Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 05:54 AM 5/4/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? I'm not advocating spending, Well, you managed to lambaste Republicans in several posts for not spending enough JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:33 PM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. If that's true, then why did you single out Republicans for criticism? Moreover, if increased anti-poverty spending does not prevent poverty from increasing, why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:50 -0400, JDG wrote why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? I'm not advocating spending, I'm advocating for doing a better job at creating a social safety net and opportunities, in a country where one out of six children lives in poverty. Our budgets and calendars aren't just about spending, they reveal our priorities more clearly than our words. I'm asking what you care about, how you see our responsibilities as a nation, with regard to the neediest. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. Nick I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. Somehow I don't trust the ones provided earlier. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/3/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. Nick I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. Somehow I amplification ^^^ and Medicaid don't trust the ones provided earlier. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis On 5/3/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. Nick I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. I think the census bureau's figures are pretty well trusted. Somehow I amplification ^^^ and Medicaid don't trust the ones provided earlier. the GAO is fairly decent at that. Medicaid spending has gone through the roof as the result of so many elderly in nursing homes who have worked through their savings...or have earlier passed savings on to their kids. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever. You really ARE angling for a job in the administration, aren't you? Anyway, you sure play their reduction-to-the-absurd game. I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though I believe you misstate the situation. *One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow of privatization and the framing device of ownership don't even start to address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. Running some quick figures on government non-veterans, non-Medicare health spending, which I think would be a pretty good proxy for the sort of things you seem concerned about, I have the following increases in real spending: Bush 90 - 15% 91 - 19% 92 - 23% Bush/Clinton 93 - 9% Clinton 94 - 5% 95 - 6% 96 - 1% 97 - 2% 98 - 5% 99 - 6% 00 - 7% Clinton/Bush 01 - 9% Bush 02 - 12% 03 - 10% 04 - 7% 05 - 5% (est.) If you want to talk in terms of percentage of GDP: Bush 90 - 1.01% 91 - 1.20% 92 - 1.43% Bush/Clinton 93 - 1.51% Clinton 94 - 1.54% 95 - 1.58% 96 - 1.55% 97 - 1.51% 98 - 1.52% 99 - 1.55% 00 - 1.59% Clinton/Bush 01 - 1.71% Bush 02 - 1.89% 03 - 2.03% 04 - 2.08% 05 - 2.11% (est.) Either way, it seems to me like the Republican record looks pretty good if you want to measure such thing in terms of spending. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:24 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever. The quotation above from Nick was given a separate paragraph at the end of a long laundary list of criticisms of Republicans.It was clear to me from the context and the plain meaning of his words that he considered proposing benefit cuts to Social Security to be an utterly damning indictment. I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though I believe you misstate the situation. *One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow of privatization and the framing device of ownership don't even start to address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. But we're not talking about the privitization part of the plan here. We're talking about the proposed benefit cuts, which *do* address the problem by any measure, and which Nick portrayed as a damning indictment of Republicans.On the other hand, Democrats have proposed, well, *nothing* to keep Social Security solvent for our grandchildren. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Reducing benefits to the neediest while snip Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again. As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. This reduces dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget from generational shifts.In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a cut in the SS taxes. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:59:35 -0400, JDG wrote At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before Congress. Go to Google News and search on Medicaid and budget. And of course there is much more beyond current news. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/2/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Reducing benefits to the neediest while snip Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again. Word game analysis cut preserved benefits for the neediest The cut I assume was a slip where you indicated you know it cut the preserved benefits even for the neediest. Preserved benefits for the neediest is what I believe you meant. I'll ignore this for now. Reduced benefits for the highest income earners wow. You do know don't you that those highest income earners is everyone earning over $20,000 a year? As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. Somewhat agreed, and that is why companies developed pension plans and Congress created 401K plans. This reduces dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget from generational shifts.In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a cut in the SS taxes. The threat is not Social Security going insolvent. It never does. The threat is that right now under pessimistic economic assumptions benefits will be cut under the current regulations over 20% forty or fifty years from now. Every single plan that the GOP has proposed cuts benefits more and sooner. I will repeat that - to avoid cutting benefits decades from now EVERY plan proposed cuts benefits more sooner. All of this to supposedly prevent these smaller cuts further off. The President's privatization schemes all add additional debt very soon to supposedly avoid less debt decades later. This has an additional benefit for its proponents of weaning people away from the community based (as opposed to private accounts) Social Security system. I am using supposedly for good reason. One of the reality-based main reason's for these smoke and mirrors logically inconsistent plans is to produce this privatized system instead of a community based system. Bush's press conference has placed him even further away from being able to pass any plan. Do you think that Congress will pass his plan now where he admits I am saving the system by cutting benefits to all those higher-income folks who make over $20K? JDG -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:24 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before Congress. Go to Google News and search on Medicaid and budget. And of course there is much more beyond current news. And even if these proposed, nobinding (yet) cuts were to take effect, how would the Republicans' overall record on social services spending compare to that, of say, Bill Clinton's? Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:19:30 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific allegation here, right? What budget are you looking at? Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. WIC -- near-term increase, long-term destruction. Social services block grants -- cut. Hearing tests for newborns, cut by $60 billion. Lead hazard control program -- gone. $6.5 billion more for eduction, but $12 billion in cuts. NIH's budget frozen. Food Stamps -- 200,000 to 300,000 people becoming ineligible. Meals to low-income pregnant mothers and children cut. Low-income housing cut. Head Start switched to a block grant program. Perkins loan program for college -- gone. Pell grants -- fewer become eligible. Is there anything comparable to the tax cuts for the rich, which would similarly benefit the poor? Unless I've missed them, that's a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, which inevitably hurts children. The GOP wants to get rid of the earned income tax credit (which was their own invention!). The child-care tax credit was expanded -- but not for everybody -- low- and middle-income families were left out. The poverty rate for American children rose from 16.7 percent in 2002 to 17.6 percent in 2003. The number in poverty increased from 12.1 million to 12.9 million. One in six children live in poverty in the richest country on earth. The proportion of U.S. children who don't have health insurance is 11.4 percent or 8.4 million. The number of families living in poverty has gone up by 4 million since Bush took office. We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? I can't imagine ever making such a broad statement. Reducing benefits when the poverty rate is rising as the nation's economy grows for an unprecedent series of decades seems immoral. Reducing benefits to the neediest while cutting taxes to the wealthy seems immoral. What do you see as our responsibilities in this area? I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? Whose problem does privatization solve, John? To whom are we being responsible by considering it? The neediest, whom Social Security is intended to benefit? Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? Can I assume that in principle you and I would join in efforts to ensure that the neediest people in this country have a secure financial safety net? Not that I see such a proposal on the table from anyone... but perhaps if you and I can agree, any two people in this country could! I'm not trying to be funny. It seems to me that we are two people of faith, so I'm assuming that we differ in matters of implementation and policy, not our core values. Can we find enough agreement that the matters on which we disagree pale by comparison? I think the answer is yes, though I can't see how we might get there. However, I suspect it starts with sharing our honest beliefs and feelings about stewardship of the poor and needy, as a foundation on which to talk later about how to do it. Perhaps I'm suggesting that we have been talking about works without first talking about faith? By way of disclosure... I want to get myself out of the kill the other guy's argument mode of discourse. It is not serving me well, even though it gets my endorphins going. But I don't want to do it by simply walking away. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific allegation here, right? It should be against the law to abort a fetus, but it's okay to let increasing numbers of children live in poverty? IncreasingO.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's Presidency. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 4/30/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific allegation here, right? It should be against the law to abort a fetus, but it's okay to let increasing numbers of children live in poverty? Increasing O.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's Presidency. JDG JDG has facts wrong. President Clinton was the only recent President to preside over a substantial drop in child poverty -- from nearly 23 percent to 16.2 percent. There is a lack of federal data compared to when Clinton was in office on child poverty but I read that Black child poverty under Bush is at it's highest level in 25 years. OK, finally found a report: More grist for campaigns: Poverty in America rises Critics of the Bush administration, however, pointed to the sharp rise in child poverty - from 16.7 percent to 17.6 percent of the under-18 population - in addition to the more gradual rise in overall poverty (up from 12.1percent of Americans in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003). The relatively high rate of poverty - not much different from 35 years ago - is in striking contrast to that of other industrialized nations, says Sheldon Danziger, codirector of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0827/p10s01-usec.html Not surprised that JDG didn't know that, only us damn liberals worry about things like children in poverty and how the media and the Washington Democrats also ignore the issue. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Street0908.htm Let me ask JDG - Do you consider a blastocyst a human being with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:14 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: IncreasingO.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's Presidency. Clinton was president in 2000. And in 1996.Good enough to be re-elected in that year if I do recall too JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:21 PM, JDG wrote: At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote: To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives Do we care about births, or do we care about lives? I presume you care about the former Both, actually, though I wonder about the question. I am a father of two children. One is alive. One died of brain cancer, as I have mentioned here before, after my wife and I spent six months of our lives with him, roughly 24 hours a day throughout his illness. Ultimately, my first-born son died in the arms of my wife and me. So that's part of what informs my ideas about the value of life, how about you? We could continue to try to find an invisible line or we could concentrate on the value of every human life, Unless I am wrong, you are opposed to the above, are you not? I prefer the latter. Why am I getting the feeling that your questions are not entirely sincere? including the millions of infants and children who die every year due to lack of access to prenatal, perinatal and early childhood care. How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. I wrote it. As long as we're giving orders, respond to it in substance and quit side-stepping. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:21:00 -0400, JDG wrote How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. Congress? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. Congress? Really? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. Congress? Really? Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
From: Nick Arnett On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? Its relevant cos it agrees with your comment. Name one person Congress When That time that Dan said. Hopefully Helpful Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:35:02 -0400, JDG wrote At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. Congress? Really? Yes, really. There is less health insurance available, more children living in poverty, which directly and indirectly increase the infant and child mortality rate -- and ours is among the worst in the world. We claim to have some sort of moral imperative to solve Iraq's problems because we are the most powerful nation in the world. Where's that power being applied to the lives of our own children? The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. I don't have any problem with taking a negative view of abortion, but how about some consistency about life? It should be against the law to abort a fetus, but it's okay to let increasing numbers of children live in poverty? We can do better. We can show that we really do care about children, with our budget. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:31:45 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote From: Nick Arnett On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? Its relevant cos it agrees with your comment. Name one person Congress When That time that Dan said. Medicaid. Babies. Ah. For a moment there, I forgot what Medicaid is. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote: At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. More like 1/2, I think. But I don't have a reference to cite on that. I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but only 1 heartbeat was detected. The second ultrasound a couple of weeks later revealed only 1 fetus. (There is speculation that the vanishing twin syndrome is more common than we think, but I'm not sure how common it supposedly is.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote: At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. More like 1/2, I think. But I don't have a reference to cite on that. 50%. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm It's funny; i covered this very ground last week but John chose to overlook it. I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but only 1 heartbeat was detected. The second ultrasound a couple of weeks later revealed only 1 fetus. (There is speculation that the vanishing twin syndrome is more common than we think, but I'm not sure how common it supposedly is.) By John's argument the surviving twin should be tried for murder. After all s/he presumably killed and possibly engulfed his/her sibling, and since a mass of undifferentiated cells is equal to human in his lexicon, it's abundantly clear that the x-week-old is guilty. (Unless some other fetus snuck in there in the night and did the deed.) Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:45:25 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? If ever there were a message that actually deserved the title A Modest Proposal, this was it. ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:45:25 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? If ever there were a message that actually deserved the title A Modest Proposal, this was it. ;-) Modest? Hardly; consider the source. :D I was kind of wondering about the possibility of writing up a fake closing argument along those lines, actually -- something a prosecutor in oh, I don't know, maybe Texas would say to a jury. I don't think it would be Swiftian, though. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but only 1 heartbeat was detected. The second ultrasound a couple of weeks later revealed only 1 fetus. (There is speculation that the vanishing twin syndrome is more common than we think, but I'm not sure how common it supposedly is.) By John's argument the surviving twin should be tried for murder. After all s/he presumably killed and possibly engulfed his/her sibling, and since a mass of undifferentiated cells is equal to human in his lexicon, it's abundantly clear that the x-week-old is guilty. (Unless some other fetus snuck in there in the night and did the deed.) Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? Well, we don't know why the second twin vanishes. If it's a matter of the fetus not being viable, but developing to a point before it hits not viable due to genetic or environmental factors having nothing to do with the surviving twin, then the surviving twin isn't the one who ought to be tried. Maybe it's the parents, for having bad genes! Maybe it's due to something environmental that someone else should be liable for! Maybe we just ought to take it all to CIVIL court and get damages from anyone who might possibly have contributed to the non-surviving fetus's demise! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:28 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but only 1 heartbeat was detected. The second ultrasound a couple of weeks later revealed only 1 fetus. (There is speculation that the vanishing twin syndrome is more common than we think, but I'm not sure how common it supposedly is.) By John's argument the surviving twin should be tried for murder. After all s/he presumably killed and possibly engulfed his/her sibling, and since a mass of undifferentiated cells is equal to human in his lexicon, it's abundantly clear that the x-week-old is guilty. (Unless some other fetus snuck in there in the night and did the deed.) Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? Well, we don't know why the second twin vanishes. If it's a matter of the fetus not being viable, but developing to a point before it hits not viable due to genetic or environmental factors having nothing to do with the surviving twin, then the surviving twin isn't the one who ought to be tried. Maybe it's the parents, for having bad genes! Maybe it's due to something environmental that someone else should be liable for! Maybe we just ought to take it all to CIVIL court and get damages from anyone who might possibly have contributed to the non-surviving fetus's demise! Two words: tort reform. Dave It's a fair cop, but society's to blame. Right, we'll be arresting them, too. -- Monty Python ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but only 1 heartbeat was detected. The second ultrasound a couple of weeks later revealed only 1 fetus. (There is speculation that the vanishing twin syndrome is more common than we think, but I'm not sure how common it supposedly is.) By John's argument the surviving twin should be tried for murder. After all s/he presumably killed and possibly engulfed his/her sibling, and since a mass of undifferentiated cells is equal to human in his lexicon, it's abundantly clear that the x-week-old is guilty. (Unless some other fetus snuck in there in the night and did the deed.) Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death penalty if there's a guilty verdict. That's only sensible, right? Well, we don't know why the second twin vanishes. Then the police are not doing their jobs. We need to take more money from Social Security in order to fund a program that places a cop in every uterus to guard the not yet born. Then we will have enough future workers to fund the social programs we will have in the meantime killed in order to fund the ever burgeoning police forces. xponent One Adam Twelve In Utero Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote: To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives Do we care about births, or do we care about lives? I presume you care about the former We could continue to try to find an invisible line or we could concentrate on the value of every human life, Unless I am wrong, you are opposed to the above, are you not? including the millions of infants and children who die every year due to lack of access to prenatal, perinatal and early childhood care. How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member of Congress). Have you ever owned slaves?Just wondering. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote: At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than eliminating a tapeworm. However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member A-hem! of Congress). I know that some here probably consider many of them to be exactly that . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. I don't see how that is relevant. If one accepts that life begins at conception, then that would simply constitute death by natural causes. It would be a worthy effort of scientific research to see how to reduce those deaths, but no moral judgement would be attached to a death by natural causes. To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than eliminating a tapeworm. You may make the above argument, and it would appear to be an argument along the lines of - abortion is moral, because it is not the taking of a human life. the [group of cells] is not human.Do you really wish to make such an argument? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 4/24/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the
beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have
to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both.
It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs
never make it to a live birth.
I don't see how that is relevant. If one accepts that life begins at
conception, then that would simply constitute death by natural causes. It
would be a worthy effort of scientific research to see how to reduce those
deaths, but no moral judgement would be attached to a death by natural
causes.
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after
conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this:
1) The [group of cells] is not human life.
2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives
You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular
event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other
organ in a person's body.
Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question
from the mother's body?
How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's
body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.?
Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's
body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than
eliminating a tapeworm.
You may make the above argument, and it would appear to be an argument
along the lines of - abortion is moral, because it is not the taking of a
human life. the [group of cells] is not human.Do you really wish to
make such an argument?
JDG
Do you never really think that we might be something more than this
haphazard, every-varying assortment of genes and organs, cells and
fungi and bacteria, and stolen designs and gross errors? Do you never
really think that perhaps we take 'human'ness for granted, identifying
it with our particular bodies, or bodies like them? Does not this
view of human-ness and the ethical ramifications give you pause,
especially considering the historical abuses of it ('His skin, and
thus his body, is different from ours- he is not human.')? Perhaps
there is a more general, abstract property of humans.
~Maru
'There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly
casual into the other. '
--Dune Messiah
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote: To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives Do we care about births, or do we care about lives? We could continue to try to find an invisible line or we could concentrate on the value of every human life, including the millions of infants and children who die every year due to lack of access to prenatal, perinatal and early childhood care. How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote: -human life begins at conception What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant at all? Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized souls go right to hell? Or is it possible God didn't get around to decanting souls into them? Ors is it instead remotely feasible that the flawed, imperfect biology we inherited via evolution is malfunctioning -- business as usual? BTW, if you really believe life begins at conception, why do you celebrate a birthday (I assume you do) -- 9 months after life ostensibly began? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote: -human life begins at conception What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant at all? Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized souls go right to hell? snip No- they go to Limbo! Or possibly they hang out with Aristotle and and the rest of the good pagans in the first circle of Hell. At least they'll get a better education than they probably would've on earth. But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books Strangely, it has never come up. But if you are referring to that silly practice of baptizing one's ancestors, then you are correct indeed to smile. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 03:44 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote: On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote: -human life begins at conception What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant at all? Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized souls go right to hell? snip No- they go to Limbo! Or possibly they hang out with Aristotle and and the rest of the good pagans in the first circle of Hell. At least they'll get a better education than they probably would've on earth. But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. That's incorrect. That's one of the plain and precious parts of the Gospel which was lost and had to be restored in modern times: And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:16) And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord. And little children also have eternal life. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 15:24 - 25) And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you. For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children. And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle. For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teachrepentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 04:23 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote: On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books Strangely, it has never come up. But if you are referring to I dunno if he was, but I was not in the post where I quoted some scriptures pertaining to infant baptism. that silly practice of baptizing one's ancestors, It does make one wonder a bit if it's worth it when they're so stiff that it is hard to get them under the water . . . then you are correct indeed to smile. I for one am lol . . . :-D -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;) Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's membership roster, despite being inactive for 18 years. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;) Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's membership roster, Most likely, unless you have requested name removal. despite being inactive for 18 years. If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church or did you join later, and if so, at about what age? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: But for damn sure they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel. Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;) And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;) Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's membership roster, Most likely, unless you have requested name removal. despite being inactive for 18 years. If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church or did you join later, and if so, at about what age? Sheeesh! I see a spate of Mormanupmanship coming on. G xponent Catholicupman Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church Heh! No, Born Free. or did you join later, and if so, at about what age? At about 12. Unfortunately for the church's membership rolls, my mental development managed to proceed past that age, so the just-so stories that satisfied my mind at that time eventually stopped working on me. Well, that plus the church's attitude toward nonheterosexuals, which is intolerable, and its behavior toward divorced mothers, which is detestable, was sufficient to show me what a passle of intellectually and philosophically inbred louts I'd fallen foul of. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JDG Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:07 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them -- who believe that abortion is intrinsically evil: that there is no such thing as a just abortion. Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception That's debatable. One second you have a sperm cell and an egg cell, the next second they have merged. What makes the new cell human life? It doesn't have a brain, it isn't sentient, so it doesn't qualify as human life. If you consider that single new cell to be human life and killing that cell intrinsically evil, then you can't even scratch an itch because in the process you'll scrape off and kill several skin cells. This may sound ridiculous, but with your reasoning even scratching that itch is intrinsically evil. -murder, the intentional killing of an innocent, is intrinsically evil -abortion is intrinsically evil Example 1: A foetus is found to have so many defects that it will die shortly after birth. As abortion is intrinsically evil in your opinion, you'd force the parents to sit out the entire pregnancy, knowing that their child will die right after birth. You are thereby prolonging the suffering of the parents. Now *that* is evil. Example 2: During a pregnancy something goes wrong, which leads to the situation that the mother will almost certainly die during childbirth. As abortion (which would save the woman's life) is intrinsically evil IYO you are condemning the woman to death. Now *that* is evil. It's not abortion that is intrinsically evil, it's views like the one you're spouting here that are intrinsically evil. Not to mention short-sighted and narrow-minded. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 02:08 PM 4/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Nick: I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? JDG: No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an intrinsicly evil action. For example, if cost-benefit-analysis showed that our civilization would be better off by rounding up and euthanizing the homeless, I would be opposed to that policy. Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. Doug: OK, but what's that got to do with abortion? There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them -- who believe that abortion is intrinsically evil: that there is no such thing as a just abortion. Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception -murder, the intentional killing of an innocent, is intrinsically evil -abortion is intrinsically evil Since I knew that many of the pro-choice people on this list would have difficuly with this, I used another example where the members of the list would *not* use a cost-benefit analysis to justify the killing of other human beings. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. My favorite passage on the scientific thoughts about when human life actually begins is from Carl Sagan. I don't have the book on hand or I would quote it. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. We're free to destroy our own livers (drinking) or lungs (smoking). After all, it is my body and if I'm an adult in the eyes of the state and understand the consequences then I have right to drink until my liver fails. However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member of Congress). -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ The WorldMaker.Network: Now more Caffeinated! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
