On 26 Feb, 16:13, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <docdw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Judson McClendon <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
> >>being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
> >>part of the head, is not a child of the mother?
>
> > Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
> > pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.
>
> > Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.
>
> > Para-natally what is coming-into-being is a child.
>
> > Post-natally what exists is a child.
>
> > (Not, of course, that this sort of logic seems to be frequently
considered
> > by those bandying about terms like 'murdering babies' and 'killing
> > children'.)
>
> Right. It only gets "bandied about" by those morally bankrupt enough
> not to know or care; those who hide behind technical definitions
> created and used for the purpose of doing murder while claiming
> innocence.
What is the difference between hiding behind scientific definitions
and hiding behind the bible? At least one (science) is founded on a
firm footing and not the shifting sands of faith.
Speaking of shifting sands; you might care to visit this BBC News 24
web article as it shows that, whereas your brand of christianity is
firmly footed in 400Ad, the Muslims are re-considering the foundations
of theirs with a view to bringing Islam into the 21st century:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm
|
