Hebrews 9:27, written before any alleged "doctrinal changes" (which in itself has a lot of problems... see Matthew 5:18), says "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but after this the judgment". The Bible teaches no second chance after death.

And again, believing in karma negates the need for good works toward people in crisis because the "victims" are only getting their just desserts from some past life which they don't even remember. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that we should help others in need and recognizes that innocent people are harmed by another's sin.

Origen held a lot of heretical teachings and his teachings are not held in high esteem by most of the church. He carried a lot of stuff too far, such as having himself castrated when he read about making oneself a eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven.

Mind explaining to me how the baby can choose NOT to be aborted, given he/she has no rights to NOT be killed?

Or more in your league, *I* dont believe in abortion, dont want one, wouldnt want one if I had a gestating child of my own threatened with one, yet I cannot NOT have one because the sick laws you support do not recognize a father's rights merely to retain his own child, much less to abort. Mind explaining to me how I am to avoid an abortion other than by never having sex in my entire life or growing a womb? Its amazing how its "too great of a burdon" on women to realize each sex act can lead to a baby, contraceptives fail, but women cannot be expected not to screw, so women must have abortion rights, etc., but *MEN* are expected to not only pay child support and have no right to NOT abort, but also must accept *lifetime abstinence* or face a forced abortion on/in any given pregnancy since the laws also dont require any woman to keep her presex word on what she would do if she got pg! Hmmmmm. Some equal protection and equal due process ya got there, Pro-Choice-NOT! So, is this what it means to be "Prochoice"-2 out of 3 involved parties have absolutely no choice or say about the course of their own lives, one dying by force, so ONE female person can have all the options?

When one reaps what he sows, he knows exactly what he did (or at least has a way of finding out if alcohol or drugs were involved). There is a definite punishment or consequence to a wrong action performed *in this lifetime*. There are no other lifetimes. The Bible says that man is to die *once*, then the judgment. Reaping and sowing is only partially related to the question that Melissa raised about the 5-year-old killed by her... I hate to call that thing a mother. It is related only in the sense that many people who have done wrong and repented often go help others trapped in the same problem or people who have been harmed by someone else's actions. The law of reaping and sowing does recognize that innocent people can be hurt by someone else's actions.

Karma, on the other hand, is punishing a person for some deed in a "previous lifetime" that the person has no remembrance of and no way to verify that the deed was even done. Living by the law of karma effectively removes any need to help others and to lobby against human rights abuses, for the "victims" of abusers are only getting their just desserts for wrongs committed in a past life. Karma justifies the evil that was done against a child too young to understand this world (much less past lives and karma), and that is sick and wrong.

Total opposites. Equating karma with reaping and sowing is... dare I say it?... blasphemy.

• snopes.simplenet.com
• urbanlegends.about.com/culture/urbanlegends/

For starters, the world was not created as a place of suffering. It was originally perfect in every way. God created people for fellowship. He didn't want them to be robots, "loving" Him because they had to. Adam and Eve were created with a choice to love God or not love Him, because true love is a choice and cannot be forced.

Adam and Eve's sin, their disobedience of God's direct command, ended that perfection. Their sin got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden, of course, but it did not stop there. What they did not know (and what many people still don't know) was that their own sins did not affect only themselves.

First, they passed down their sin, their imperfection, their corruption on to their children. As often occurs, not only do children learn all too well the wrong things their parents do, they go even farther off track tham their parents did. Eventually, entire peoplegroups rejected God and even lost most of the knowledge they had of His existence (but not all... nearly every culture still retains a corrupted version of the flood story, and many also have creation stories retaining elements of the Garden of Eden account).

Second, one person's sin affects innocent people. In the place of truth, the peoplegroups had (and most individuals today have) their own ideas about right and wrong, many of which permitted racism, violence, sexism, brutality, etc. As a result, people are doing what they want and innocent people are paying the consequences. Faithful wives are abandoned by cheating husbands. Children are abused by parents who want everything their way. Wrong actions always harm innocent people as well as the guilty party... and usually the innocent are hurt worse than the guilty party.

The only solution came when God sent His only Son to die on the cross to pay for sin. Again, however, accepting Christ's sacrifice is a choice. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. Unfortunately, those who refuse to accept will continue their wrongdoing... but those who do accept Him will be changed. The wrongdoers will stop harming others, and those harmed can find healing.

Donald: Disimiliar biology results in disparate outcomes. Hence, the truth about abortion is that this unfairness rests ON WOMEN HAVING UNILATERAL ABORTION. The solution is *not* to legislate "C4M":

C4M

but RATHER to not allow abortions period (best) or at least, if legal, require a signature from the child's father (or at least due process to deny consent for abortion from him:

V4F

In nature, women DIDNT originally have post conception choice beyond the sex act, but the laws are NOW expecting MEN to live under such rules. *That* is the real issue in this train of thought. The trouble is equal protection for men is being violated and excused by false qualifiers, i.e. lack of gestation means no choice. This is silly because logically, it would HAVE to work both ways, in that if men have no linear sequence rights, they cant have enduring/concurrent responsibility in a nonfascist type society thats Constitutional, but the child cannot be without support. The fallacy is in claiming dissimiliar situations but ALWAYS using those to favor the woman choosing in a 2 person baby and impregnation. If women are dissimiliarly situated, so are men. But by acting first, women are setting up a legal cornering for men so that they cannot expect legal approval of equivalency rights in terminations. This is *because* of abortion, not in spite of. Men, without the applecart being upset by abortion, could argue that logically and morally in a *VACCUUM* that *IF* women didnt have to pay, they shouldnt, that if women alone due to gestating had sole votes, then men are free to impregnate AT WILL and walk, because whether or not a child exits the body requiring support is only HER choice, having nothing to do with his contribution or not, because she makes the LAST choice in the chain of causation. But in reality, Donald, the paradox is and was created by abortion, you get rid of that and men have 50% of the votes, women retain motherhood choice, just not termination fringe benefits, men keep fatherhood, and so the laws parallel adoption, instead of ONE PARTY having 100% of them. Nothing was "broke" UNTIL Roe...

Humans to the age of 5 are completely irrational and therefore not persons. However, they do have the potential to _become_ persons through frequent use of noxious chemicals and cattle-prods.

1. If you didn't hate Carolyn, or at least have some obsession about her, you wouldn't be coming here month after month after month posting a lot of lying garbage in the guestbook.
2. If you aren't stalking/harassing her, you aren't making your case by bragging about how easy it is for you to find her.

First, if you can't use HTML to make your quotations and responses easier to read, DON'T QUOTE!

Second, I don't know what you think you are trying to prove, but every post you make only proves the following things:

1. You hate Carolyn with an undying passion. Otheriwse you would have forgotten about this site months ago.
2. You are obsessed with harassing Carolyn. Most people who see a site they don't like either leave quietly, or they say their two bits and move on. You keep coming back and coming back.
3. You need help. All this anger and hatred expressed towards Carolyn is not good for you, and this obsession with coming back to the site over and over is not healthy.

Did I claim a fetus wasn’t human, as current science suggests? No. I merely said that in principle science cannot prove propositions beyond doubt; there are some very clever and insightful arguments for the subjectivity of scientific enquiry and many global skeptical arguments. Until you can defeat these, you have no grounds for claiming to know anything beyond doubt. Do some phil. of science and epistemology and get back to me. Too lazy? I thought so; your kind isn’t interested in what’s true, only what fits with your ideology, and you have no room for any kind of opposing views. You’re a pitiful little dogmatist.

You dont realize it, probably dont study psychology, but you are in denial.

What in Dewey’s name does psychology have to do with genetics or biology?

Fetal personhood cannot be anything but subjective qualified, so you cant use that as an argument The only objective marker is fertilization.

Fertilization is the only objective marker of what exactly? Personhood? Humanness? Show me how being human entails a right to life. If you’re too lazy to try, I’ll give the point to you. But then I can just as easily argue that humanness” is itself a subjective term; species” or a category like homo sapiens” represent the arbitrary classifications of biologists and not clear distinctions found in nature. Nature is unified; we divide it in science to understand it, but our categories belong to us and are not found in nature proper. Is light a particle or a wave? Is Pluto/Charon a system of asteroids or planets? It all depends on how we categorize them; things exist as they are no matter what we label them. So, a label like human” is also quite subjective, then; I could just as easily include homo erectus under the human” rubric, or divide all the races that now make up humans” into distinguished species. I can do this because we are the creators of the categories, not nature. Read some Richard Rorty and some second-generation feminist philosophers for more arguments on the subjectivity of science. Some scientists may think of themselves as wholly objective,” but it’s hardly fair to let them analyze themselves; that’s what phil. of science is for.

You cannot make policy on exception.

Oh really? The law is chock full of exceptions and accepted loopholes.

Self defense doesnt involve general murder.

When did I mention self-defense?

This is your attempt at sophistry to difuse the core issue, and that issue is killing a child. If human life starts at fertilization, and it does, clearly, then abortion is MURDER.

Murder” is a legal term, a necessary condition of which is malice aforethought. Abortion clearly doesn’t involve that, nor has it legally been designated as murder. If you mean that abortion is killing, then, yes, it is; but in current law there are a number of justifications for killing and causing human death: self-defense, capital punishment, drafting people for war, etc. The killing is excused because there are overriding reasons to permit it. The right to life doesn’t seem to be absolute in law; if it was, we could not permit any exceptions whatsoever no matter what the circumstances.

Why then, Burke, do nearly ALL choicists OPPOSE *ANY* restrictions on abortion? Do YOU support abortion only being legal for LOTM cases or not?

I don’t know or care why nearly all” PCs oppose all restrictions on abortion (and I highly doubt that they do). My own views are closer to the PL side than they PC side; I just argue with you because you’re an uneducated (though you claim to be a college graduate), small-minded, short-sighted dogmatist idiot who thinks he has it all figured out. You’re fun to thrash because you’re so willfully stupid. There are good arguments to be made on the moderate PL side; unfortunately, they’re not yours. You wouldn’t know a good argument if someone else formulated it for you.

Which are what Burke?

Let’s see…off the top of my head: population control, very young mothers, malformed fetuses. It would take pages to accurately defend any of these reasons, and it’s been done, sometimes brilliantly; I may not agree with most of the reasons myself, but whether or not they carry weight really depends on the origin of one’s ethical views. A Kantian (like myself) wouldn’t buy the population control argument for a second; but a Utilitarian might.

" "Maternal health" is the principal reason given by women who seek abortions. In 1997, 97.79% of abortions were carried out for this reason. The three reasons that Spanish law allows are: if the mother's health is endangered, if the fetus is malformed, and if the pregnancy is due to rape. But the first reason is the one women allege. Only 2.08% of abortions were due to fetal malformation, and 0.03 to rape. Some experts believe that with the excuse of maternal health, the private abortion facilities let any woman have an abortion."

Now Burke, do you REALLY believe these girls, are you THAT naive? All women think THEIR reason is good enough, and it almost never OBJECTIVELY is. Are the abortions in Spain described above legit, or not to Burke?This is the problem with abortion, and the whole "exception" mindset, even underrated and underestimated by LIFERS. In the states, 1.6 million have them. Over 90% at least are conveinence. They dont want a child, the father doesnt, both dont, or they dont want to pay child support and feel they cant support a baby now, which are the most common reasons usually. Very few women, even in their own words when being honest, interviewed outside abortion clinics, etc., get abortions out of dire staights like LOTM, or even nonlifethreatening rapes. You cant make open policy, as in doe v bolton, making it so ANY reason works in theory for 9 months to abort on demand, and compare THAT to LOTM cases. This is what Burke *obfuscates* in his laments. Women ARENT using abortion in the vast majority of cases for such "hard cases", and when borts are asked point blank to pass laws only allowing abortion in such "hard cases" even, they refuse them gleefully. Because they are defening abortion on demand for any reason at any cost. And its simply naive to believe otherwise...

*sigh* So *what* is it if its not human Burke? You dont realize it, probably dont study psychology, but you are in denial. The evidence is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Its so clear, if it applied to any other issue not so politically charged, we wouldnt be even having htis debate. We could also say its not "proved" Burke is a human life, so its ok to kill HIM too. After all, we dont even know if hes a person or an "it" yada yada yada! Fetal personhood cannot be anything but subjective qualified, so you cant use that as an argument. To many, the baby isnt "human enough" even by month 6, so whats your point? This aspect is emotional, not scientific. Its also a key component of proabortion mindsets, like yours. The only objective marker is fertilization. And thats that. Ten million years from now, the science WONT change on these facts. Your interpretation is designed to assuage your conscious over committing or defending legalized murder. Nothing else. All "perps" do this...

Yes it does. You cannot make policy on exception. Self defense doesnt involve general murder. This is your attempt at sophistry to difuse the core issue, and that issue is killing a child. If human life starts at fertilization, and it does, clearly, then abortion is MURDER. That is, it certainly is in any nonself defense LOTM case, which describes MOST abortions. You cannot use this to defend abortion IN GENERAL, and most borts do just that i.e. "we must keep it legal or women will die!" (from LOTM cases, etc.) Why then, Burke, do nearly ALL choicists OPPOSE *ANY* restrictions on abortion? Do YOU support abortion only being legal for LOTM cases or not? Why were bort forces operative in the Doe v Bolton ruling? Isnt it funny how we got abortion based on "exceptions" and the floodgates got wider and wider asto what constituted an excuse to kill? Do we do this for other forms of child abuse? Only abortion compels otherwise rational people to defend idiocy...

Which are what Burke? Truth is, to a bort, ANY REASON for abortion permits it. Have you read Doe v Bolton? Do you know the rates of abortions by "reason" even roughly, as I do? How many abortions are done for LOTM Burke? Or even rape? How is abortion being USED? Isnt it interesting how when I argue fathers rights in nonrape, nonLOTM, non health risk pregnancies, where he pays for everything, takes custody by force as a condition of vetoeing, bort after bort defends abortion to be forced on such men? Because its *about* abortion, not "need" or requirement of action...

In this one sentence, you've made two fundamental errors in reasoning:

(1) Science cannot prove anything "without any doubt"; uncertainty and openness to future revision of facts is a cornerstone of the scientific method. In 1899, physicists thought they had it all figured out; then, along came Einstein and quantum mechanics. To say a thing is "proved beyond doubt" in science is pure hubris.

(2) But even if human life does begin at conception, it still doesn't follow that abortion is wrong. There are two ways to defend a PC view even when you admit a zygote is a human life: (a) distinguish between the purely descriptive term "human" and the moral concept of "person"; (b) argue that not all killing of human life is wrong and that sometimes there are overriding reasons to destroy human life--e.g., capital punishment, the drafting of people to go to war (where death is an omnipresent danger), etc. In some cases, there may be overriding reasons that permit abortion.

Its so crystal clear.

To those who don't think.

The only reason its NOT is fantasy of people who dont wish to give up their sexual habits so they excuse and obfuscate obvious known science.

The abotion issue never ever was uncertain. Science proves without any doubt the position of lifers is correct WRT to human life beginsness. Its so crystal clear. The only reason its NOT is fantasy of people who dont wish to give up their sexual habits so they excuse and obfuscate obvious known science. There was never any doubt, choicers know this deep down, they simply dont care and are in denial, kind of like a wife batterer. Also, abortion destroys ALL rights (if unilaterally framed at least) of fathers i.e. men, to have ANY reproductive say EVEN in their *OWN* fetuses. Hence, abortion destroys even positive based (terming) choices for MEN. Abortion is therefore GHASTLY abuse of unborn AND born life, and we havent even touched the possible less absolutely forced in sequence victims like the woman herself, as a consequence of aborting, yet. It is astounding how blind people can be by their own refusal to accept proven reality. Its like saying child abuse or forced rape of women is "uncertain". Since abortion without any argument FORCES *at least* TWO nonconsenting victims, allowing no due process for those parties, it cannot be "uncertain" in whether its suspect or not. Its abuse hands down, so stop portraying it as a "debate" when ONE side already WON long ago on the facts, and loses to an industry of profit and greed, regardless of the facts, which obviously dont matter much and never will if proaborts keep having it their way like in a Burger King commercial...

Capital punishment is the deliberate death of a living human being. Is it ok?

I do not care who I offend when I say abortion is WRONG! And I am 100% sure that God is on my side of this issue.

Every Jesus freak thinks God is on his side on every issue. Take a number and get in line.

Does anyone honestly believe abortion is ok with Him?!

I didn't necessarily mean do field-work; just read--which you obviously haven't done.

Actually the first five books of the bible were written by Moses around 1400BC.

The Torah was ascribed to Moses, but his name appears nowhere on it as author, and it's written in a way that suggests it consists merely of a compilation of Jewish mythohistory and legends. No one knows who actually wrote down the Torah.

My point in saying they found parts written in 100 BC was this: Jesus fulfilled prophecies that were written long before he was born. Prophecies were not tailored to match his life.

Give me an example of an OT statement that: (1) was meant by its original author to be a prophecy; (2) which is specific enough in its intent so as to leave no room for uncertainty or guessing; (3) which was fullfilled by Jesus in the same specific, certain way. You can't do this.

There are writings about Jesus that don't come from the bible so how can he be many people?

There are many writings about William Tell, so how could he have either been a myth or a composite of many people? Ever study folklore? No? I'm not surprised.

Josephus writes about him and there are some documents that talk about his crucifixtion.

Both of the Jospehan passages are probably frauds--the one from Book 18 of JEWISH ANTIQUITIES is for sure, and the other from Book 20 (probably) also. Please, if you're going to debate, do your homework before you go into it. Give me something I haven't heard before.

Thanks for the title of the book on prophecies, I will see if my library has it.

It's a paper, not a book. You can find it at INTERNET INFIDELS. (www.infidels.org).

And about clobbering me in a debate, I don't know about that, How smart can a person be who likes to beads up people's butts?

I said nothing about "proving"; not many things can be proven in the way a mathematical theorem can be. But a proposition--"Democracy is the best form of gov't," "Jesus died for your sins," "God exists," etc.-- can be rationally attacked or defended. So, if you mean one cannot attack or defend the statement "Democracy is the best form of gov't," you're quite mistaken; it's done all the time. The same for religious statements like "God exists," "Jesus was God," "Sinners go to hell," etc.

As for beliefs, anti-Christians would have no podium if they didn't wrap themselves in liberalism. As liberals they are able to run loose prescribing all sorts of moral nostrums they prefer, when necessary, to call ethics (a higher form of morality?).

I'm neither an anti-Christian nor a liberal, and yet I attack Xianity. And there's no real distinction between morality and ethics--they're the same concept from different root words. So you like divine command ethics over rational ethics?

Obviously, however, Christianity is more than liberal moral prescriptions, otherwise it would not trouble you so much, Burke baby.

My name is J. S. Burke, not "Burke baby." If I believe in Christ, at least I know what I believe in.

If I believe in the non-existence or impotence of Christ, I, too, know what I believe in.

Not so if I believe in a godless liberal mouthing humanistic platitudes that have their origin in narcissistic incontinence.

What can I surmise about Dumbwald from this statement: (1) He has no idea what humanism actually is; (2) he's never seriously thought about ethics or philosophy of religion; (3) he hopes to argue for his side by labling the other's beliefs as "platitudes that have their origin in narcissistic incontinence."

As for prayer, even the Washington Post has prayed in an editorial when an astronaut got in trouble up in space (I wanted to ask them whom they prayed to, but they were too busy being obtuse).

So what?

What's the game here? Advertise what little you know--your parents, your community, a familiar religion, prayer and askings--and then attack it?

The average rosary bead is much smaller than the average anal bead. Anal beads have to be larger to stretch out the anus.

Some of the implements which require extraction in the hospital are not very large, but are in too deep to be removed by the patient. Please do not injure yourself.

"if you dont' want a baby getting aborted, then they should get them... a "buddy" that you are responsible for the next 18-21 years, to spend 40 hrs of time with them, and give up 40 % of their paycheck!!!!"

Ok, so then, since we know that half the human race involved(men) have no say, *IF* they agree to do that, then the courts should allow the father involved to do just that, to offer and sign papers taking custody in exchange for the child's life, right? The thing is, I have spoken to every p.c. female under the sun, and nada, zip, zippo, has even offered the child's own father such a deal, even if he requests it and must agree to custody and ALL RESPONSIBILITY all feedings, even 100% of the child support burdon, they *STILL* defend forced abortion on these men who are directly involved and stand to lose that much, which cant even be stated in a guestbook, but the same choicers use this even on random lifers, as if to "prove" they arent willing to raise baby, pay for baby, etc., for 18 years, so dont judge the girl, yada yada yada. Now PLM wonders, if you guys fight even basic rights for the fathers of these babies to do what you accuse even impersonal bystanders of not being willing to do what your position denies even the guy who caused that pregnancy an option to do or even argue in court, HOW can your words to such general lifers ring anything but hollow? What I am sick of is this tendency of borts to always never back up their boasts. Costantly, they whine, for example, of this charge you hurled at a bystander lifer like Carolyn, and THEN, even more common at the men involved, and then, you are offered a solution answering your gripe, which would reduce the abortion rate and what do you do? You oppose it tooth and nail, proving you were never really serious about the real reasons for abortion, otherwise you would have jumped at the chance. Which is why I feel honesty is sorely lacking at least on side of this issue in debate, and until THAT is controlled, its just a waste of white space...

Its propositions historical, metaphysical, ethical and psychological. That's a short answer. The long answer would involve a debate in which I'd probably clobber you (judging from my past efforts). But I'm not much interested in that anymore.

Do you believe Jesus was an actual person? Most people will concede that he was but that he was just a person, not the messiah.

It's a tough call. It seems likely that what you call "Jesus" is a composite of a number of figures.

There are copies of the old testament that have been dated back to 100 BC.

So what? There are copies of Hindu writings way older than that. What does that have to do with Xianity being either true or false?

There were many prophecies in the old testament concerning the messiah. Every prophecy that was made Jesus fulfilled, his birth, his travels, his death, the price that was paid for his betrayal, the fact that not one of his bones would be broken, and many other things that he could not have engineered. The odds of one person matching every prophecy that was made are astronomical.

The OT prophecies applied to Jesus are extremely vague, and some OT passages applied as prophecies were never meant to even _be_ prophecies by their authors. See Farrell Till's "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfullfilled" for a critique of the argument from prophecy.

Archeology has never proven anything wrong with the bible. Quite the opposite.

Burke: "Now, I highly doubt that abortionists or pregnant women who abort have malicious thoughts about the fetuses they kill."

Of course murder by legal *sophistry* is not murder. This is a clever way of avoiding realities that dont bend to one's sick prejudices. Laws dont HAVE to reflect realities, but they SHOULD TRY. Slaveholders didnt define Black's as equally human, therefore, in addition to claiming running off was a license to kill the "property" it wasnt murder to kill a slave, at most only killing, because blacks werent *legally defined* as equal *persons* so it wasnt murder *BY LAW* to kill them! Much the same exists in abortion. Slavery even had an infamous parallel SC ruling before being broken legally. Pretending the unborn child isnt human wont make that so. We could pass laws saying killing females by males isnt murder because, compared to men, women are less than human and an all male supremist panel on the USA SC decided they could interpret the Constitution to show this, as they fantasized in Roe. It could in theory pass in law, and then killing women WOULDNT LEGALLY be murder, But we know its sophistry. If you think this is silly, consider WOMEN ONCE WERE thought of literally as property. Susan B. Anthony and other suffragists fought that notion and the laws and Constitution, a living document, had to be AMMENDED to revise inhumane and sexist conditions under law for women. No valid evidence exists to believe lifers are wrong in their position. Being right has nothing to do with it. Its all about politics, selfishness, and greed/money. A woman and an abortionist DOES have malice of forethought in spades multiple triplicate. Because they are intending to KILL, and, sophistry aside, to murder a life for conveinence. Its all a question of making the laws reflect the reality of the situation, just like in slavery...

I hope Carolyn doesnt think continuing this is uncourtesy-like! :P

I AGREE 100% Donald!!! It really makes no logical sense. Actually, the problem with the argument against fathers rights to block an abortion is often excused because people CLAIM "hes not a father yet". But he is. Like it or not. He incurs state forced child support and prenatal fund owing as well. If he refuses to be supportive DURING PREGNANCY, several states will question his right to overturn an adoption placement. Its irrational in the extreme to suggest the "clock starts" for men at BIRTH. It doesnt...

1) Having money doesn't mean that one is going to be a good parent. Not having money doesn't mean that one is going to be a bad parent.

2) More women die from hormonal birth control every year than from anorexia. Will this be taken into consideration when medicating these welfare recipients? Or will they be "required" to take these often dangerous drugs without going through the appropriate medical tests to ensure that those drugs won't maim or kill them?

Biological paternity is impossible without biological maternity. At fertilization, which is prior to implantation, the DNA fuses and nucleates, thus its impossible, totally, to argue sperm and egg are just life on a continuum. They dont divide. They have reached the apex of their development and the code isnt the same and able to sustain human life because that is not possible with 23 chromosomes as in sperm and egg alone. There is no connection between human life lost as in abortion, and sperm and egg cells lost in masturbation or menstruation. Once fertilization, and later pregnancy, is initiated, the woman is already a mother and the man is already a father. But they cannot be so without the other, so a case for biological paternityalready implies that of biological maternity, so I am not clear on what you mean here...

Rant? I never run out of gas, but I am tired of proaborts who cant even accurately describe biological realities WRT PBA/LTA. People who mislead people about this, often with tragic results and in the debate arena spreading ignorance and pretending to understand what is involved, mouthing abortion industry flagrent lies and half truths like they were dispensing facts. People that dont understand earlier term abortion proceedures, why they are used or preferred, and cannot figure out the purpose of brain sucking of the baby in those because they dont understand dialation and tearing of the vaginal opening vs the cervix, who cannot comprehend the moot point in tearing either in Episiotomy or to the neck/mouth of the womb/uterus when you forcept grab and breech an infant, sending the *widest portion* thru in girth, in a non-emergency proceedure and the sillyness in suggesting you collapse the skull to prevent tearing. It just doesnt work that way, and doctors without intent to kill would scoff at that. If she hasnt dialated enough yet given this reverse passage of the body EXCEPT the head, you arent going to need to worry much about the skull diameter doing ANYTHING that the mother is going to feel that she hasnt already by that point assuming shes conscious! I am sick of borts reading off of NARAL'a site who cant figure out the distance/dimensions between opening of vagina, vaginal canal, and cervix, and where the babys body (& the approximate size of babys head too) is in a PBA and claiming abortionists are going to be "at risk" of using PBA (as opposed to LTA) at ANY stage of fetal development when that is a bunch of crap in praxis, at least. Is this what you mean by "rant"? As for being anti-prolifeman, I gather you are against people that try to save children from being murdered on a daily basis? That's my intention basically everywhere I go in life.

Carolyn: Maybe he has better things to do than post in my silly little guestbook :)

You are correct in that I am currently busy trying to counsel two crisis pregnancies to term (online!) and in refuting NARAL blind mouthers who are helping women be victimized by the fact that so many lies exist politically motivated and expressed medically, that average women, even very smart ones, are hard pressed to give informed consent to abortion, and I am beginning to feel especially sorry for one such post-abortive woman's plight after being educated by her humbly, but I dont consider your guestbook or sites silly, Carolyn! :)

Abortion has been legal for 26 years, it only SEEMS like forever. The press's lack of focus on that, but handling endless CNN stories about animal rights, PETA, is telling. Thy act, like I have said, as IF abortion IS settled, a neccessary evil that cannot go away. Where are the stories on women who die from it? Specials on ABC about conditions of aboriton clinics on women and their bodies? Why, I have lived for over 30 years, and I have seen SEVERAL stories about animal conditions in testing programs and elsewhere, are animals more important than WOMEN? The tv doesnt talk and have specials on abortion, you cant say we have all accepted its legality. It rages on. But so does gun control, probably LESS so, but that doesnt stop the media from endlessly discussing gun control, kids and guns, etc. Does it? Its always a fresh newsworthy issue. Abortion isnt. Now why is that? Its CHOICE. The news media COULD discuss deaths, but the ONLY ONES they tend to moan over are RARE Slepian's and abortion docs, not the MANY women dying now from abortion. They are prochoice. *NOT* unbiased. As recently as the 50's children and guns were thought to MIX. NOW they are assumed to be incompatible. On the reporting. By defualt. MTV, BET, A&E do specials about how we have to keep guns from kids. Are they doing specials about abortion, which like guns are also debated BUT LEGAL, and talking about women dying, informed consent woes, fathers rights in abortion, etc? Nope. Dont hold your breath with liberals mostly running the press...

The press, for example, IS generally liberal. IIRC, theyve even been polled and identified themselves as such. Now think, in newspapers you FREQUENTLY see articles that discuss in a liberal slant 1) ozone layer greehouse effects, 2) guns violence. 3) extinction threats to species. Thats not an accident. ON abortion, we see articles which portray lifers negatively as bombers, which IS a stereotype NOT the majority at all, and PBA is debated and they say " neither side can agree on whether its needed" when we KNOW its not. Its uncritical and unchallenged if its proabortion and this goes on and on in many facets of that issue. On tv, on A&E and NBC, we see "guns and america, what can we do?" and portrayals of the negatives of guns, much talk of gun control, etc. It STAYS IN THE NEWS ON THAT SLANT ALONE.

Carolyn was interviewed on Jerry Hughes, and asked why this was so. She responded that abortion is a constant issue, so THATS why. She was right, but more needed to be explained than possible in a phone call with limited time. The realitty is, the shows and MTV *CHOOSE* not to debate abortion, they DO on gun control and other pet liberal issues. They act and present it as necessary evil, that its been "settled" so to speak as a moral question. Its NOT being debated. And if you STUDY history, you will find by the press it never hardly was. Theres a reason for that. The press is liberalistically biased. They make constant issues of teen gun violence, they dont discuss abortion, fathers rights in that and their lack of rights, etc. They do this on purpose. Because they ARE PROABORTION. But pro NEA, animal rights, extinction, homelessness advocacy, etc. So on the tv news, local and countrywide, these "pet" issues of liberals are FREQUENTLY talked about and DEBATED. But abortion, for examle. *ISNT*. We dont see Tom Brokaw, who does antigun specials, discussing abortion issues bringing up prolife concerns and charges, do we? Its not stereotyping to note liberalism entwinement, if it EXISTS, and it does, into media, for example as I have just done. Its simply recognizing bias and exposing it!

Here is where you reveal your analysis to be superficial. The trouble with racists is they never seem to realize the other "inferior" or "evil" race has BIGOTS JUST LIKE THEM arguing literally the SAME thing about THEIR race and vice versa. i.e., there are, say white bigots and black ones. The black ones dont make the newspapers. That, jsb, is highly instructive about the nature of political correctness and the press. Racism is wrong and destructive, but the only persons who do it arent just whites, and the only persons who suffer from discrimination arent just black. At the University I went to, I lost jobs when literally starving for food for MY WHITE SKIN COLOR. You see, theres a big difference between speculating on unproven racial science assertions, and understanding mindsets of ideologists, whatever their general bent, SOME recurring themes are pushed. My point about academia is well taken to anybody with experience and honesty. Just as the only guy who was Republican on the school newspaper (press) who BTW, PREDICTED CLINTONS IMPEACHMENT, was typical, not exceptional. Universities TODAY tend (note: not ALWAYS!) to have liberalistic slants to their faculty and operation. So, certain things tend to happen as an outgrowth of that. My campus was a great example. I dont regret going there, but I am fully aware of the theme of the populace. When one person who was conservative said his opinions on the '92 race politically at a rally, he practically got booed off the stage by faculty AND students! Ever see the movie eyes wide shut? Ponder its title...

Liberals: (1) the belief that throwing money at the poor through direct redistribution will somehow solve our social and economic problems; (2) the support of things like abortion on demand until birth and partial-birth abortion, both of which I find morally repugnant; (3) on the far left, the pathological hatred of religion, which is sometimes expressed as a desire to control or even outlaw certain religions.

For all the talk that capitalism supposedly fosters ethical materialism, I see the situation as just the opposite: those who succeed the best in a capitalist economy are _not_ those whose sole, driving passion is money; rather, it's the people who intense desires to create and sustain a business that they enjoy for its own sake. So many of those who we think of as wildly successful--Henry Ford or Bill Gates, say--went into their businesses with a passion to provide genuinely good products, and it is to these products that they devoted their greatest initial attention. When money came later, they were happy, of course, but money seems not to have been the basic force that drove them into their work: it was the passion they held for the work itself. Generally, I've noticed that those who go into a line of work merely because they think it'll overflow their coffers often fail--their interest in their work slumps eventually, and they get sloppy--and, when that happens, they go under quick.

Is this the part where you accuse me of being racist? I am not even REMOTELY prejudiced. I lived near South Central L.A. and attended a predominantly minority campus. Not too many white conservative males in housing jsb, other than me. My best friend there was a Black female. What a cheap insult. I think you had better apologize for doing EXACTLY what YOU claim *I* do, stereotyping massively...

I agree. In fact, I recommend Jesus, so one can do the job better than He can.

I am pretty well versed in this subject. I have read alot of historical recounts of Nazi German social policy. I do not believe Hitler was a rightist, per se, nor a leftist. He extracted the usable ideas in his opinion from both. The entire regime, however more closely SMACKS of extreme leftism than extreme rightism. Sadly, authors cannot remain objective. Many books look at the same facts and distort. Several, for example, are written by leftist university profs, so they ignore the leftwing tints of Nazi policy and stress the right. There were SOME arguable mixtures of both, with the left predominating in the end on several notable levels.

But the people teaching history NOW in America cannot be relied upon. Many college students, for example, come away from a history course in love with "The New Deal" and FDR. Because the books were written by leftists, who adored the man. Its not history, its idolatry. The same books are often proabortion slanted, painting Roe as "women's rights", which is why so many young people attend college and dont learn anything, coming away good little brainwashed politicallly correct liberals who endorse both abortion and FDR...

The young wet behind the ears fool here is you, jsb, as usual. Your typical prochoicey liberal mindset deludes you from reality. The situations, as I have proven, are quite similiar, down to the perception of one person interfereing with another's lifestyle and being subhuman. Abortion parallels both Nazism *and* slavery, and if you actually studied history, instead of liberalistically mangling it, you would learn something. Choicers constantly talk of the "insane comparison" between these two Holocausts, and there IS one. They are both DEAD (no pun intended) wrong. And inhuman. You of course only see ONE Holocaust despite the evidence condridicting you, you see only what you WANT to see. Ripping or burning a baby alive IS comparable to Nazi atrocities of ww2. Also, the effects on the parents OFTEN last a lifetime. It is obvious you dont counsel people whove have abortions (out of denial phase) or have been involved in one. Or you would never say this, for you would be familiar with the effects and suicidal feelings. The numbers are clear, more dead in THUS holocaust than by the Nazi's. It doesnt lesson the impact of the German Final Solution, but if you would take your head out of that left wing University of yours long enough to smell the fresh air, youd see that BOTH were tragedies, and BOTH deserve to be condemned and ended! Do some research, mmm..k?

Scummy crap alert! Is there no end to how low these people will sink? Now we dont care about children, unless they are still in the womb. Forget them after! I cant believe the paper reports all of this so acceptingly, never questioning themotives of the study doers...

Well lets see jsb. Nazis killed 6 million Jews, 2 1/2 million Christian Poles and hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, gypsies and social dissidents. Abortion supporters defend, and thus help kill 1.6 million innocent children per year, in mass killing stations rivaling Zyklon B ones in ultimate killing effiency of both children, and even their mothers in some cases by largely insufficiently regulated clinics. Eugenics, and mass slaughter has become "clean", much cleaner than the Nazi's but not less sickening. We dehumanize them by insisting they arent human, which was what the Nazi's used at base level on the Jews, making films likening them to scrambling mice. Over then 25 MILLION children have died in America's Holocaust, which choicers insist is "unfair" to compare to Germany's murders despite much larger numbers with all sorts of pathetic excuses. All Holocausts arent politically correct ones, which DOESNT negate the importance of what the Nazi's did wrong , but DOES make it reasonable to expect people would learn from history, and clearly they dont, given the proliferation of abortion liberalization worldwide which happened mostly AFTER Hitler's "Final Solution"...

That choicers (and more than a few besides the Gargaro editorial letter have done this) would USE this and "prove" how "dangerous" it is for the state to "contol" womens bodies, proves that this side isnt above bald faced lies by many of its followers to support abortion as a "right". If the pc side WAS legit, WHY would they need to do this to "win" debates? If you have to condridict yourself endlessly, as chociers must on informed consent opposition, the fathers rights aspect paradox of hypocrisy which is OPPOSITE for females, history like the German case, fetal pain denial of medical science and twisting into "personhood" subjectives disengenously, lying for a FACT on partial birh abortion and disguising their REAL motives for doing so, which I have gotten some choivers to ADMIT TO MY FACE, and DNA science while claiming to know a mythical point AFTER fertilization but BEFORE birth, poo poohing "day zero" supposed arguments of lifers, it tells a critically thinking person that:

The ideology is fallacy ridden. Logical fallacy laden. SO IT CANNOT BE TRUE. Lifers ARE the ones on the right side. The test on a matter of logic, which abortion IS, is based on whether a give side MUST resort to bending of science and logic and condridictions to self-serve to support procuring the claim, which is a likely LIE *IF* one must resort this in their taken position. In pc, we see these logical fallacies (I have given a few specific ones above) over and over. The ends justifies the means. You shouldnt havr to do this to make your position work IF it was sound and logical. Which prochoice just ISNT.

Clarifying Carolyn's point:

Hitler WAS opposed to abortion...of "Aryan" childen ONLY. If not blonde and blue eyed master racers, they could be wormfood. Hitler advocated sterilization...of "inferiors" like he thought of Jews. He advocated unwed or wed production of "Aryan" children in the Lebensborn. *They* could breed like rabbits for the Fatherland. They selected male German soldiers, blonde and blue eyed, to father these babies, often unwed, resulting in unwed motherhood homes on purpose. And no fathers. Virtual sperm donors. The German girls were blondes, if possible, and baby makers for the state. Taught that this kind of motherhood was how a girl honored Germany. This isnt conservative. In fact, its extreme LEFTISM social policy. Is this Ted's handiwork? If so, you know all of this, such a student of history. Yet you selectively report the facts and use them to prove a case about abortion and/or conservatives that is misleading. Or to compare these groups by hidden false analogy to Nazi's. Surely you can see the intellectual dishonesty in this!

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

Comments? Questions? Critiques?

The deeper question is: what specifically about the typical adult human makes it a person? What morally relevent qualities does this being have that the cockroach lacks? Only when you answer this can you know whether or not a fetus is a person.

Do you believe that some humans then, are not "persons?"

It doesn't matter what I personally believe; I'm just throwing out the questions.

The next question is...what is a person? What qualities or attributes are necessary or sufficient conditions for personhood? Even if we assume the moral right to fair legal treatment of persons which that section of the 14th Amendment recognizes, we still have to hammer out a satisfactory analysis of "person." Clearly, the typical adult human is a person, but a cockroach or a dead human corpse isn't.

You forget that in abortion, the 14th ammendment must cover the other side of the eqaution in abortion, which is the father, who currently Unconstitutionally has no rights. He is and has been BORN, and has a compelling interest in the fetus EQUAL to the woman's, which ISNT dependent on gestation, because if that were so, women, who carry most of the "role" according to borts, would owe MOST and not 50% of the child support under law for the same reason. The fact that the law doesnt recognize this discrepency when it FAVORS (if you will) men, and and USES the SAME to refute his alleged equal interest, demonstrates that abortion is sexism abuse against men who are the fahers of these fetuses , who ARE POSTBORNS. The Constitution gaurrantees a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which the men who have no rights in abortion cannot pursue because of no legal standing WRT to their OWN fetuses. They are not seen legally as having any more standing than a serial anonymous rapist, and that is unconstitutional. In fact, the state acted against the constitution TWICE against men in abortion. In 1973, the Gomez vs Perez ruling,

Nasty little secret of Roe!

which is HUGE but almost unknown, and is Roe's dirty little secret, held that MEN were not entitled to the same reproductive rights that women were! To accomplish this bit of trickery, they simply intentionally delayed the ruling on Roe until they could set up double standards in reproductive rights! Under law, a man even in the most casual relationship must pay child support. Under Danforth (1975) and Casey (90s) rulings, even a HUSBAND doenst have a right to to even KNOW an abortion is about to take place of his OWN CHILD. The same child which he is obliged to support even if he was a one night stand not married to the gestating female! This is one of the most telling aspects of Roe, and yet lifers and choicers focus on Wade! You see, the whole abortion thing must be thrown out, it was predicated don false terms, on sexism against men and fathers. That is in itself UNCONSTITUTONAL. The only method of balancing the power between genders to solve discrimination against men, is to outlaw Roe. Nature's defualt WAS EQUALITY. Roe messed THAT up by making an entire gender effectivelly fertile, but sterile. Roe made it so men were sexist abusively trapped in a no-win situation. It is one of the worse examples of supposed jusrisprudence ever. The court was AS wrong, even on the ground of sexism alone, here, than they were, arguably, in the Douglass slavery rulings!

PLM

Survivial, of course, depends on environmental conditions. Homosexuality isn't "demonstrably maladaptive" categorically. There are actually few environmental conditions that would make it grossly maladaptive.

Why would an ancient society, bent on survival in harsh conditions, be automatically labeled as barbaric?? Bigotry, I guess.

No, the ancient Jews were quite barbaric--witness the criminal laws in Leviticus, for example. I didn't label them as barbaric without warrant.

Yes, there are gay Catholics, etc., but the fact is that the CC does not officially accept them as they are. The catechism says they are "called to celibacy," IIRC--basically, "You can be gay, just don't have sex with your own gender." Uh-huh; that's a sentiment just brimming with acceptance, like: "You can be a Catholic, just don't go to Mass or take communion".

Catholic homophobia is due to Jewish homophobia, and it's the outgrowth of an ancient, barbaric culture--namely, that of the old desert nomads. Many barbaric cultures were and are homophobic; it's very common. But it's an outdated bigotry, and anyone in 20th century America who dislikes gays simply because they are gay is irrational.

you are really into making an a$$ out of yourself, arent you Wendy/Saturn/Disgusted?

> So there are others out there who have said negative >things about carolyn and all of a sudden you are claiming I am the >same as the rest? Not true but like you people would listen.

The only person we see doing the sort of thing you are doing is YOU, and you alone. *Why* we dont know-I suspect its envy...

>If plm and rad are defenders of carolyn then they are a terrible >example for conservatives and prolife people. if these are the friends >carolyn has then it makes my point even clearer.

(1) I am happy to defend an innocent person. (2) I am happy to be that innocent person's friend...

> I could stake my life on the fact I am not jealous of carolyn.

I could stake my life on the fact that you are. It comes thru loud and clear with every post, where you use personal insults, based on your (hateful due to extreme jealousy) perception of her personal appearence, boyfriend, etc. Those that can, do, and those that cant, cut those that do, down...

>fake people and people who have such oversized egos do nothing >for me

Ok, how many aliases have you used on these sites for months miss "real"? Lets see: Wendy, SaturnnSun, Disgusted, etc. And lied about doing so and admitted it? How long will it be before you admit lying about your current nick? Pretending like you just met everyone around here? I dont think Carolyn has an oversized ego, but I DO think you *lack* one entirely, since you seem to have no life other than to trash guestbooks with personal insults because you secretly fear you dont measure up yourself, so you feel a dysfunctional need to attack *successful* women-like Carolyn.

>and as this is the fourth time I have been here

You have been around for MONTHS! Spamming. Truth stretcher!

>I dont even care about her gobs of pages about herself.

Those that CAN Wendy/Saturn/Disgusted, etc., DO and those that cant, attack those that are! You care, in fact, you wish you WERE her. It oozes out in every spamming. You are INSANELY jealous of her...

I only came here to read the quibble and child sized tantrums from >her "intelligent" friends. lol.

Tell me, is innacurately and spitefully ridiculing somebody's personal appearence, boyfriend, etc., based on envy, not childish? Please get a life before you crticize others. Get and keep a boyfriend, send a pic, get a perm at a salon, and THEN we will talk. Until then, just shut up...

Then I guess you don't do too much for yourself.

Okay, so I was slightly wrong--it's a Transformer that transforms from a bar of Dove into Optimus Prime and not a Go-Bot at all. A nightvision telephoto lens comes in pretty handy, esp. when weilded by my private dick.

But if you don't tell me where the bodies are hidden, I'm sending enhanced photos of bathtub Heather and her Dove Transformer to every major newspaper in the solar system. And I mean it.

Only if the new paintjobs are better than Tilton's.

I know!!! Didn't I see you in "Deliverance?"

Yep. I was the guy who didn't get any. I still lay awake at night, pining over the lost opportunity.

Hey, Heather, do you steal hubcaps and bicycles, too? I really need someone to help me. Do you run fast? Have sharp eyes? I need a lookout and a runner. Report to 109 East Warren Street, Peru, IN.

>how can you be jealous of someone who does not have a real life but lives it online all day long and every day at that.

Gargaro WORKS at/for an ISP web design firm, Interstat, so she is connected to the net almost CONSTANTLY as a part of her job.

>Her boyfriend looks like something left behind a building and I wouldnt look twice.

The only women that criticize other women's boyfriends are ones that dont have one or cant get/keep one...

>As for her looks? She is definately not in her 20's.

So, are you saying she faked her birth ceritificate now???

>My mother has better skin and hair than that mess. I am being serious. She looks like she is at least in her 40's.

Wendy/Saturn/Disgusted, you need glasses or contacts or something!

>Which isnt bad but I dont know anyone who wants to look older than their years.

Can you send us a pic of you, Miss America? If not, shut up!

>Her figure is no different than most womens

It looks pretty good from here! :^) Do you clean your glasses regularly?

>and her job is nothing to be desired.

It is cutting edge, in fact...

>I wouldnt want to sit on my ass all day long

So, tell me, assmover, what is the going rate for Dancers? Does it depend on where customers can stuff dollar bills?

>and as for msnbc, she certainly hasnt been on lately and you call an opinion here and there "big"? Get real.

How many times have YOU been on msnbc?

>What makes you think all people want to be on tv?

Apparently YOU do, given how you obviously envy HER appearences enough to jealously minimize by your idiotic blather the actual significance of them...

> You are one of those people who only care about the outside and it is so obvious.

Ok, in several posts, you ignorantly criticize her looks, hair, skin, weight, etc., now, who is superficial and cares only for "outside" things?

>She is not highly respected and not known all over the web.

How many web sites do YOU have? That you manage? That you design? That youve worked on? How respected and known are you on the net? The only thing you have become known for is posting under multiple nicks and ruining guestbooks and having bad spelling!

>All you have to do is look at the people kissing her butt all day long, it is embarassing to read.

My, you really *DO* envy her dont you?

> She has nothing I want and its amusing you would even state such a thing.

My, you really, really, really, really, want to be her, dont you?

Big toe: What bias. Its obvious you are a liberal demo! :P I am no big fan of bush junior, for the record, despite being a republican, but to say and note hes riding daddys coattails as you do, IGNORES the fact that Gore, correct me if wrong, had a daddy in politics, where the other side presents a subtle air about his "ascendency" to the throne, as if he was made for it. Really, both of these guys are alike, both of them had politiko daddy's which somehow makes some in their respective parties think they are "made for the job" by bloodline. We seem to be living now in exactly the same system we fought England over to leave...namely the idea of "right of kings" and ascendency to power is blue blood based!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I put this site up to show sample photos taken by the Olympus D450 Zoom.

Here is the site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Network/3688/Camera.html

You have to go down and click on sample photos.

You've only been here twice??? Is that what I thought I heard you say? Are you counting Rightgrrl's GB? Or just here? You've spammed the other as wendysaturn many times. I wouldnt doubt here so stop fibbing as usual. And dont "redeny" the Saturn =wendy thing, as you admitted on THD I recall, finally, that all of our collective suspicions about your identity associated with varias aliases and nicks were right all along.

I guess my lips are full of "butt" too-maybe they are just wisening up to your game playing which implies not much of a life to go around under multiple aliases and claim they *arent* the same person whenever you are called on it...

What is a "true conservative?" Is that anything like a True Christian? On the whole, putting "true" together with an ideology generally tells me that the person using the phrase has nothing more to reccomend his view than to claim faithfulness to some illusory pure form of said ideology.

This is funny. I bet he just read the pro-life and political pages and didn't bother with the bio.