It's no more correct to judge the former by the extremism of certain fanatics than it is to say that some Klan-type groups, which profess fealty to (the white) Jesus, are what the latter is actually about.
Additionally, if you try to trace the origins and dealings of many of the known terrorists we're currently contending with, especially Osama's gang, the trail gets lost in a dusty confusion of ties with our own covert activity and past, opportunistic use of unsavory characters in former Cold War intrigues.
A lot of these people were our own creation, could possibly still have some links to us, and would undoubtedly turn up as our allies if anti-communism again became our prime obsession.
We have no true, unalterable moral compass. Expediency rules.
For example, what about previous courting of the Taliban, including at a Texas barbecue, for purposes of furthering U.S. energy goals in Central Asia?
Those personages aside, however, there is a broad, deep, popular, warranted resentment against the U.S. and its policies, as the public opinion poll conducted in several Islamic nations, reported by CNN yesterday, clearly shows.
Where we can really get into serious trouble by misreading that sentiment is in places like the Philippines, where our colonial history is well known, and where Muslim allegiances operate on several levels.
Not simplistically as "terrorism", although there is certainly that, but also as the devout faith of many of the Philippine people, and as the foundation of a liberation movement that possess definite claims to validity.
Lump them all together and start dropping anti-personnel bombs or naplam on the undifferentiated mass...and our moral authority, if it hasn't already, will vanish.
As for commodities, wouldn't any attempt to boycott the most objectionable Western wares and ideas be seen, by the likes of Bush and his conservative cronies, as a "terrorist friendly" activity that would need to be circumvented or quashed?
Man, I should look into flying lessons. My sister dated a pilot when I was about 15 who took me up in a little single engine Cessna and it was fun as hell.
I've always thought about taking lessons but never looked into it cuz I thought it would be too expensive. Just couldn't justify the opportunity cost.
Anyway, you mentioned your flying Grandfather. My Gramps told me about when he was a kid in California (Early 1930's) and his brothers came home with a plane they had bought from a crop duster or something. They just bought this dang plane and learned to fly it. Couldn't do that crazy sort of thing today.
As for commodities, wouldn't any attempt to boycott the most objectionable Western wares and ideas be seen, by the likes of Bush and his conservative cronies, as a "terrorist friendly" activity that would need to be circumvented or quashed? Â Â
If someone in Pakistan doesn't wish to buy a coke or levi's, that is there perogative. If someone decided to boycott that I doubt anyone would see it as terrorist friendly. obviously people are buying it or the companies wouldn't be selling there wares there.
But on your other point of these polls you are talking about. Don't you think it's possible or could be due to lack of education, free press, some religious teachings by fanatical leaders or rhetoric spewed by those that might give people that impression of us. I am not talking the fanatical elements. I mean the mainstream Muslim. What are they being told or taught ? I think that plays a big part of it into the equation. Would you agree ?
It's a phenominaly fun thing to do no doubt. It's actually not bad if you spread it out money wise. By the time all is said and done about 4,000 to 5,000 would get you a liscence depending on your approach. I know people that put allot into thier hobbies as well so it's really not bad, cheap? No, definately not. I actually do some work once and a while where I do my lessons and trade work for flight time. If you decide to look into it more I'll send you some info.
I didn't realize you were refering to that. Actually if they are liscenced as instructors it might very well qualify as instructed hours. Obviously takeoff and landings are something that needs to be checked out with an instructor as well but the actual hours might qualify towards the 40 hour minimum to getting your student certificate. I'll check the FAR's (flight aviation rules) I doubt they adress that specifically but I'll ask my insturctor if he knows. I'll let you know asap. Also I am sure the folks down at air combat have been posed that question before as well. I can't see why it would be excluded if they hold an instructor endorsement. It's hands on so I say it shoould go towards the hour count but I'll let ya know.
Granite City, IL -- A mother who tried to enter a St. Louis-area abortion facility to see her 16-year-old daughter last week was stopped by abortion facility officials and local police.
Granite City Police Chief David Ruebhausen said the woman was seeking entrance to the Hope Clinic abortion facility on Thursday morning when she went across the street to the Gateway Regional Medical Center and found one of his officers. Ruebhausen said she asked the officer to help allow her to enter the abortion business. The officer called the station, and he was instructed not to bring the woman into the abotion facility.
"Parental consent is not necessary," Ruebhausen said, explaining that the Illinois abortion law allows minors to undergo abortions without the permission or knowledge of their parents.
Ruebhausen said such incidents -- of parents asking police to help them intervene in abortions or speak with their children who are inside abortion facilities - happen occasionally. But, he said, the law does not allow his officers to intervene on behalf of the parents.
The mother could not be reached for comment.
A group of protesters who were at the clinic Thursday morning said the mother told them that she had received a call from her daughter's high school alerting her to her daughter's absence. The mother then learned from her daughter's friend that her daughter was at the Hope Clinic abortion business, said Angela Michael, one of the protesters. Michael said the mother was not allowed into the abortion facility until several hours after she first requested to see her daughter.
"I just stood there holding her and praying with her," Michael said.
Hope Clinic executive director Sally Burgess said she would not comment on the cases of specific girls seeking abortions for legal and privacy reasons. She said "uninvited visitors" rarely come to the abortion facility looking for girls during an abortion, "but it does happen."
Abortion facilities have faced increasing scrutiny from Congress because of their tactics that prey on teen girls and encourage them to get around the parental involvement laws of their home state.
Some abortion facilities, such as the Hope Clinic in Granite City, operate in a location on the other side of the state border from a large city in a state that requires a teen to notify her parents before having an abortion. The Child Custody Protection Act pending in Congress would prohibit abortion facilities from conducting such secret abortions.
"I know that we all sympathize with the desperation that the mother of this young girl must have felt as she stood outside trying to save her daughter and her grandchild," explained Pam Manning, president of Missouri Right to Life. "To even imagine that this could happen shows how totally perverse the abortion business is and the lie they make of their comment that they encourage the girls to consult with their parents. "
"I hope that this shockingly tragic incident is the impetus that the Illinois legislature needs to finally pass parental consent legislation. I only hope that this sad tale reaches every person in Illinois so something will push the legislators to fix this abomination," Manning added.
Douglasville, GA -- A raised fist is often used as a symbol of anger or defiance. But in Samuel Armas' case, his raised fist proclaimed to the world that children in the womb are people too.
Two and a half years ago, a startling photograph of little Samuel's fist, poking out of his mother's womb on an operating table, made headlines around the world. At only 14 weeks gestation, a routine medical exam showed Samuel had a severe form of spina bifida, a condition in which the spine is exposed, possibly leading to brain damage and profound physical handicaps.
His parents, Julie and Alex, from Douglasville, Ga., agreed to have Samuel undergo an experimental operation - at an unprecedented 21 weeks, while he was still in the womb - to help correct the problem.
Today Samuel is a healthy young boy, with only minimal physical handicaps due to spina bifida. But Samuel's condition isn't the only positive outcome of the landmark surgery. His world-famous fist was seen by many as undeniable proof of the humanity of the unborn children.
Fetal surgery has had an impact in countering pro-abortion arguments. Mo Woltering, assistant director of public policy of the American Life League, said that advances in fetal surgery make it harder to deny the truth about abortion.
Said Woltering, "Everything in science points to the human embryo, fetus, neonate - right from the beginning of conception, everything points to its being a human person. [Fetal surgery] certainly helps reinforce the fact that we have a human subject living in the womb and that subject deserves every kind of protection as well as medical benefit available."
One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Psalms 139. It speaks of God's constant, practically doting, love for his creation. It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception. If you read the chapter in its entirety it becomes clear that our existence begins in the mind of God and that God's attentions follow us all of our days, through good and bad. Here are the verses that anti-abortionists use to twist this beautiful chapter to a common political tool: Â "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalms 139:13-16. Â \09These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception. But there is nothing here to even suggest that. God conceives of us first. We read that a blueprint, of sorts, exists in a book, God's book. Before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued with a human soul. But there are numerous other places in the Bible where God makes it quite clear when and how we become a living being and not just an "imperfect substance" as mentioned in Psalms 139.
What is distressing is that anyone can believe such crap. If life begins in the mind of God before conception this is even a stronger argument against abortion.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Â \09First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception. To believe that the entry of a sperm into an egg constitutes a human soul is blasphemy. To believe this is to eject God from the mystery of birth and put the power of the male ejaculation above the generative power of God. It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life.
Now how does creating the FIRST man have anything to do with following genrations? Was Adam conceived through the union of egg and sperm? Adam was conceived in a different manner.
Consider the story of Ezekial and the dry bones, Ezekial 37:1-6, Â "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me round among them; and behold, there were very many upon the valley; and lo, they were very dry. And he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord God, thou knowest." Again he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause BREATH TO ENTER YOU, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.'" Â Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin, and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive. And, as in the verses above, because of that we "know that [God] is the Lord." Only God can bestow life and he tells us again and again in his word how this is done. Â There is no trickery here. God does not breathe through an umbilical cord. We receive the breath of life, from God, through the nostrils, when we take our first breath. The concept of life beginning at birth, rather than conception, is so central to Christianity that we are "born again," not "conceived again."
The "breath of life" is conception. That is when God lays "sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord." Breath is simply used a synonym for life.
Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin. Mary chose to be the mother of our Savior. God honored her ability to make that choice.
What an IDIOTIC stattement. How does this have anything to do with abortion?
Abortion is not a sin, though blasphemy and idolatry are. To say that human copulation (which the Bible calls unclean) has the power to bestow life is blasphemy. Ididocy.No mere act of man can negate the fact that only God bestows life, by giving the fully formed body, breath. So all those children born out there through human copulation are not alive?
Those that kill clinic workers, harass clients and attempt to legislate this wayward belief lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity. What the H does this meean?
Abortionists and those that support abortion or simply condone it by looking away are immoral and will be condemned to eternity in hell. If they do not change their ways.
That is really one of the problems with today's society. A lot of people say people shouldn't make judgments. But they should. You liberals express your judgments about me everyday. Making judgments is good. Society has to make judgments otherwise there will be no limitations to harmful behavior.
Your belief that life doesn't begin at conception is just an OPINION. And it isn't even based on LOGIC!
You're correct. And your belief that life does begin at conception is also an opinion. Where I take issue is when somebody else tries to legislate their belief, so I can't exercise mine.
Where I take issue is when somebody else tries to legislate their belief, so I can't exercise mine.
But we legislate belief all the time. I may want to kill Jethro and see it as totally within my right but, there's laws not allowing me to exercise that wish.
That's because it infringes upon my right to not be killed. So, you're right back where you start. Does a fetus have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? When does life begin?
Life is a process. Everyone alive today was at one time conceived. Therefore, conception is an essential part of everyone's life. In other words, if you don't have conception you don't have life. If something intervenes to stop the process anytime after conception that person no longer exists. Abortion puts an end to that process.
Right. But, when does a living entity become a Human Being? Not morally, but in the eyes of the law? Can a social security number be issued to a blastocyst?
Our society, and the laws that govern it, are all based on the concept that we become members of society once born. Hence, the emphasis on your birthday. As an example, you can't buy alcohol until the 21st anniversary of the day you were born, not conceived.
But, when does a living entity become a Human Being? If the living being is a dog it never does.Not morally, but in the eyes of the law? The same law that saw slavery as okay?Can a social security number be issued to a blastocyst? Does a blastocyst need one?
Our society, and the laws that govern it, are all based on the concept that we become members of society once born. What does that have to do with aborting unborn children?Hence, the emphasis on your birthday. A reference because of the ease of determining that day.As an example, you can't buy alcohol until the 21st anniversary of the day you were born, not conceived. So what? You can still use the birtdate for the legal drinking age.
America would be a far less democratic and free place were it not for the ACLU, which has championed essential rights in behalf of both liberal and conservative interests and groups during its long history of principled struggle to assure that blatant biases, and the authoritarian power that often comes into play in their furtherance, have not extinguished our basic liberty.
Undoubtredly it seems to Jethro that the ACLU is disproportionately thwarting rightwing proposals and objectives.
Well, maybe that's because the greatest danger to our freedom has always come from the right, whether it's been in the form of McCarthyism, COINTELPRO or the USA PATRIOT ACT, or in such tyrannical manifestations as retrograde efforts to censor certain books, art and music.
Not to mention crudely attempting to outlaw abortion on crackpot/quasi-fascist premises.
We need to consciously step back from the precipice of systemic damnation to which it is so easy to unconsciously come. How many bad actor companies can we name - ten, maybe twelve? Now consider the universe from which they are drawn. In 2000, over 25 million nonfarm business tax returns were filed and almost 6 million of these had employees. There are over 13,000 publicly-traded companies in the United States.
What did the overwhelming number of these good businesses do? They created products and jobs that people wanted. And yes, they created profits - because without these they could not have created the other two. For this they should neither be castigated nor ashamed. Instead that embarrassment should be left to those who have forgotten a basic economic fact: without surplus or profits from somewhere, there would be no nonprofits.
Every job, every employee, every employer, every nonprofit, every charity, and yes, every government program, owes its existence to someone's profits. Conversely, no nonprofit and no government program ever did more than indirectly generate a job which was really the result of someone's direct gift or tax payment. Therefore we as a society are not bettered as much for the users of another's surplus as we are from the producers of it. Without the former, problems would still be solved because there is never a shortage of ideas for how to spend someone else's money. But without the latter, there would be no means to solve problems.
As we focus on reforming the egregious fraud perpetrated by a few abusers, let us not overlook private enterprises that are good producers. And let us be careful that in the zeal to reform the wrongs, that we not let ourselves be drawn into the left's broader agenda to undo what is right with the private enterprise system.
Rick:
Islam is a gentle, loving, peaceful faith.
As is Christianity.
It's no more correct to judge the former by the extremism of certain fanatics than it is to say that some Klan-type groups, which profess fealty to (the white) Jesus, are what the latter is actually about.
Additionally, if you try to trace the origins and dealings of many of the known terrorists we're currently contending with, especially Osama's gang, the trail gets lost in a dusty confusion of ties with our own covert activity and past, opportunistic use of unsavory characters in former Cold War intrigues.
A lot of these people were our own creation, could possibly still have some links to us, and
would undoubtedly turn up as our allies if anti-communism again became our prime obsession.
We have no true, unalterable moral compass. Expediency rules.
For example, what about previous courting of the Taliban, including at a Texas barbecue, for purposes of furthering U.S. energy goals in Central Asia?
Those personages aside, however, there is a broad, deep, popular, warranted resentment against the U.S. and its policies, as the public opinion poll conducted in several Islamic nations, reported by CNN yesterday, clearly shows.
Where we can really get into serious trouble by misreading that sentiment is in places like the Philippines, where our colonial history is well known, and where Muslim allegiances operate on several levels.
Not simplistically as "terrorism", although there is certainly that, but also as the devout faith of many of the Philippine people, and as the foundation of a liberation movement that possess definite claims to validity.
Lump them all together and start dropping anti-personnel bombs or naplam on the undifferentiated mass...and our moral authority, if it hasn't already, will vanish.
As for commodities, wouldn't any attempt to boycott the most objectionable Western wares and ideas be seen, by the likes of Bush and his conservative cronies, as a "terrorist friendly"
activity that would need to be circumvented or quashed?
Man, I should look into flying lessons. My sister dated a pilot when I was about 15 who took me up in a little single engine Cessna and it was fun as hell.
I've always thought about taking lessons but never looked into it cuz I thought it would be too expensive. Just couldn't justify the opportunity cost.
Anyway, you mentioned your flying Grandfather. My Gramps told me about when he was a kid in California (Early 1930's) and his brothers came home with a plane they had bought from a crop duster or something. They just bought this dang plane and learned to fly it. Couldn't do that crazy sort of thing today.
Dennis,
If someone in Pakistan doesn't wish to buy a coke or levi's, that is there perogative. If someone decided to boycott that I doubt anyone would see it as terrorist friendly. obviously people are buying it or the companies wouldn't be selling there wares there.
But on your other point of these polls you are talking about. Don't you think it's possible or could be due to lack of education, free press, some religious teachings by fanatical leaders or rhetoric spewed by those that might give people that impression of us. I am not talking the fanatical elements. I mean the mainstream Muslim. What are they being told or taught ? I think that plays a big part of it into the equation. Would you agree ?
you and me both, jt. i've spent enough time behind the simulator. i'd love to get behind the controls of the real thing.
if you're looking for what would have to be a way cooler vacation, you might want to check out air combat usa.
I've seen air combat usa before. Looks like a lot of fun.
So, do I pay the kids tuition this year or do I go play fighter pilot?
Hhhhhhmmmmmm, I'll get back to ya on that.
:-)
fighter pilot. fighter pilot. what i want to know is if you've got that pilots license if you can count those hours as flight time.
JT,
It's a phenominaly fun thing to do no doubt. It's actually not bad if you spread it out money wise. By the time all is said and done about 4,000 to 5,000 would get you a liscence depending on your approach. I know people that put allot into thier hobbies as well so it's really not bad, cheap? No, definately not. I actually do some work once and a while where I do my lessons and trade work for flight time. If you decide to look into it more I'll send you some info.
fighter pilot. fighter pilot. what i want to know is if you've got that pilots license if you can count those hours as flight time.
You'll have to ask Luv2Fly but, I believe you count all hours you fly count towards something.
sadly not Ares, if sim time counted I would be flying for NWA right now.
If you decide to look into it more I'll send you some info.
I'd like that. Thanks!
Now I must spend some time with the wife.
Nite and MCL ya'll.
But isn't air combat usa real flying, not sim?
i was inquiring about air combat usa hours, luv. according to them you're flying 90% of the time. their guys handle the takeoffs and landings though.
Sorry Ares,
I didn't realize you were refering to that.
Actually if they are liscenced as instructors it might very well qualify as instructed hours. Obviously takeoff and landings are something that needs to be checked out with an instructor as well but the actual hours might qualify towards the 40 hour minimum to getting your student certificate. I'll check the FAR's (flight aviation rules) I doubt they adress that specifically but I'll ask my insturctor if he knows. I'll let you know asap. Also I am sure the folks down at air combat have been posed that question before as well. I can't see why it would be excluded if they hold an instructor endorsement. It's hands on so I say it shoould go towards the hour count but I'll let ya know.
no problem, luv, and no rush on it. i'm not planning on going any time soon even though i'd love to :)
and if sim hours counted, i'd be flying for nwa too :)
Granite City, IL -- A mother who tried to enter a St. Louis-area abortion
facility to see her 16-year-old daughter last week was stopped by abortion
facility officials and local police.
Granite City Police Chief David Ruebhausen said the woman was seeking
entrance to the Hope Clinic abortion facility on Thursday morning when she
went across the street to the Gateway Regional Medical Center and found
one of his officers. Ruebhausen said she asked the officer to help allow
her to enter the abortion business. The officer called the station, and he
was instructed not to bring the woman into the abotion facility.
"Parental consent is not necessary," Ruebhausen said, explaining that the
Illinois abortion law allows minors to undergo abortions without the
permission or knowledge of their parents.
Ruebhausen said such incidents -- of parents asking police to help them
intervene in abortions or speak with their children who are inside
abortion facilities - happen occasionally. But, he said, the law does not
allow his officers to intervene on behalf of the parents.
The mother could not be reached for comment.
A group of protesters who were at the clinic Thursday morning said the
mother told them that she had received a call from her daughter's high
school alerting her to her daughter's absence. The mother then learned
from her daughter's friend that her daughter was at the Hope Clinic
abortion business, said Angela Michael, one of the protesters. Michael
said the mother was not allowed into the abortion facility until several
hours after she first requested to see her daughter.
"I just stood there holding her and praying with her," Michael said.
Hope Clinic executive director Sally Burgess said she would not comment on
the cases of specific girls seeking abortions for legal and privacy
reasons. She said "uninvited visitors" rarely come to the abortion
facility looking for girls during an abortion, "but it does happen."
Abortion facilities have faced increasing scrutiny from Congress because
of their tactics that prey on teen girls and encourage them to get around
the parental involvement laws of their home state.
Some abortion facilities, such as the Hope Clinic in Granite City, operate
in a location on the other side of the state border from a large city in a
state that requires a teen to notify her parents before having an
abortion. The Child Custody Protection Act pending in Congress would
prohibit abortion facilities from conducting such secret abortions.
"I know that we all sympathize with the desperation that the mother of
this young girl must have felt as she stood outside trying to save her
daughter and her grandchild," explained Pam Manning, president of Missouri
Right to Life. "To even imagine that this could happen shows how totally
perverse the abortion business is and the lie they make of their comment
that they encourage the girls to consult with their parents. "
"I hope that this shockingly tragic incident is the impetus that the
Illinois legislature needs to finally pass parental consent legislation. I
only hope that this sad tale reaches every person in Illinois so something
will push the legislators to fix this abomination," Manning added.
Douglasville, GA -- A raised fist is often used as a symbol of anger or defiance. But in Samuel Armas' case, his raised fist proclaimed to the world that children in the womb are people too.
Two and a half years ago, a startling photograph of little Samuel's fist, poking out of his mother's womb on an operating table, made headlines around the world. At only 14 weeks gestation, a routine medical exam showed Samuel had a severe form of spina bifida, a condition in which the spine is exposed, possibly leading to brain damage and profound physical handicaps.
His parents, Julie and Alex, from Douglasville, Ga., agreed to have Samuel undergo an experimental operation - at an unprecedented 21 weeks, while he was still in the womb - to help correct the problem.
Today Samuel is a healthy young boy, with only minimal physical handicaps due to spina bifida. But Samuel's condition isn't the only positive outcome of the landmark surgery. His world-famous fist was seen by many as undeniable proof of the humanity of the unborn children.
Fetal surgery has had an impact in countering pro-abortion arguments. Mo Woltering, assistant director of public policy of the American Life League, said that advances in fetal surgery make it harder to deny the truth about abortion.
Said Woltering, "Everything in science points to the human embryo, fetus, neonate - right from the beginning of conception, everything points to its being a human person. [Fetal surgery] certainly helps reinforce the fact that we have a human subject living in the womb and that subject deserves every kind of protection as well as medical benefit available."
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
Wow! I can post links to rhetoric too!
There in no logic in any of those arguments.
One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Psalms 139. It speaks of God's constant, practically doting, love for his creation. It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception. If you read the chapter in its entirety it becomes clear that our existence begins in the mind of God and that God's attentions follow us all of our days, through good and bad. Here are the verses that anti-abortionists use to twist this beautiful chapter to a common political tool:
 "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalms 139:13-16.
 \09These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception. But there is nothing here to even suggest that. God conceives of us first. We read that a blueprint, of sorts, exists in a book, God's book. Before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued with a human soul. But there are numerous other places in the Bible where God makes it quite clear when and how we become a living being and not just an "imperfect substance" as mentioned in Psalms 139.
What is distressing is that anyone can believe such crap. If life begins in the mind of God before conception this is even a stronger argument against abortion.
Consider first, Genesis 2:7,
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
 \09First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception. To believe that the entry of a sperm into an egg constitutes a human soul is blasphemy. To believe this is to eject God from the mystery of birth and put the power of the male ejaculation above the generative power of God. It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life.
Now how does creating the FIRST man have anything to do with following genrations? Was Adam conceived through the union of egg and sperm? Adam was conceived in a different manner.
Consider the story of Ezekial and the dry bones, Ezekial 37:1-6,
 "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me round among them; and behold, there were very many upon the valley; and lo, they were very dry. And he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord God, thou knowest." Again he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause BREATH TO ENTER YOU, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.'"
 Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin, and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive. And, as in the verses above, because of that we "know that [God] is the Lord." Only God can bestow life and he tells us again and again in his word how this is done.
 There is no trickery here. God does not breathe through an umbilical cord. We receive the breath of life, from God, through the nostrils, when we take our first breath. The concept of life beginning at birth, rather than conception, is so central to Christianity that we are "born again," not "conceived again."
The "breath of life" is conception. That is when God lays "sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord." Breath is simply used a synonym for life.
Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin. Mary chose to be the mother of our Savior. God honored her ability to make that choice.
What an IDIOTIC stattement. How does this have anything to do with abortion?
Breath is simply used a synonym for life.
How do you know this?
How do you know anything, frosti?
Abortion is not a sin, though blasphemy and idolatry are. To say that human copulation (which the Bible calls unclean) has the power to bestow life is blasphemy. Ididocy.No mere act of man can negate the fact that only God bestows life, by giving the fully formed body, breath. So all those children born out there through human copulation are not alive?
Those that kill clinic workers, harass clients and attempt to legislate this wayward belief lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity. What the H does this meean?
Abortionists and those that support abortion or simply condone it by looking away are immoral and will be condemned to eternity in hell. If they do not change their ways.
Who the hell are you to make such judgements on people's souls?
How do you know anything, frosti?
Generally through scientific research and proof. If it's based on anything else, it's opinion.
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." -Doobie Brothers
That is really one of the problems with today's society. A lot of people say people shouldn't make judgments. But they should. You liberals express your judgments about me everyday. Making judgments is good. Society has to make judgments otherwise there will be no limitations to harmful behavior.
Your belief that life doesn't begin at conception is just an OPINION. And it isn't even based on LOGIC!
Who the hell are you to make such judgements on people's SOULS?
Isn't that up to God?
Is there anything I can do to condemn anyone's else's soul but my own? As for judgments I can make them as well as anyone else. Just like YOU, JT.
Your belief that life doesn't begin at conception is just an OPINION. And it isn't even based on LOGIC!
You're correct. And your belief that life does begin at conception is also an opinion. Where I take issue is when somebody else tries to legislate their belief, so I can't exercise mine.
Where I take issue is when somebody else tries to legislate their belief, so I can't exercise mine.
But we legislate belief all the time. I may want to kill Jethro and see it as totally within my right but, there's laws not allowing me to exercise that wish.
That's because it infringes upon my right to not be killed. So, you're right back where you start. Does a fetus have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? When does life begin?
That's because it infringes upon my right to not be killed.
Who says you have a right not to be killed?
Then why do we have capital punishment?
Why do we kill in war instead of throw pillows?
Abortion infringes on the right of the unborn not to be killed!
And your belief that life does begin at conception is also an opinion.
At least it is based on logic.
Who says you have a right not to be killed?
The constitution says I have the right to lifeliberty and the pursuit of happiness.
At least it is based on logic.
Please explain the logic.
Life is a process. Everyone alive today was at one time conceived. Therefore, conception is an essential part of everyone's life. In other words, if you don't have conception you don't have life. If something intervenes to stop the process anytime after conception that person no longer exists. Abortion puts an end to that process.
Yeah but, WWJD?
WWJD?
"Can you imagine the hostility that Jews, Muslims, members of other minority faiths and nonbelievers must feel when living in or passing through that community?"
No because I doubt they feel any hostility.
ACLU officials say that's not true, they are merely defending the Constitution.
Defending a corrupt interpretation of it.
The signs should read:
SCREW the ACLU!
Right. But, when does a living entity become a Human Being? Not morally, but in the eyes of the law? Can a social security number be issued to a blastocyst?
Our society, and the laws that govern it, are all based on the concept that we become members of society once born. Hence, the emphasis on your birthday. As an example, you can't buy alcohol until the 21st anniversary of the day you were born, not conceived.
But, when does a living entity become a Human Being? If the living being is a dog it never does.Not morally, but in the eyes of the law? The same law that saw slavery as okay?Can a social security number be issued to a blastocyst? Does a blastocyst need one?
Our society, and the laws that govern it, are all based on the concept that we become members of society once born. What does that have to do with aborting unborn children?Hence, the emphasis on your birthday. A reference because of the ease of determining that day.As an example, you can't buy alcohol until the 21st anniversary of the day you were born, not conceived. So what? You can still use the birtdate for the legal drinking age.
America would be a far less democratic and free place were it not for the ACLU, which has championed essential rights in behalf of both liberal and conservative interests and groups during its long history of principled struggle to assure that blatant biases, and the authoritarian power that often comes into play in their furtherance, have not extinguished our basic liberty.
Undoubtredly it seems to Jethro that the ACLU
is disproportionately thwarting rightwing proposals and objectives.
Well, maybe that's because the greatest danger to our freedom has always come from the right, whether it's been in the form of McCarthyism, COINTELPRO or the USA PATRIOT ACT, or in such tyrannical manifestations as retrograde efforts to censor certain books, art and music.
Not to mention crudely attempting to outlaw abortion on crackpot/quasi-fascist premises.
Quit trying to murder my sisters' freedom!
Or maybe ANDY HAS LOOSE SCREWS!
Continued from last.
We need to consciously step back from the precipice of systemic damnation to which it is so easy to unconsciously come. How many bad actor companies can we name - ten, maybe twelve? Now consider the universe from which they are drawn. In 2000, over 25 million nonfarm business tax returns were filed and almost 6 million of these had employees. There are over 13,000 publicly-traded companies in the United States.
What did the overwhelming number of these good businesses do? They created products and jobs that people wanted. And yes, they created profits - because without these they could not have created the other two. For this they should neither be castigated nor ashamed. Instead that embarrassment should be left to those who have forgotten a basic economic fact: without surplus or profits from somewhere, there would be no nonprofits.
Every job, every employee, every employer, every nonprofit, every charity, and yes, every government program, owes its existence to someone's profits. Conversely, no nonprofit and no government program ever did more than indirectly generate a job which was really the result of someone's direct gift or tax payment. Therefore we as a society are not bettered as much for the users of another's surplus as we are from the producers of it. Without the former, problems would still be solved because there is never a shortage of ideas for how to spend someone else's money. But without the latter, there would be no means to solve problems.
As we focus on reforming the egregious fraud perpetrated by a few abusers, let us not overlook private enterprises that are good producers. And let us be careful that in the zeal to reform the wrongs, that we not let ourselves be drawn into the left's broader agenda to undo what is right with the private enterprise system.
http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/640571p-4844573c.html