > with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
> > realized from the killer killing her in the womb.
>
> The way I see it, her parents developed a bond of affection for her,
> whereas people tend not to develop a bond of any kind with a person whom
> they have never seen or whom they don't actually think of as a person.

Which is a major loss.

> > > I bet the guy who killed that little girl was a cute little kid himself
> > > once.
> >
> > Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is with that. Every person who ever killed
> anyone was probably a cute little kid with a lifetime of potential, good
> and bad, ahead of them. So at some point every person, no matter how
> bad they turned out, would have met your criteria for being valued.
> Probably in the womb.

They have free will to be what they want to be, yes. But if a KILLER
kills them, then they no longer have that choice.

> > > If he'd been killed then everyone might have mourned the lost
> > > potential, but if we could show them the suffering he would have brought
> > > into the world I bet they would more likely be glad he went when he did.
> >
> > When did you realize that you rather than God, gets to decide who dies?
>
> I never did realize that, and I don't see what that has to do with my
> statement above. Even the guy who killed that child was a child once,
> and came under the criteria you have set for having potential and
> therefore value. At what point does a person lose value in your eyes?
> When they are nine? When they kill someone? When they are born? You
> seem to indicate that the less a person has ACTUALLY lived, the more
> potential they have and therefore the more value they have as people.

I never said what value they had, I merely pointed out that their
potential is unrealized if you kill them in the womb. They have "X"
value in the womb... each year that passes, they have opportunity to
yeild potential, to love and care for others, and have others love
and care for them. Eventually, they die of natural causes, their entire
potential was realized at that point. If you tried to kill them then,
it wouldn't matter, they're already dead. The older someone is when
they're killed, the more they've interacted with others and yeilded
their potential... and those around them can be happy for the years
they had with them... but not if you kill them in the womb.

> > Cain realized such prior to killing Able.
>
> The way I recall the story, having just re-read it a moment ago, that is
> never stated, indicated or implied.

Cain decided to kill his brother, it's stated directly. He killed
Able to remove the more acceptable offering.

> > The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.
>
> As I read the story, Cain's motive was anger and jealousy over the
> praise which Abel got for his produce, and the lack of attention Cain
> received for his work. I don't see the similarity in motivations at all.

The abortionist thinks the person they are killing is worthless,
of no value. That person they are killing, is even more valuable
than the 9 year old in that they haven't even given their love
and caring to their parents, relatives and friends, and visa versa.

The "offering" of that unborn child, is more valuable, yet the
abortionists see them as worthless, another Able to be killed
and they profit from that killing... of their brother.

> > > Or sorrow and affliction, depending on the circumstances. Some babies
> > > are a blessing, and some are a punishment. I personally have known
> > > people whose lives were ruined by an unwanted child.
> >
> > The high priests didn't want Jesus, they had him killed. Jesus
> > showing up, was ruining their positions, they were starting to
> > look bad to the others there at the time.
> >
> > It's all in your perspective as to whether or not someone is
> > a blessing or not in their showing up.
>
> My point exactly.

OK.

> > > Potential, in the
> > > non-electrical sense, is an imaginary thing. It is a "what if," and
> > > everything which comes after that "if" is solely the creation of your
> > > mind, having no real existence.
> >
> > God apparently took the time to start making the baby, who are
> > you to say he was right or not in making your brother?
>
> I have not said or thought anything like that. If, as you say, God took
> the time to start making the baby, it seems to me that God also took the
> time to make the abortionist, the nine year old child, and the guy who
> raped and murdered the child. Who are you to say that God was right or
> wrong in any aspect of his creation? If God made all that was made, and
> there is nothing made which God did not make, your finding fault with
> the actions of your own God seems a bit odd to me.

People have free will, and people do wrong things sometimes, Cain
for instance, he killed his brother. We're not God, we're told to
not kill... yet the abortionist kills a person before they've had
even seconds to live outside the womb, to know or care about their
parents, relatives, or friends... being killed when they're the most
helpless... ripped to shreds, physically raped in the worst possible
manner... and no one cares 'cuz they can't see that person for
who they'd become while they're destroying them and tossing them
in the waste basket... to end up in the ground... their blood
crying out to God.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net


Posted by:: Paul Duca
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:13:59 -0400

--------
in article 424FAFDE.719C@For-God.net, John P. Boatwright at name@For-God.net
wrote on 4/3/05 4:59 AM:

> nenslo wrote:
>>
>> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
>>> You also expect me to care intensely about the 9 year old girl being
>>> killed... "just because she's nine and on TV", and then I'm supposed
>>> to ignore her if she's having her arms and legs ripped off in the womb.
>>>
>> I don't expect anything. I honestly don't care what you care about, it
>> is your choice entirely. I have never said or thought anything like
>> what you say there.
>
> Your assertion was:
>
> "I believe you have come up with statements for the purpose of
> condemning
> or invalidating a certain viewpoint and the people who hold or assert
> that viewpoint, and not out of any desire to show respect for the
> deceased or to honor her life or the lost potential in the lives of
> victims of abortion. If we use such tragedies as a mere tool to voice
> a
> condemnation of others, we should be ashamed to pretend we really care
> about the victims of those tragedies. Which to my mind is hardly a
> christian way of treating people, pretending to care about their
> suffering, just to use them as a ploy or weapon to hit other people
> with."
>
> So basically, if I care equally or more about the lost potential
> of the same person in the womb, and say such in a group setting,
> I'm "abonormal" in saying such, and am: "to use them as a ploy or
> weapon to hit other people with".
>
> In other words, you expect that I'm attacking someone if I point out
> the lost potential of the person, yes, person, being ripped to shreds
> in the womb, vs. that same person dying at 9 years old after others
> have had the chance to meet them, love them, and care about them.
>
> My view is simply that I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that
> same person being ripped to shreds and losing ALL potential in dying
> so soon in their life... in the womb... that people should be very
> happy that she was able to live on for 9 years, that they had that
> time together... and thank God for it, be happy for the time they
> got. Human beings eventually die, they don't last forever, be happy
> for the time you had, be sadder that you didn't even get to know
> the ones dying in the womb... 'cuz someone ripped their arms and legs
> off in the womb... and no one cared about them or wrote a news report
> about 'em.
>
>>> I'm trying to understand how she became "more valuable" at nine, when
>>> ALL her potential is LOST if she's ripped up in the womb, and she's
>>> actually been able to realize some of her potential at nine... seems
>>> like a TOTAL LOSS dying in the womb, but only a partial loss at nine.
>>
>> People tend to develop feelings for people they know or people whom they
>> can recognize as a person, whereas a person they never knew, who was
>> never born, or who looks more like a steamed prawn than a person is a
>> lot harder to develop feelings for. Potential, in any case, is an
>> imaginary factor created by the observer.
>
> She was the same person at whatever year she would have been killed.
>
>>> The way I see it, her parents were able to love and care for her
>>> for 9 years, they and her other relatives, her friends, they all
>>> got to interact with her over those years... NO ONE gets to interact
>>> with her if she's ripped to shreds in the womb... NO potential is
>>> realized from the killer killing her in the womb.
>>
>> The way I see it, her parents developed a bond of affection for her,
>> whereas people tend not to develop a bond of any kind with a person whom
>> they have never seen or whom they don't actually think of as a person.
>
> Which is a major loss.
>
>>>> I bet the guy who killed that little girl was a cute little kid himself
>>>> once.
>>>
>>> Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is with that. Every person who ever killed
>> anyone was probably a cute little kid with a lifetime of potential, good
>> and bad, ahead of them. So at some point every person, no matter how
>> bad they turned out, would have met your criteria for being valued.
>> Probably in the womb.
>
> They have free will to be what they want to be, yes. But if a KILLER
> kills them, then they no longer have that choice.
>
>>>> If he'd been killed then everyone might have mourned the lost
>>>> potential, but if we could show them the suffering he would have brought
>>>> into the world I bet they would more likely be glad he went when he did.
>>>
>>> When did you realize that you rather than God, gets to decide who dies?
>>
>> I never did realize that, and I don't see what that has to do with my
>> statement above. Even the guy who killed that child was a child once,
>> and came under the criteria you have set for having potential and
>> therefore value. At what point does a person lose value in your eyes?
>> When they are nine? When they kill someone? When they are born? You
>> seem to indicate that the less a person has ACTUALLY lived, the more
>> potential they have and therefore the more value they have as people.
>
> I never said what value they had, I merely pointed out that their
> potential is unrealized if you kill them in the womb. They have "X"
> value in the womb... each year that passes, they have opportunity to
> yeild potential, to love and care for others, and have others love
> and care for them. Eventually, they die of natural causes, their entire
> potential was realized at that point. If you tried to kill them then,
> it wouldn't matter, they're already dead. The older someone is when
> they're killed, the more they've interacted with others and yeilded
> their potential... and those around them can be happy for the years
> they had with them... but not if you kill them in the womb.
>
>>> Cain realized such prior to killing Able.
>>
>> The way I recall the story, having just re-read it a moment ago, that is
>> never stated, indicated or implied.
>
> Cain decided to kill his brother, it's stated directly. He killed
> Able to remove the more acceptable offering.
>
>>> The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.
>>
>> As I read the story, Cain's motive was anger and jealousy over the
>> praise which Abel got for his produce, and the lack of attention Cain
>> received for his work. I don't see the similarity in motivations at all.
>
> The abortionist thinks the person they are killing is worthless,
> of no value. That person they are killing, is even more valuable
> than the 9 year old in that they haven't even given their love
> and caring to their parents, relatives and friends, and visa versa.
>
> The "offering" of that unborn child, is more valuable, yet the
> abortionists see them as worthless, another Able to be killed
> and they profit from that killing... of their brother.
>
>>>> Or sorrow and affliction, depending on the circumstances. Some babies
>>>> are a blessing, and some are a punishment. I personally have known
>>>> people whose lives were ruined by an unwanted child.
>>>
>>> The high priests didn't want Jesus, they had him killed. Jesus
>>> showing up, was ruining their positions, they were starting to
>>> look bad to the others there at the time.
>>>
>>> It's all in your perspective as to whether or not someone is
>>> a blessing or not in their showing up.
>>
>> My point exactly.
>
> OK.
>
>>>> Potential, in the
>>>> non-electrical sense, is an imaginary thing. It is a "what if," and
>>>> everything which comes after that "if" is solely the creation of your
>>>> mind, having no real existence.
>>>
>>> God apparently took the time to start making the baby, who are
>>> you to say he was right or not in making your brother?
>>
>> I have not said or thought anything like that. If, as you say, God took
>> the time to start making the baby, it seems to me that God also took the
>> time to make the abortionist, the nine year old child, and the guy who
>> raped and murdered the child. Who are you to say that God was right or
>> wrong in any aspect of his creation? If God made all that was made, and
>> there is nothing made which God did not make, your finding fault with
>> the actions of your own God seems a bit odd to me.
>
> People have free will, and people do wrong things sometimes, Cain
> for instance, he killed his brother. We're not God, we're told to
> not kill... yet the abortionist kills a person before they've had
> even seconds to live outside the womb, to know or care about their
> parents, relatives, or friends... being killed when they're the most
> helpless... ripped to shreds, physically raped in the worst possible
> manner... and no one cares 'cuz they can't see that person for
> who they'd become while they're destroying them and tossing them
> in the waste basket... to end up in the ground... their blood
> crying out to God.



Who just ignores them...


Paul



Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:28:27 -0700

--------
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> Your assertion was:
>
> "I believe you have come up with statements for the purpose of
> condemning
> or invalidating a certain viewpoint and the people who hold or assert
> that viewpoint, and not out of any desire to show respect for the
> deceased or to honor her life or the lost potential in the lives of
> victims of abortion. If we use such tragedies as a mere tool to voice
> a
> condemnation of others, we should be ashamed to pretend we really care
> about the victims of those tragedies. Which to my mind is hardly a
> christian way of treating people, pretending to care about their
> suffering, just to use them as a ploy or weapon to hit other people
> with."
>
> So basically, if I care equally or more about the lost potential
> of the same person in the womb, and say such in a group setting,
> I'm "abonormal" in saying such, and am: "to use them as a ploy or
> weapon to hit other people with".

I didn't say "If you care equally or more about the lost potential of
the same person in the womb, and say such in a group setting, you are
abnormal in saying such, etc." I did not say anything like that. What
I actually did say is quoted by you right up there ^ and means exactly
what it says and nothing else. You talk about how you care so much
about one thing or another, but it eventually comes around to you saying
people who feel differently about things than you do are bad or wrong.
You appear to me to use a genuine or pretended charitable feeling as a
mask for your condemnation of people whose ideas differ from yours.

> In other words, you expect that I'm attacking someone if I point out
> the lost potential of the person, yes, person, being ripped to shreds
> in the womb, vs. that same person dying at 9 years old after others
> have had the chance to meet them, love them, and care about them.

If it is in "other words" it isn't in my words and it isn't what I said.
I wouldn't require anyone to defend any statement which they didn't
make, and I will not defend any statement I didn't make. I affirm that
you are condemning people who don't agree with you, if and only if you
actually do. In any case where you are not doing that, I do not assert
that you ARE doing that. In your original posts in this thread, you
appeared to me to be doing that.

>
> My view is simply that I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that
> same person being ripped to shreds and losing ALL potential in dying
> so soon in their life... in the womb... that people should be very
> happy that she was able to live on for 9 years, that they had that
> time together... and thank God for it, be happy for the time they
> got. Human beings eventually die, they don't last forever, be happy
> for the time you had, be sadder that you didn't even get to know
> the ones dying in the womb... 'cuz someone ripped their arms and legs
> off in the womb... and no one cared about them or wrote a news report
> about 'em.

I believe you are talking about experiences you yourself have never had.
It's very easy to sit and write an intellectual statement about how you
think people ought to feel or act in the face of powerfully emotional
personal tragedy, but the reality of it is quite different. It appeared
to me that in your original posts in this thread you were making a
social, political, legal, and/or ethical point, under the guise of
expressing concern for the wellbeing of others. In fact you seemed to
be condemning an unspecified group of others for "expecting" you to feel
certain ways about one tragedy and to ignore other tragedies. You were
really condemning some unspecified "them" who held a position which was
different from yours and, I believe, dishonestly presenting it as an
expression of your concern and caring.
>
>
> She was the same person at whatever year she would have been killed.

I am not the same person I was twenty years ago. Our experiences of
life cause us to change and develop, and we are not the same as we were
before. Your basic statement here relates only to the fact of occupying
the same physical body - in all personal matters people constantly
change and develop. This statement of yours is erroneous and false.

>
> > Every person who ever killed
> > anyone was probably a cute little kid with a lifetime of potential, good
> > and bad, ahead of them. So at some point every person, no matter how
> > bad they turned out, would have met your criteria for being valued.
> > Probably in the womb.
>
> They have free will to be what they want to be, yes. But if a KILLER
> kills them, then they no longer have that choice.

In case of death all choices cease, regardless of the cause.

> I never said what value they had, I merely pointed out that their
> potential is unrealized if you kill them in the womb. They have "X"
> value in the womb... each year that passes, they have opportunity to
> yeild potential, to love and care for others, and have others love
> and care for them. Eventually, they die of natural causes, their entire
> potential was realized at that point. If you tried to kill them then,
> it wouldn't matter, they're already dead. The older someone is when
> they're killed, the more they've interacted with others and yeilded
> their potential... and those around them can be happy for the years
> they had with them... but not if you kill them in the womb.

And if the potential of the child in the womb is to be an abortionist
and kill millions in the womb, what then? Be happy or not?
Abortionists and murderers are realizing their potential.
>
> > > Cain realized such prior to killing Able.
> >
> > The way I recall the story, having just re-read it a moment ago, that is
> > never stated, indicated or implied.
>
> Cain decided to kill his brother, it's stated directly. He killed
> Able to remove the more acceptable offering.

It is not stated in any way that he "realized he had the right to choose
who would live and who would die," as you erroneously assert. It says he
"rose up against his brother and slew him." I take it to mean exactly
that and nothing more. Anything you read into that statement about
feelings or ideas or motives or emotions is your invention and
imagination, and is not stated in the text. It is not stated that he
"decided" anything, as you erroneously claim. If you claim that the
scripture says something, "states it directly," and it DOES NOT say it,
then you are mistaken. It's that simple.

> > > The abortionist is just another Cain killing his brother.
> >
> > As I read the story, Cain's motive was anger and jealousy over the
> > praise which Abel got for his produce, and the lack of attention Cain
> > received for his work. I don't see the similarity in motivations at all.
>
> The abortionist thinks the person they are killing is worthless,
> of no value. That person they are killing, is even more valuable
> than the 9 year old in that they haven't even given their love
> and caring to their parents, relatives and friends, and visa versa.

You are the only person I have ever encountered who feels this way. I
have never before seen, read, or heard this statement being made, about
an unborn person being even more valuable than a person who has lived
and developed for years. I disagree, and I believe most people would.
I believe that anyone, faced with the choice of being able to save only
one of two lives, would choose to save the 9 year old, and not the
unborn. Anyone but you that is, because your viewpoint in this matter
is unique in all the world. You have a right to your opinions, though
they seem rather odd to me.

> People have free will, and people do wrong things sometimes, Cain
> for instance, he killed his brother. We're not God, we're told to
> not kill...

In fact, we are told to kill many times in the Bible. We are told to
kill witches and adulterers, for example. That's in the Bible.

> yet the abortionist kills a person before they've had
> even seconds to live outside the womb, to know or care about their
> parents, relatives, or friends... being killed when they're the most
> helpless... ripped to shreds, physically raped in the worst possible
> manner... and no one cares 'cuz they can't see that person for
> who they'd become while they're destroying them and tossing them
> in the waste basket... to end up in the ground... their blood
> crying out to God.

People see that person for what it actually is - a little pink thing two
inches long that looks more like a tiny monster than a human being. A
distorted caricature of a human which cannot speak or act in a human
manner. I certainly can't blame them for seeing it as fundamentally
different from a genuinely human person who can speak and reason and
communicate complex emotional concepts. When you consider that people
can dehumanize and exterminate other people just for belonging to a
different tribe (as is depicted many times in the Bible, the genocidal
rampages of the nation of Israel, killing every man, woman and child in
an entire city) it is not surprising at all that people have few regrets
about killing a person who is only two inches long and cannot even
survive in the open air, a person who is in fact a parasitic growth. I
find the death of any person regrettable, but that's what happens in
this world. As I said, your viewpoint in this matter is different from
any other person I have ever encountered, and I think it's very
interesting and kind of weird.


Posted by:: "frater S.O.D.D.I."
Date: 3 Apr 2005 16:37:34 -0700

--------
John P. Boatwright wrote:

"Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able. ...
Cain realized such prior to killing Able."

It's ABEL, goddamnit.

A-B-E-L.

You shouldn't permit yourself to spout religious dogma if you're so
STUPID.



Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:16:24 -0700

--------
"frater S.O.D.D.I." wrote:
>
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> "Cain was probably cute too, then later he killed Able. ...
> Cain realized such prior to killing Able."
>
> It's ABEL, goddamnit.
>
> A-B-E-L.
>
> You shouldn't permit yourself to spout religious dogma if you're so
> STUPID.

That is about the most self-contradictory sentence ever written.