A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Off Topic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old August 5th 19, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,598
Default Off Topic

On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.


While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.


Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.


Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?

What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.


So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.

And that site mentions the fact that "The most common gestational limit
for countries in this category is 12 weeks." That's putting it rather
mildly. Only a very few (fewer than 10) countries allow abortions as
late as the U.S. Yes, it varies state by state, but there are U.S.
states with no real gestational limits. Again, personal responsibility
seems hardly worth considering.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #72  
Old August 5th 19, 04:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,598
Default Off Topic

On 8/4/2019 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.


John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.


Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems...


No, that's not what I meant.

You claimed that such behavior was "uniquely Christian." It's not,
absolutely not. As I hinted, there are _many_ counterexamples.

Do look up the hindu treatment of buddhists for just one counterexample.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #73  
Old August 5th 19, 07:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 501
Default Off Topic

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the ****
up”.


As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.


Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #74  
Old August 5th 19, 07:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 501
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 20:24:12 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/4/2019 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent "oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably, Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.

John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.


Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems, but
does this somehow negate the Crusader deliberate slaughter of
essentially the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099. Or the so
called "Inquisition", first established in Languedoc (south of France)
in 1184 and formally ended in the mid 19th century.
Or the so called "Holocaust" a carefully planned elimination of an
entire race of people carried out by (at least) nominal Christians.
--
cheers,

John B.


for Buddhist vs Hindu the Sri Lanka war comes readily to mind.


Ah yes, the battle between native Sri Lankans and illegal immigrants.
If they only have had a guy with a blond comb-over to built a wall the
"war" would have never been fought. :-)

But historically
Tamil-speaking Hindus agitated for greater autonomy. In 1973 and
demanded an independent state in their area.

The request for an independent state was denied by the ruling majority
Singhalese (Buddhist) community.

Sounds a bit like the U.S. Civil War, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #75  
Old August 5th 19, 07:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 501
Default Off Topic

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 19:17:54 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.


While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.


Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.


Apparently the "operation" is not that delicate, nor dangerous, when
performed by professional. And in some of the more primitive countries
that I've lived in there are no laws against it so actual licensed
doctors perform the operation.


And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless. What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

-- Jay Beattie.

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #76  
Old August 5th 19, 03:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default Off Topic

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.


Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.


Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?


Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency.. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.


What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.


So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.


Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.


And that site mentions the fact that "The most common gestational limit
for countries in this category is 12 weeks." That's putting it rather
mildly. Only a very few (fewer than 10) countries allow abortions as
late as the U.S. Yes, it varies state by state, but there are U.S.
states with no real gestational limits. Again, personal responsibility
seems hardly worth considering.


Assuming the state has taken an entirely hands-off approach, late stage abortions usually come down to availability of doctors who will perform the procedure and standard of care.


Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."


We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal. You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #77  
Old August 5th 19, 03:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,310
Default Off Topic

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/4/2019 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the
insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent
"oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account
for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not
murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from
state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on
murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth
Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not
absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god
wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many
years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably,
Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for
prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to
what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian
conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We
contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.

John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.


Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems...


No, that's not what I meant.

You claimed that such behavior was "uniquely Christian." It's not,
absolutely not. As I hinted, there are _many_ counterexamples.

Do look up the hindu treatment of buddhists for just one counterexample.


People of all religions have always done bad things to each other, but I
thought John's original claim was that Christians were unique in trying
to force their neighbors to conform to their own beliefs. He has a bit
of a point. Christianity and Islam are both evangelistic religions --
believers have a duty to try to spread the faith. Judaism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Shintoism and many others, so far as I know, do not have such
a requirement.

Islam and Christianity are actually very similar, which, I suppose, is
why their adherents get along so well with each other.

During the past 1000 years or so, it seems clear to me that Christians,
particularly Western Christians, have had the lion's share of success in
spreading their religion by force.
  #78  
Old August 5th 19, 04:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,598
Default Off Topic

On 8/5/2019 10:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.


Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?


Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.


Please recognize what you said above: "... moralizing out people's
sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless." And yet we DO
have laws against many sexual practices like ones you named: incest,
rape, public indecency, etc. You argue against yourself.

What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.


So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.


Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.


First, please understand my views. I've never said we should outlaw the
use of helmets (which would be the true opposite of a MHL), and I've
never said we should outlaw all abortions.

But "most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion"
only up to about 12 weeks into the pregnancy, although the laws vary
based on reasons for the request and other factors. The U.S. is in a
very tiny minority saying, in effect, "any time, for any reason." That
is cavalier by the definition.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."


We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal.


Yes, and there have always been murder, and rape, and theft, and
assault, and blackmail, etc. Yet we do have laws that attempt to prevent
them. Those laws almost certainly do reduce them.

You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because

Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

Jay, condoms don't break often enough to generate hundreds of thousands
of abortion requests per year. If they did, the manufacturers would have
long ago been sued out of business. The vast majority of those requests
come because birth control was deliberately not used. They are far more
often the result of "Oh, what the hell, let's do it." It's the opposite
of personal responsibility.

Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #79  
Old August 5th 19, 04:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,598
Default Off Topic

On 8/5/2019 10:53 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/4/2019 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:02:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 21:45:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 20:14:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:19:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:
... even a sensible Democrat is clearly superior to the
insane asylum the Left has conjured up out of the fraudulent
"oppression" of tiny minorities, who together cannot account
for rolling a single log...

Agreed. And I think lots of people agree.

Murder is definitional -- and if it is licensed, it is not
murder. Whether one can murder a fetus in the US varies from
state to state. The religious and historical prohibition on
murder was to maintain social peace and order. The Fifth
Commandment did not apply to a fetus, at least not
absolutely and not according to the Jews -- whose God god
wrote the rule (although the original was lost for many
years until found by Stephen Spielberg.) Regrettably,
Catholics and conservative Christians have pushed for
prohibition as an article of faith and without regard to
what becomes of the fetus once born, and in fact Christian
conservatives bemoan the "welfare state."

I disagree with that final sentence. At least around here, there are
many church-based institutions that care for women and children, and
there are ongoing congregational charity drives for them. We
contribute.

I'm not "into" women's rights but can the death of a fetus that would
not survive if removed from the mother logically be termed "murder"?

And conversely, babies born after 24 weeks are now regularly saved. But
others are aborted after 24 weeks. Granted, it's not common - but what
should it be called?

I don't know and my thoughts were aimed at early abortion before the
fetus is capable of survival outside the mother. And those who cry
that any abortion is murder.

What should it be called? I don't know and frankly I don't care as my
attitude is that I will do as good as I can do and what you do is up
to you. The uniquely Christian concept that one should run about and
force their neighbors to conform to "their" belief is totally foreign
to me.

Wow. I'm amazed you can call that "uniquely Christian." You must have no
knowledge at all about muslims, , various pagans, etc.

Actually I do as at various times, in my military career I was
assigned to places where there wasn't much reading material so I read
various religious books and at other times I was living or working in
a country that wasn't predominately Christian and felt it useful to
know what "they" were doing.

Moslem -the Holy Koran, i.e.," The Word of God", sets forth the
parameters for "infidels" to reside in a Moslem country. There is no
mandatory conversion required but Infidels must pay a tax.

Buddhists - Nothing in the Buddhist writings, that I have read or are
aware of, requires an adherent to the religion to convert anyone. In
fact there is a early Buddhist sutra that discusses "God" in which
the Buddha says that he hasn't discussed god(s) but has given the
student 8 things to concern himself with. (The Jews had 12 :-)

Pagan - I certainly cannot discuss all "pagans" but certainly the
pagans I worked with in Irian Jaya, some of whom may well have been
cannibals, required anyone to convert to their beliefs.

Atheists - I have no idea. I never met anyone who didn't believe in
anything and tried to convert others to his belief.

Hindu - I'll throw this in for free as many Indonesians from Bali are
Hindu and it is one of the authorized religions in Indonesia and the
Hindus that I worked with never seemed to have any desire to convert
me.

Christians - Ah well, I will leave this up to you. Would you care to
comment on how many have been killed, tortured, forcibly converted,
burned or otherwise killed in the name of Christianity? Quora has it
somewhere in the region of 50 - 100 million.

In comparison, the population of England, in 1086, was estimated to
have been 1.25 - 2 million.

John, read up on the mechanism by which the muslim faith was initially
spread. They used a very different technique than, say, the Mormons.
Read up on the history of atheistic communism and its treatment of
religious people of many types. Read up on hindu treatment of buddhists.
Read up ...

Oh, you get the idea.

Well I have "read up on", to a certain extent, and for example, the
initial spread of the Moslem Faith, usually counted from the return
from Medina to Mecca did not include the massacre of all none Moslems,
or even the mistreatment of none Muslims in Mecca.

Hindu treatment of Buddhists? I'm not aware of just what you are
talking about, perhaps you meant the Hindu treatment of Moslems...


No, that's not what I meant.

You claimed that such behavior was "uniquely Christian." It's not,
absolutely not. As I hinted, there are _many_ counterexamples.

Do look up the hindu treatment of buddhists for just one counterexample.


People of all religions have always done bad things to each other, but I
thought John's original claim was that Christians were unique in trying
to force their neighbors to conform to their own beliefs. He has a bit
of a point.


I'd say a person can't have a "bit of a point" when he uses an absolute
like "unique." Something is either unique, or it's not. It's a binary
choice.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #80  
Old August 5th 19, 08:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default Off Topic

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 10:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.

Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?


Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.


Please recognize what you said above: "... moralizing out people's
sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless." And yet we DO
have laws against many sexual practices like ones you named: incest,
rape, public indecency, etc. You argue against yourself.

What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.


Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.


First, please understand my views. I've never said we should outlaw the
use of helmets (which would be the true opposite of a MHL), and I've
never said we should outlaw all abortions.

But "most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion"
only up to about 12 weeks into the pregnancy, although the laws vary
based on reasons for the request and other factors. The U.S. is in a
very tiny minority saying, in effect, "any time, for any reason." That
is cavalier by the definition.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."


We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal.


Yes, and there have always been murder, and rape, and theft, and
assault, and blackmail, etc. Yet we do have laws that attempt to prevent
them. Those laws almost certainly do reduce them.

You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because

Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

Jay, condoms don't break often enough to generate hundreds of thousands
of abortion requests per year. If they did, the manufacturers would have
long ago been sued out of business. The vast majority of those requests
come because birth control was deliberately not used. They are far more
often the result of "Oh, what the hell, let's do it." It's the opposite
of personal responsibility.


So what? The pregnancy happened. What's next? Forced motherhood? Unwanted children? Public stoning?

You have no end-game except to moralize about lack of self-control and personal responsibility. And if the mother is some god-forsaken harlot who lacks any self-control, what does that tell you about her ability to bear or raise a child?

Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude..


Most industrialized nations do. Pick one and look at the law and practice. Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XUhtFFVKiUk

England, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...United_Kingdom

Risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman - In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance, Lord Justice Laws said: "There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail."

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pick any place you might actually want to live. France is nice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Netherlands?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...he_Netherlands

And what is cavalier about recognizing a woman's right to control her body during the first trimester? Must the state be involved in every decision about reproduction?

-- Jay Beattie.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Off topic for UK, on topic for another good laugh at cyclists Mr Pounder Esquire UK 1 May 22nd 16 09:25 PM
Three Greatest Inventions (2/3 On Topic, 1/3 Off Topic) Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman General 21 December 19th 06 04:40 AM
Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic spindrift UK 50 August 7th 06 06:25 AM
Sort of on topic/off topic: Rising toll of kids hurt on roads wafflycat UK 4 March 24th 06 05:28 PM
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind Thomas Wentworth General 7 November 8th 05 09:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.