Posted on 11/09/2001 10:54:51 AM PST by Asmodeus
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
November 9, 2001 Anthrax Threats Mass Mailed to Abortion Clinics By MEGAN GARVEY, TIMES STAFF WRITER Security: More than 200 facilities receive FedEx packages, while more are intercepted en route to West Coast.
WASHINGTON -- FedEx packages containing a white powder and the threat: "This contains anthrax. You're going to die," arrived Thursday morning at more than 200 abortion clinics in the Midwest and along the East Coast.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
You can define "up" as "down" if you like but semantical contortionism won't convince anyone that you're trying to be objective about an issue. If I claim that self defense is murder, I would have to assume some moral responsibility for gun grabbers who are socially comforted by my hyperbole. Likewise, if you are going to claim that "abortion is murder", then you should take some moral responsibility for someone who bombs abortion clinics "to prevent murders of innocent babies". If you don't want to accept that responsibility, then I respectfully suggest that you try to be more objective about the validity of your rhetoric.
Boy, that Harry Browne must be one ignorant, emotional sumbitch to take a stance like this
Please note that HB made an anti-abortion argument without resorting to hyperbole or governmental intervention.
I'd really be interested in finding out why Harry Browne thinks abortion is "wrong", wouldn't you?
Not really. I don't get the impression that he's spent much time thinking about the issue and he certainly has never emphasized his views on abortion in any writings or campaigns. I'd rather see you try to prove that "abortion is murder".
if you're ready to get all extreme on those of us who believe abortion is the taking of human life...
I've never criticized the assertion that abortion is the taking of human life, but so is ending the life of a sperm, egg, or skin cell. But human life and personage are not the same thing -- not legally and not philosophically.
BTW...who you gonna vote for in 2004 if Mr. Browne runs and it turns out that the reason Harry Browne thinks abortion is "wrong" doesn't meet your standards of basic intelligence in the "science" of the "choice" movement?
You don't have to worry about Harry running again. His campaign people had some real questionable dealings with the LP national party and severaly damaged his reputation with the hard core LP people. I would not vote for anyone who claimed that "abortion is murder", though, but that has nothing to do with "the science of the choice movement" (whatever you mean by that).
On a brighter note, I thoroughly enjoyed both of your radio shows and never heard you say anything in them about abortion being murder. (And please don't ruin any future shows by taking that as some sort of a dare or challenge.)
If you really believe that abortion is murder, and also believe that the life of a "murderer" (i.e. an abortion doctor) is just as precious as the life of a baby, then you seem to be saying that you would not shoot someone pointing a gun at you or a baby and threatening to use it because you believe that the life of someone who is assualting you or a baby with a deadly weapon is just as precious as yours or the baby's. All I can say about your position is that it is religious pacificism in the extreme and not compatible with the survival of the most righteous.
Now you're loading hyperbole onto hyperbole. I didn't say that people who claim that "abortion is murder" are "terrorists", I just said that such hyperbole gives moral aid and comfort to abortion clinic bombers.
Legal malice involves an intent to do something the actor knows to be wrong, so your argument doesn't hold up on this point even if you could ignore the "unlawful" element of "murder".
You still haven't connected the actions of the killers of abortionists to the words of people who say that each human life is precious and should not be wasted by killing by other humans.
Are you kidding? You have not refuted one fact anyone or I have presented. Over and Over you make comments like the one above with no fact. Your only defense of your position has been that there is a difference between a Human Being and a Person. The difference being the presents of a soul. But you provide no proof of when the soul enters. You admit that it is wrong to kill an innocent “person” but can’t state with fact when “we” become “persons”. You make assumptions and philosophical mumbo jumbo and never state a source of a credible scientist. You keep saying that I do not provide explanation of my points, so I provide you with fact and document; then you don’t read it. Then you come back, having not read what I brought to the table and say; you have not explained this or that. When I clearly have in all cases, you are the one not providing any backing what so ever. You have only provide assumption and platitudes, nothing more.
Exactly, they're definately not above it.
Ravinson: “So can a pet dog, but that doesn't prove that Spot is a person.”
I never said it proved personhood, so what is your point. This was to go to the fact that if a reincarnate was to come into the body right before birth, the Child would have no recognition of it’s mother and father. Of course you don’t deal with that issue so you make a off the cuff remark totally oblivious of the nature of the statement.
Not enough for PP's tastes, but yes.
I believe that abortion is murder... (a (Human or not) + b (Alive or Not) = c (Human Life or Not)... I think [negligently causing death is murder] has been taken as such legally for years... Nobody knows when the “soul” enters a Human shell; therefore it is not within yours or anybody’s judgment. In just a case it is always better to err on the side of caution... you want to kill him... Lets not forget that the LAW considers a Fetus of any stage a “person”... there are no “fertilized eggs...Any credible scientist would tell you the same... if a reincarnate was to come into the body right before birth, the Child would have no recognition of it’s mother and father.
Bring us facts, Science papers, Published work, anything except your ideas to prove your statements. You have provided nothing except your beliefs. We have given you STACKS of information and fact to back our ideas and opinions. You don't even read it so how do you even know what we are saying? .
On this idea of a Fertilized egg.
Quoting Carlson:
"Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, but a great deal of preparation precedes this event. First both male and female sex cells must pass through a long series of changes (gametogenesis) that converts them genetically and phenotypically into mature gametes, which are capable of participating in the process of fertilization. Next, the gametes must be released from the gonads and make their way to the upper part of the uterine tube, where fertilization normally takes place. Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus, where it sinks into the uterine lining (implantation) to be nourished by the mother."
"the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo". There is no Fertilized egg, once fertilized it is an embryo. Of course you did not read that did you. You just say I am wrong.
I didn't say any such thing. You're just building more strawmen.
For fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization, each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.
Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg" — which would include the term "fertilized egg" — is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading — especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.
My philosophical belief is that there is more to people then flesh and blood, and there is some scientific evidence to support my belief and which suggests that a "soul" is implanted in fetuses shortly before birth.
Current science can't tell you when human cells constitute a "person"
Then why is it ok to abort? You don’t even know when the baby is a person
BTW- Where is the "scientific evidence"
Studies have found that small children can recite knowledge (i.e. memories) which would only be known by a person who died while the child was in the womb shortly before birth, which suggests that people have reincarnated souls. Proof for the existence of souls is also suggested by research showing that there is a certain predictable small loss of weight (about 1/2 ounce) at the time of death.
I guess you did say it.
Where is that study again? That’s right, you did not provide that little bit of information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.