Sodaiho Sodaiho

On Gore, Coulter, and Intelligence

▼

On Gore, Coulter, and Intelligence

Just because you're a smart ass doesn't mean you're good

from JoeUser Forums
With palms together,

Good Morning Everyone,



This morning I read that Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace prize. Congratulations to both winners. I also read an interview with Ann Coulter. In it she said her dream for the United States is that everyone would be Christian and therefore Jews should be perfected by converting. So, there you have it, a liberal and a conservative. You choose.



It is such an interesting time. Anyone can have an opinion and broadcast it to the world.



Discerning readers can choose.



In the interview with Ms. Coulter, Mr. Deutsch (the interviewer) kept repeating, 'but you're an intelligent woman, you can't possibly believe that.' Oh yes, she can and does. Intelligence does not make for reasoned, nor cultured, nor even civilized. We liberals often elevate intelligence to a lofty place assuming a smart person will exercise reason, but this is plainly and clearly, not so. Moreover, we assume reason necessarily leads to morality and civilized behavior



While, as contemporary researcher Howard Gardner has pointed out, there are a number of intelligences, it is also important for us to remember that just because we are intelligent in any one or more of these areas, it does not mean we are necessarily good people nor even that we strive to be good people. Goodness is something else again. Even Gardner has considered expanding his original seven intelligences to nine to include a moral intelligence, existential/spiritual intelligence, and naturalistic intelligence.



Our concern in Zen Buddhism is the will to good which we say is the manifestation of Buddha-nature. We achieve this through our introspective practice of Zazen and our socially engaged practice in the Sangha and the greater world. We express these in our Three Pure Precepts: Cease doing Evil; Do Good; and Bring About Abundant Good for all Beings. Our lives should be both informed and directed by these vows.



Intelligence without a reasoned, moral context, is dangerous as Coulter herself demonstrates.



Be well.
religion
16,098 views 169 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I am not so sure that careless disregard for CO2 emissions, ozone depletion, slash and burn farming, massive parking lots, massive city and suburban sprawl, inefficient use of non-renewable resources, none of this fits our civil or moral responsibilty, nor does it come close to taking care of God's gift to us."

I think we're only arguing about the CO2. Don't bring other things into it, because that's not what is being argued. Now we'll waste time reexplaining that we love the environment, we just don't think CO2 emissions is harming the environment the way you think it is. If you're so gung-ho about CO2, though, the best way to stop CO2 emissions is to stop respirating.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lila: You insult the life's work of very dedicated scientists who have established the link you so demand to see but are unwilling to accept. Whose drinking that KoolAid?

Take a look at the science and get off the religious conceit, please.


I'm truly sad you see what I've said as religious conceit, SoDaiho. As if it wasn't you who first brought up the difference between AlGore's environmental humanism and Ann Coulter's traditional Christianity. As if you didn't expect a debate when you say, "You choose". Why are you all of a sudden so intolerant of my beliefs and views?


Please show where I've insulted the life's work of a dedicated scientist.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am drinking Kool-Aid, I suppose a reference to the Jonestown sort of hysterical suicide pacts, something far more likely of a religious zealot than a Buddhist priest.


No, SoDaiho, not like that...that's mean spirited and that's not me or as I meant it.

Drinking kool-aid to me means when someone goes along with the Algorite global warming spheel because it's a "feel good" thing to do while at the same time refuse to listen to bone fide legitimate arguments that poke holes wide open into his body of work.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, show me scripturally where we should not husband God's gift of creation to us.


I've already said that it is our biblical mandate to be good stewards of the earth and each in our own way take good care of it.

My main beef with AlGore is that he is a environmental humanist opportunist whose record clearly shows he puts saving the earth above saving babies in the womb. I have no respect for him.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
From a Buddhist POV, our vows are to do no harm,


Are you pro-life? Do you protect the life of the baby in the womb?
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
And how exactly do you get more evaporation with parking lots?


You know something Charles? by asking that question says a lot about this whole argument against Global Warming. However, i will try to explain it to you.

When rain water falls on grass or dirt it moves along at a much slower speed than on paved surfaces. also, the ground is porous and allows water to go underground. more time on the porous grass/dirt leads to a lot of water going into the ground and not available for evaporation..... paved surfaces are not porous and nothing goes underground and much much more water is available for evaporation...... with me so far charles?

on top of that, when the sun hits the grass or dirt they dont get hot as much as paved surfaces because of the porosity and because of their natural ability to absorb more heat for the same rise in temp (called specific heat).

Now put the two together and you can see the result: More water on impervious surface that is at higher temp than the surrounding grass or dirt. what you get is much more evaporation at a higher rate than from grass/dirt.

next time you are getting in your car, touch the pavement and then touch the grass or dirt you will see the difference for yourself.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula: Are you pro-life? Do you protect the life of the baby in the womb?

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I do not believe a fetus is a baby. I believe life begins at birth...its why we call it "birth."
_________________

jthier: I think we're only arguing about the CO2. Don't bring other things into it, because that's not what is being argued. Now we'll waste time reexplaining that we love the environment, we just don't think CO2 emissions is harming the environment the way you think it is. If you're so gung-ho about CO2, though, the best way to stop CO2 emissions is to stop respirating.

Incorrect. We are discussing among other things, such as greenhouse gases (including water vapor and CO2) and man's contribution. Slash and burn policies create an enormous amout of CO2 and this is man-made. Parking lot pooling of water, aside from the loss of plant life in the process of paving also increases CO2 as well as water vapor. Goodness jthier, are you asking me to die?

_______________

Lula: Please show where I've insulted the life's work of a dedicated scientist.

I have given you sources regarding the science and scientists, some of whom have been the sources for Gore's documentary. You dismiss it by suggesting they must be all drinking Al Gore's KoolAid. To me, that's insulting. I do expect a debate, but a debate with facts. I have given references, even page citations in support of my contention. Other than the fact that you dislike Al Gore for his stance on abortion, what have you offered in the way of evidence that the data he is reporting is incorrect? Argue from reason, argue from emotion, but don't confuse the two. Gore is passionate about his topic, but he has hard data to support it. People who oppose him are opposing his political and moral stance at the expense of the data. That's precisely what the right tends to do and they call those on the left whiners? *chuckles*

See ya.


__________________
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or should we just take the pavement part out and just leave dirt so that the water can be sucked up by it. Oh yea and forget about mud puddles and stuck cars.


That is all you can think of? it is All or Nothing to you? my goodness people.

What is going on? is it either we do what we wish regardless or go back to horse wagons?

There is a thing called "reasonable and efficient", cant we do that? isn't that what smart people do?

get more smaller cars (less parking area per car before you ask), more mass transit (less cars), more efficient engines (less emissions and less oil), less useless driving(less emissions and less oil), ...etc. all this and more will decrease our contribution to global warming. no matter how small it is. ANY THING will help even if the main reason is the SUN. suppose it is actually the Sun, cant we be smart and minimize its effect by reducing what we generate?

It is insane not to do that. We or our grandkids are in danger and we arguing about who and what is causing it?

I really cant even believe we are having this discuusion.

and what exactly is wrong in developing new technologies and businesses to avoid the danger?

Are you guys against new technologies and new businesses? or is it because it is led by the Dem and Al Gore?

For God's sake forget the Dem and Gore ..... let us get them all arrested and tape their mouths and get one right-winger to lead this effort. OK?

if that makes this opposing arguments stop, i have no problem at all with that soultion.
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
when God created the earth, He lifted up a sufficient water to expose the desired extent of dry land and arched it over the atmosphere above the planet.

they suggest that God instantly turned this water into vapor form (superheated transparent steam) and established it in a pressure-temperature distribution that would not require miracles to maintain. This transparent canopy would have held about 10 times the amount of water contained in the cloud systems above the planet today.

A greenhouse effect would have ensued with pleasant temperatures at all parts of the planet. This in turn would have established lush vegetation to grow in all areas. The atmospheric pressure would have been about 2.18 times that of todays, thus facilitating giant forms of life to exist. It would have also aided longetivity Genesis records that in the pre-Flood world that men lived for hundreds of years.

The sheer extent of buried tropical vegetation and animals which could only live in temperate conditions shows the earth must once have had a worldwide temperature climate.

Since only gentle winds would have prevailed before the Flood, the great flying birds could have readily coped. If the idea of a canopy and greenhouse effect seems fantastic one can point to another canopy in existence today on the planet Venus. The temperature at the poles and at the equator are about the same.

The Higher atmospheric pressure provides a clue as to why Noah was drunk after he had re-established his family on the earth after the waters had receded. He was caught off guard with the canopy gone the rate of formulation of the alcohol in the wine would have speeded up and Noah would not have anticipated there being more alcohol in the wine.

One scientist proposed that the pre-flood atmosphere was very much richer in CO2 whose warmer oceans were perhaps 60 degrees. This effected man's longevity. the richer amounts of co2 in the atmosphere resulted in dilation of the blood vessels increasing oxygen flow, and thus rendered the hypothalamus less active and thereby retarded the aging process


see?

this is exactly the kinda solid irrefutable factual evidence needed to invalidate the radical left's ridiculous pseudo-scientific game of smoke & mirrors or should we say greenhouse gas and reflective surfaces?

strip gore of his prize and give it instead to fred flintstone.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is exactly the kinda solid irrefutable factual evidence needed


Fascinating science indeed. Have you noticed how accurate it is? 2.18 atm pressure. With a canopy of superheated steam on top too. In the middle of a sub-zero temp stratosphere without any miracles no less. Thermodynamics be damned. it is just a theory too.
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you ThinkAloud and Kingbee for your assistance here.

LW, In New Mexico it is difficult to discern the differences. We co-exist here with several Native American tribes who are 'pagan' in that they profess animistic religious beliefs and practices. I have met several 'honest' pagans who are Anglo. But in the main they are as you suggest, wannabes. We have a host of 'healers', 'shamans' and herbal medicine practitioners. There are a few covens. But to answer your question, I missed the fair, as I was otherwise commited that day.

As for me, I think I'm going to my monastery for a few days. Much quieter there.

A bow to you,
Be well.
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Goodness jthier, are you asking me to die?"

No, not at all, just offering a helpful suggestion to anyone who might want to reduce CO2 emissions. It was a joke. Hey, if you feel you want to die for the cause, you can, but I won't make you. Have fun at the monastery, and sorry it wasn't funny.

If I was going to ask you to die, I'd be much more specific.
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
KINGBEE POSTS:
this is exactly the kinda solid irrefutable factual evidence needed to invalidate the radical left's ridiculous pseudo-scientific game of smoke & mirrors or should we say greenhouse gas and reflective surfaces?


Kingbee,
Are you making fun of my reply #105?   I expected it would raise some eyebrows!

This is no biggy, but I would point out my reply #105 was directed to Jythier in response to his comment concerning vapor and greenhouse gas. Jythier is a Christian and I felt comfortable asking him:

Have you ever studied the pre-Flood water vapor canopy in Genesis 1:7?



What you are poking fun at is a Christian scientist's understanding of Gen. 1:7. Please note that I didn't submit it as "solid irrefutable factual evidence" which is clear when I wrote

they suggest that God instantly turned this water into vapor form



and

One scientist proposed that the pre-flood atmosphere was very much richer in CO2



Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula: Are you pro-life? Do you protect the life of the baby in the womb?

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I do not believe a fetus is a baby. I believe life begins at birth...its why we call it "birth."


I'm disappoined to learn this, yet not surprised. So you are fine with having babies at 6, 7, 8, and 9 months and moments before birth being slaughtered in the womb...by late-term abortions.

Facts are that you and I and every human being were at the "fetus" stage of life...and our mothers chose to allow us to grow and be "born" from the womb.

From the moment of life at conception we grow through stages---you absolutely had to pass through your "fetus" stage of life to become the adult stage now.


So you don't honor the principle established by the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created (not born) equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the first of which is the right to LIFE.

Instead you honor and supercede a women's so called "right to privacy" (1973 Roe v. Wade)over the unborn child's unalienable right to life? You, a Buddhist priest honors a woman or girl's "right" to say bug off, you're not wanted, you're inconvient?


From a Buddhist POV, our vows are to do no harm,


Is not abortion doing harm to the babe in the womb. Of course it is, fatal harm.

Can you see how this is man making himself God? And follow this through to the time in life when man becomes old, disabled, no longer "useful", a burden on society...what then? Shall the strong man euthanize them?

No, abortion..euthanasia is not the solution to the problem. They are only the elimination of a human perceived as a problem.

Last, when you say, "I do not believe a fetus is a baby", it shows that you haven't really thought the practice of abortion through only that you have been seduced by the sophistry of pro-abortion industry and drinking their culture of death kool-aid.
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know something Charles? by asking that question says a lot about this whole argument against Global Warming. However, i will try to explain it to you.

When rain water falls on grass or dirt it moves along at a much slower speed than on paved surfaces. also, the ground is porous and allows water to go underground. more time on the porous grass/dirt leads to a lot of water going into the ground and not available for evaporation..... paved surfaces are not porous and nothing goes underground and much much more water is available for evaporation...... with me so far charles?

on top of that, when the sun hits the grass or dirt they dont get hot as much as paved surfaces because of the porosity and because of their natural ability to absorb more heat for the same rise in temp (called specific heat).

Now put the two together and you can see the result: More water on impervious surface that is at higher temp than the surrounding grass or dirt. what you get is much more evaporation at a higher rate than from grass/dirt.

next time you are getting in your car, touch the pavement and then touch the grass or dirt you will see the difference for yourself.


I think that was what I said as well. But think about it, not all water gets absorbed by the ground, the sun still evaporates some of it just not all of it. But some of that water makes it to lakes and rivers and the ocean where there is always water to evaporate. In the end there is always a lot of water to evaporate no matter what happens to it. Besides, the average parking lot has drainage that moves the water so not all parking lots fill up like pools and then create so much vapor.

I think this whole parking lot thing is ridiculous. Water gets stuck on buildings, parks, sidewalks, cars, trucks, stadiums, and even on saturated dirt. I seriously doubt we have somehow messed up the balance of how much water evaporates.

That is all you can think of? it is All or Nothing to you? my goodness people.

What is going on? is it either we do what we wish regardless or go back to horse wagons?

There is a thing called "reasonable and efficient", cant we do that? isn't that what smart people do?

get more smaller cars (less parking area per car before you ask), more mass transit (less cars), more efficient engines (less emissions and less oil), less useless driving(less emissions and less oil), ...etc. all this and more will decrease our contribution to global warming. no matter how small it is. ANY THING will help even if the main reason is the SUN. suppose it is actually the Sun, cant we be smart and minimize its effect by reducing what we generate?

It is insane not to do that. We or our grandkids are in danger and we arguing about who and what is causing it?

I really cant even believe we are having this discuusion.

and what exactly is wrong in developing new technologies and businesses to avoid the danger?

Are you guys against new technologies and new businesses? or is it because it is led by the Dem and Al Gore?

For God's sake forget the Dem and Gore ..... let us get them all arrested and tape their mouths and get one right-winger to lead this effort. OK?

if that makes this opposing arguments stop, i have no problem at all with that soultion.


In sorry TS, but the way things are being portrayed I can not see it any other way. We can always change a little to slow things down but, if we are decrying the damage we are causing, should we not try to stop it as oppose to delay it? That would mean reverting back to when we used horses and manual labor for everything. You may think I am looking for one way or another with no middle but it's not me the one advocating this, it's people like Al Gore who are. You can't stop a catastrophe by delaying it.
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm disappoined to learn this, yet not surprised. So you are fine with having babies at 6, 7, 8, and 9 months and moments before birth being slaughtered in the womb...by late-term abortions.

Facts are that you and I and every human being were at the "fetus" stage of life...and our mothers chose to allow us to grow and be "born" from the womb.

From the moment of life at conception we grow through stages---you absolutely had to pass through your "fetus" stage of life to become the adult stage now.


So you don't honor the principle established by the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created (not born) equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the first of which is the right to LIFE.

Instead you honor and supercede a women's so called "right to privacy" (1973 Roe v. Wade)over the unborn child's unalienable right to life? You, a Buddhist priest honors a woman or girl's "right" to say bug off, you're not wanted, you're inconvient?


Who said I was "fine" with it? I am not fine, not at all. I am not a medical doctor, nor a mother, and I certainly don't have a rigid rule book in front of me. All of us were sperm and egg before we were fetus. Your point I suppose is that conceptionb constitutes a baby and terms such as birth need not apply. We disagree. I think the issue is far more complex. I do not support abortion, per se, but I do not always oppose it. Ethics must have some degree of flexibility or its hardly ethical.

Yes all men are created equal. I take that to mean women as well. I also do not understand a fetus to be either.

Is not abortion doing harm to the babe in the womb. Of course it is, fatal harm.

Can you see how this is man making himself God? And follow this through to the time in life when man becomes old, disabled, no longer "useful", a burden on society...what then? Shall the strong man euthanize them?

No, abortion..euthanasia is not the solution to the problem. They are only the elimination of a human perceived as a problem.

Last, when you say, "I do not believe a fetus is a baby", it shows that you haven't really thought the practice of abortion through only that you have been seduced by the sophistry of pro-abortion industry and drinking their culture of death kool-aid.


Abortion clearly does harm, as does war, capital punishment, torture, and all manner of things. Yet, we do not always unilaterally condemn any one of them. Then again, sometimes unwanted birth also does harm. As does our willingness to demand a human being continue a course of action she is not willing to continue per force. Killing is always bad. Yet, sometimes killing is the lessor of several courses of action. I do not believe our justice system has any real business involving itself in the personal lives of families, especially as regards their reproduction.

Have I thought about this? How can anyone not? My daughter has had an abortion. I learned after the fact, a result of rape. Would I want her to do this? No. Is it my business? Partially. Yet, in truth it is, afterall, her body. She is an atheist. So, what right do you, a total stranger, have to force your belief system on her? Certainly no more than I. In the end, she is a free citizen.

Yes, I have thought about it. I don't like it, but I don't like war either or capital punishment or illegal wire-tapping.

See ya.

Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top

Draginol: Yes, I have seen the film, twice, and read the companion book. I also have read a number of biologists, including E. O. Wilson from Harvard (and Pulitzer prize winner x 2. Its interesting that he, scientist extraordinaire, supports the hypothesis and you say the science isn't there. Bull. The science is there, you just do not for whatever reason wish to accept it.

The core samples Dr. Thompson took of glaciers, for example, revealed through calculating the isotope ratios of oxygen in the samples a steady increase in global temperatures and CO2 from the year 1000. Other studies in Antarctica confirmed a steady correlation of CO2 and air temperatures from 600.000 years ago to a rapid rise beginning about a thousand years ago. The CO2 measurements were between 150 and 260 ppm for 600,000 years, but over the last 1000 years there has been a rise to about 350 ppm and rising. With each rise in CO2 level there is a correlated rise in environmental temperature. This trend has been tracked back over a half million years. (see Gore. Al, An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, 2006: pp 65-67). And see Wilson, E. O., Creation: an appeal to save life on earth , WW Norton, 2006: p.16) (There is also a fascination discussion of the rapid extinction of species exceeding species birthrates and the related causes [one being pollution] in chapter 8).

I have looked at the science. You look at the analysis made by people.

For instance, look what you wrote above, you completely buy into something that has been proven false over and over.

Temperature increases PRECEED CO2 increases, not the other way around.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm

CO2 increases in the atmosphere are an effect of warmer weather, not the other way around. There is definitely a relationship, just not the one you are arguing for.

And do you know what ppm stands for? parts per MILLION.  CO2 is a trivial element of our atmosphere. Its effects on temperature are completely unproven.

Rather than reading politically motivated analysis on climate change, why not look at the data yourself?

The ice core samples from Greeland and Antartica give us an idea of the atmospheric composition. The truly "inconvenient truth" is that CO2 increases came as a result of higher temperatures.

Humans are certainly adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But there's no causation link between CO2 causing higher temperatures in the trivial amounts we're talking.

There are plenty of other hypothesis's that are much more sound (ever looked at how much methane has gone up? It's 20X worse than CO2.  And that's also been going up.  But the biggest causes of it are from the food we eat (massive factory farms).  But it's not realistic to demand that people stop eating meat so they latch onto weaker hypothesis's.

 

Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
We don't even create new humans. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're just manipulating what's there to procreate, not creating something.
Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top
For instance, look what you wrote above, you completely buy into something that has been proven false over and over.
Temperature increases PRECEED CO2 increases, not the other way around.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm


Draginol: Thank you for these links. The first one, most damning, I suppose from your point of view, is from a family affair, funded by the Western Fuels and Exxon, but even this only argues against a strictly casual relationship as opposed to correlation. When dealing with time spans this large correlations are far more important, I believe. Moreover, your second source essentially lays out the same data Gore presents in the film. That graph is nearly identical in terms of the correlations between CO2 levels and atmosheric temperatures. Follow the lines, please. Note the spiked green line (CO2 levels) at the most recent measure on the chart. This should be worrisome, without causal relationship, and only if there is a correlation. By analogy, the cigarette manufactures attempted every which way to wiggle out of damages. Cigarettes didn't "cause" cancer. Lots of other variables could easily be at play. True. However, the correlations were high and the probability levels correspondingly so. OK, cause? Perhaps. Correlation? Absolutely. Now, do you wish to bank your life on the "doesn't cause" line or the "correlation" line? My sense is anyone with sense would go with the later.

Be well.
Yes, I am just a little familiar with the term, ppm. CWRU doctoral programs are pretty good. I wouldcaution you, however, not to minimize the effects of small amounts.
Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
We don't even create new humans. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're just manipulating what's there to procreate, not creating something.


Now that's my kind of science or labor. You decide.
Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who said I was "fine" with it? I am not fine, not at all.


You yourself said you are fine with having babies at 6, 7, 8, and 9 months and moments before birth being slaughtered in the womb...by late-term abortions.

when you said:

I do not believe a fetus is a baby. I believe life begins at birth...its why we call it "birth."


If you believe that life doesn't begin until the baby is born, then it only follows that you must be fine with aborting babies at 6,7, 8, and nine months and up to moments before birth.

I guess you've never seen an ultrasound, you know pictures of babies in the womb....they sure look live babies and move around like live babies too. Didn't your wife ever tell you when the baby was "kicking"? How do you reconcile that with your belief that life begins at birth?
Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula: It does not follow at all. Someone can be undecided, unsure, or believe in some circumstances action "A" is correct and other circumstances, action "B" is correct. I am not fine with abortion, per se, but I am not willing support it being made illegal. As I said earlier, there are a lot of things I am not fine with that either I cannot prevent or have no business involving myself in. My neighbor's bedroom or womb being two.

Fetus's are not babies, regardless of how close they might resemble one. Fetuses are fetuses, babies are babies. Lets keep the language straight. There is no need to reconcile these; they are different stages of the process.

Interesting that you keep hammering away at the second and third trimester. What about the first? And before? As a Catholic, you would have us not practice contraception, not use condoms, not masterbate? Where does it all end, Lula, you on the religious right determinining what's right for the rest of us?

Be well.
Reply #123 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it might end at not destroying life.

Life is a noun meaning "the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual."

That fetus is moving and growing, animate is defined as "able to move voluntarily."
Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not fine with abortion, per se, but I am not willing support it being made illegal.


Enough already that you are not "fine" with government protected abortion. When it comes down to brass tacks, of course you are.

There is no such thing as "legal" abortion. It's sanctioned abortion or protected child-killing. Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural or moral law.

The practice of a procured abortion is opposed to the natural law, so it's not "legal", it's a corruption of law. This is the case of the so-called "Laws" or "rights" that protect and sanction procured abortion which is the deliberate and direct killing by whatever means it is carried out of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder. Murder is against the Fifth Commandment of Almighty God. When used with abortion, the word "right" is an oxymoron.

Fetus's are not babies, regardless of how close they might resemble one. Fetuses are fetuses, babies are babies. Lets keep the language straight. There is no need to reconcile these; they are different stages of the process.


Yes, please let's keep the language straight. Fetus is a physiological term devoid of human character. The media and abortion industry use it to divert people's thoughts away from the humanity of the unborn child. Every mammal is a fetus before birth but only a human is an unborn child. The proper term for fetus is an unborn child.

Reply #125 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where does it all end, Lula, you on the religious right determinining what's right for the rest of us?


It all ends at the end of our life or at the end of the world which ever one comes first at which point we'll all will bow before the Judge, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

No, it's not any man who determines what's right for us...Our Lord God has done that..He's given the guidelines...He's set the standard...He's laid down His laws....

The very foolish man scoffs at them.