Pink Kate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:ELD2g.109$b26.16185@news.uswest.net...
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:444A902D.C4C11A5B@sympatico.ca...
> > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
>
> bill brought the "gut" part to the table. i showed you pictures of an
> entire herd of slaughtered deer. one was eaten.
>
> or perhaps ALL these people are wrong http://www.usa4id.com/ciwc/
>
> or this: http://www.packsaddleshop.com/Wolfimpelkdeer.html
> "He said he saw wolves repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk
> populations while studying them throughout Canada, and in some
> cases they wiped out local populations of caribou.
>
> "I´ve watches herd after herd (of caribou) go extinct across Canada," he
> said.
> Bergerud said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is
> depressed, then move onto another when it was available."
>
> http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/glens-ferry-wolf.htm ok, thats a bit of
> good news.
The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh, but how did
you let the last one in?
"With the organized livestock interests, it seems there is always two sides
to an issue -- their way, and their way."
What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias. We're not all that Lloyd
fellow, you know.
>
> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>
It's because they are criminals at heart. They can't stand the idea, that
there might be more than one side to an issue, so they have to "settle it",
the only way they know how, outside of the legal system. That is the
definition of "criminal". You could make the same argument for cocaine
importation.
Earle
news:ELD2g.109$b26.16185@news.uswest.net...
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:444A902D.C4C11A5B@sympatico.ca...
> > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
>
> bill brought the "gut" part to the table. i showed you pictures of an
> entire herd of slaughtered deer. one was eaten.
>
> or perhaps ALL these people are wrong http://www.usa4id.com/ciwc/
>
> or this: http://www.packsaddleshop.com/Wolfimpelkdeer.html
> "He said he saw wolves repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk
> populations while studying them throughout Canada, and in some
> cases they wiped out local populations of caribou.
>
> "I´ve watches herd after herd (of caribou) go extinct across Canada," he
> said.
> Bergerud said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is
> depressed, then move onto another when it was available."
>
> http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/glens-ferry-wolf.htm ok, thats a bit of
> good news.
The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh, but how did
you let the last one in?
"With the organized livestock interests, it seems there is always two sides
to an issue -- their way, and their way."
What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias. We're not all that Lloyd
fellow, you know.
>
> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>
It's because they are criminals at heart. They can't stand the idea, that
there might be more than one side to an issue, so they have to "settle it",
the only way they know how, outside of the legal system. That is the
definition of "criminal". You could make the same argument for cocaine
importation.
Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
That's why you should elect a Libertarian president. Give us a chance to
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
That's why you should elect a Libertarian president. Give us a chance to
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
That's why you should elect a Libertarian president. Give us a chance to
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
prove, that we mean what we say.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444AADFA.9D2B7A26@***.net...
> Hi Earle,
> We are picking and choosing which laws we will enforce, look at the
> eleven million criminals invade our country.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > A couple years ago you thought that wolves were "beautiful", and didn't
> > understand how anyone could kill them.
> >
> > No one believes that they are killing children. The whole thing hinges
on
> > how you define a "child". In the absence of a constitutional amendment,
> > which is unlikely, we will have to depend on the Supreme Court, for our
> > definition of "child". Now if the legal definition differs from yours,
then
> > you have a problem. But if you go bombing clinics, and try to use the
> > defense, that you were "preventing children from being killed", then you
> > don't have a legal leg to stand on.
> >
> > This is what I am talking about, with regard to people, who do what is
> > "right", and violate the law. There are a lot of problems, not the
least of
> > which, is that the people who write the laws, might be a little smarter
than
> > you are. Its best to obey the law, unless you have a convincing, well
> > thought out reason, for doing otherwise. "It was the right thing to do"
is
> > probably not good enough.
> >
> > Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:444b10ea$0$14904$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> The first two links point to unbiased, scientific sites, uh-huh,
read the sites earle, plenty of pictures.
> What bothers me about you, is not so much that you are wrong, but your
> obvious anti-intellectual, anti-university bias.
lol.....who is the "intellectual" that i am supposedly against?
>> you have more people than you could imagine organizing to kill
>> wolves and subjecting themselves to FELONY PROSECUTION
>> by doing so. they arent doing it for ***** & giggles.
>>
> It's because they are criminals at heart.
lol.....youve totally dismissed the possiblity that just maybe they too have
seen this for themselves. your mind is CLOSED earle.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
I think what Earle means is "Is it a child that matters ? ".
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
I think what Earle means is "Is it a child that matters ? ".
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
I think what Earle means is "Is it a child that matters ? ".
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
The answer being in this country "no" if it is less than 18 weeks after
conception.
I'm all in favour of abortion ; probably better to kill it rather than have
yet another addition to our 6 billion population that you probably aren't
prepared to look after properly as you didn't want it in the first place.
However there is no point in arguing if the basis for not aborting is based
on religion as the "God Told Me So" argument is almost by definition
irrefutable.
Dave
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
>
>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com