"William M. Klein" <wmklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ynFxj.296395$9w2.178959@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Judson,
> Weren't you the one who, in another thread, was talking about
"justified"
> and "justified" killings or some other distinction related to
> Thou shalt not Kill
> versus
> Thou shalt not commit murder
>
> If you think that type of "taxonomy" is im****tant (actually required by
> YOUR believes), then it seems pretty strange to not even be able to
> discuss a difference between
> pre-, para-, and post-natal
>
> Explain to me how the statement,
> "Then, realizing it is used for the purpose of deceiving people into
> committing the most heinous of crimes and claiming innocence because of
> the particular taxonomy rather than looking at the reality, see past
the
> trivialities of taxonomy to the truth of the deceit."
>
> applies to one taxonomy, but not the other - unless it is the (usual
> circular logic) that if you think one way, then the distinction is
> im****tant (appropriate) but if you think another (believe something
else)
> then it is "onerous".
>
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:0zyxj.82260$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."
>>
>
"Look, don't play the slippery eel with me, that parrot is definitely
deceased." John Cleese (Python's parrot sketch).
Judson is master of the slippery eel.
Apart from the anomaly in position which you noted, did you see how,
suddenly, the unborn are now "innocent"?
Judson's infallible and literal Holy Bible states:
Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother
conceived me." (So, from the moment of conception we're all in sin...)
Romans 3:23 "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory." (no
exceptions there for babies...or anyone else.)
So, no way, (if you accept Judson's position on the Bible) can a zygote
and
whatever it subsequently develops into, be sinless.
Unless Judson decides that using "innocent" carries more emotive weight
for
his argument, but that would be unashamedly "slippery eel"...
I have to say that reading some of Judson's more hghly emotional and
ghoulish posts lately (like the one describing pu****ng scissors into baby
brains) simply reinforces my belief that some terminations in the womb may
actually make the world a better place...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
|
