Judson,
Weren't you the one who, in another thread, was talking about
"justified" and
"justified" killings or some other distinction related to
Thou shalt not Kill
versus
Thou shalt not commit murder
If you think that type of "taxonomy" is im****tant (actually required by
YOUR
believes), then it seems pretty strange to not even be able to discuss a
difference between
pre-, para-, and post-natal
Explain to me how the statement,
"Then, realizing it is used for the purpose of deceiving people into
committing the most heinous of crimes and claiming innocence because of
the
particular taxonomy rather than looking at the reality, see past the
trivialities of taxonomy to the truth of the deceit."
applies to one taxonomy, but not the other - unless it is the (usual
circular
logic) that if you think one way, then the distinction is im****tant
(appropriate) but if you think another (believe something else) then it is
"onerous".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0zyxj.82260$vt2.22767@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> William M. Klein <wmklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>"terminology" is always a clue to emotional intent.
>>>
>>> Pro-Life vs Anti-Abortion
>>> Pro-Choice vs Pro-Abortion
>>
>> Hmmmmmm... I wonder what kind of intent might be garnered from a
proposing
>> of terms like 'pre-natal', 'para-natal' and 'post-natal'?
>>
>> Some utterly fiendish agenda, assuredly... not even worth responding
to,
>> some might say... or not-say.
>
> Or one might chose to look beyond the surface and see that the issue
> is to what purpose the is taxonomy applied. Then, realizing it is used
> for the purpose of deceiving people into committing the most heinous
> of crimes and claiming innocence because of the particular taxonomy
> rather than looking at the reality, see past the trivialities of
taxonomy
> to the truth of the deceit. Of course, to do that, one must be
interested
> in more than trivial arguments used to deceive and distract from the
> real issues involved. Murder of innocent unborn babies is murder of
> innocent unborn babies, no matter what taxonomy one chooses to use
> to mask the fact. Therefore, anyone arguing otherwise has already cast
> aside any pretense of morality, or reason. An obvious corollary is that
> there is no point arguing with people who advocate and defend mass
> murder of the most innocent and helpless for the sake of convenience.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
|
