On a recent thread on abortion, J stated the following: "Once one starts believing that it's okay to kill babies in the womb, it must be a slippery slope that allows one to start believing that it's okay to kill them outside the womb as well."

Previous to the "slippery slope" statement, J said, "One last thing, Flint. If a parent chooses to neglect a child by not feeding said child, do you believe that the state should get involved? Why or why not?"

Flint responded with, "As for the state getting involved, that is a hard question. I know infanticide has been practiced by many societies. I don't know at what age someone might deserve state protection, but I know that age cannot be less than zero."

That was all it took for J to go off on Flint [and anyone else who didn't come out and EXPLICITLY state that infanticide should involve the state.] In fact, he declared these folks as having a pro-infanticide stance.

IMO, this required further review. Let's look at the facts.

Herein lies the definition of children in the US who have rights. Notice: "The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children -- born within a marriage or not but excluding children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law." So right here we have it in black and white that unborn children have no rights, while BORN children do. But let's go on with J's "slippery slope" argument.

How many folks in the US engage in infanticide? Department of justice statistics Pretty awful, eh? Who are these people and how are they being punished? Here are some stories from DC. It's a slippery slope from having a rag in the house to stuffing that rag in one's child's mouth. Shouldn't we outlaw rags? Pillows can easily be used to suffocate an infant, so shouldn't we outlaw them? Of course alcohol should be abolished, as well, as one might fall asleep with an infant in the bed and smother him. The slope is EXTREMELY slippery.

J had a problem when the state interfered with the folks in Waco, despite allegations that the children there were being abused sexually by Koresh. Well, here's an example: < a href="http://www.rickross.com/reference/upci11.html">Example. I've read about several others lately wherein the pastor of the church had grown men hold children down so they could be whipped. One of the children complained to his teacher that his back hurt, and when she lifted his shirt, she saw the welts from the whippings. The father of eleven children is refusing to allow his children to be taken from him by the state. He believes that whipping children is good for them. J, apparently, believes that raping 12 and 13 year old girls is "good for them". It's religious freedom, afterall....kindof like a belief that a rag in the mouth will quiet an infant.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001

Answers

lies the definition of children in the US who have rights. Notice: "The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children -- born within a marriage or not but excluding children not yet born.

May I comment? Hope it is not too off topic. IF that is the case, explain why some folks get charged with vehicular homocide when an unborn child is killed during a (lets say) drunk driver hitting mom to be.?

I am honestly seeking opinions here.

J, apparently, believes that raping 12 and 13 year old girls is "good for them". It's religious freedom, afterall....kindof like a belief that a rag in the mouth will quiet an infant.

Can you please direct me (in all fairness) to where J stated that? If he did not state that, then imo, you are placing some fairly judgemental words in his mouth.

Mind you, J can hold his/her own, but look at what you just wrote. I think that is a little much, again, imo.

Please elaborate. Thank you.

-- aname (whats@in.aname), March 21, 2001.

I'm not familiar with any FEDERAL laws involving a fetus and car accidents. The one you reference may have been a State or County law [but I've not seen those either.] In fact, it's just been introduced into the Congress that someone who slays a pregnant woman beyond a certain point may be accused of homicide in the case of the fetus, or double homicide if both the mother and fetus die. This has NOT been passed yet.

Testimony regarding Koresh states that he was having sex with 12 and 13 year old girls in the compound in Waco. J felt that the state had no right to interfere in Waco. In fact, J stated that the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing was somehow justified because the State interfered in Waco. If J felt that the state had no right to interfere in the Waco situation, how else could one see it? NO ONE denies that the situation could have been handled better, but once the Waco folks shot two agents, the emotions of the other agents took over. When we get to the point of Robo-cops, this could change, but right now we have people TRYING to remove children from an abusive situation and the folks in the compound shooting at them.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

J:

I've asked you to respond to THIS thread, but you, apparently, cannot leave the other. The state was absolved of setting fire to the Waco Compound. The evidence indicated that the fire was set by Koresh and his followers. Can you look at the Jim Jones incident and tell me that this is not possible? Cults kill themselves when they feel threatened. Who did you expect to testify against Koresh abusing the girls? The parents who allowed it, or the folks who fled the compound because they didn't like what was happening there?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

Anita you were correct, it was a state case.

-- (anita@was.right), March 21, 2001.

Koresh found agents at his compound NOT because of claims of child abuse but because of weapons law violations. Koresh may have been something of a loony cultist, but the child rape stuff was never substantiated. Don't fall for government spin, be it from the right or left.

-- ehhh, (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 21, 2001.

Get ready for aint to ruin this thread as well.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 21, 2001.

Anita,

You have so many errors in your first three posts, I am not sure if it is possible to refute them all.

Let me just ask you one question. You stated in your opening post on this thread that, "That was all it took for J to go off on Flint [and anyone else who didn't come out and EXPLICITLY state that infanticide should involve the state.]".

Are you saying that the state should not get involved in a case of infanticide? Are you saying that the state should turn a blind eye to parents who kill their infants?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

J:

No. Our culture has laws against infanticide. They don't tend to be enforced, but we have them, and they should be honored. We ALSO have laws stating that children have rights that supercede those of parental authority. THESE laws should be honored, as well. We have NO federal laws against abortion, and a fetus has NO rights. Get it?

You choose to defend the "rights" of a fetus, although none exist. You ALSO choose to defend violations of children's rights that ARE protected by law, going even further and defending bombers, knowing full-well that bombing is against the law [and I don't give a HOOT why folks felt justified in said bombings.]

It is YOU, and not ME, nor Flint, nor Tarzan, who has shown a TOTAL disregard of life and the laws that support that life in our society.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

Anita,

It is reassuring to see you say that infanticide is wrong. On the other thread, when you said that, "I feel he was correct in stating that he didn't know at what age an infant acquired rights", you were, in effect, saying that a newborn may not yet have the right to life. This, in turn, allows for a position that infanticide is acceptable. For if an infant does not yet have a right to life, then why shouldn't a mother be allowed to kill it?

It was in looking for clarity on the position of infanticide, not on abortion, that I "went off" on, as you put it.

Flint, by his extension of not acknowledging a baby's right to life at birth, has taken a stance that infanticide is acceptable. Tarzan won't answer the question, for whatever reason.

I do not agree with every law that is on the books in regards to children's rights vs. parental authority. I believe that there are unfortunate instances when the state has unlawfully taken children away from parents, and even more unfortunately, there are instances where children have been killed at the hands of their parents when the state has not acted. Unless these laws are in direct violation of the Constitution, then I believe that they should be honored, as well. If they are unconstitutional, they should be overturned. If they are constitutional, yet poorly legislated, then they should be amended.

We have no federal law against abortion, it is true. And an unborn child currently has no rights at the federal level. However, surely you won't try to stop my efforts to lobby and try to change these things which I find unfair, would you?

I am trying to establish the rights of the unborn, not defend them. Never have I defended violations of children's rights that are protected by a Constitutional law. Nor have I defended bombers. Explaining how the unlawful actions of the government played a role in the unlawful actions of a man is not defending those actions of that man.

Your rant at the end of your post is an emotional outburst that has no basis in fact. As such, I will disregard it.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

J,

Fair is fair. If you feel that Anita's posts contain "so many errors," point them out. Simply saying that without any examples is just an opinion on your part. It's certainly your right, but it doesn't do much to convince others.

Just for the record, I'm very much pro-life, but I can't directly dispute the figures that Anita posted links to. If you can, do so.

On the slippery slope thing in general: Do you know what has given me a lot of peace about this in recent years? Sure, I believe that we need to keep an eye on incrementalism (and sneaky laws snuck in under the transom when no one is looking[g]), but I finally realized a few years ago that, for all its flaws, our system of government basically works, given half a chance.

Until a majority of people in this country strongly feel (the operative word is "strongly") that abortion should be outlawed, it will stay legal.

And you know what? That's how our system works. That's as it should be.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 21, 2001.

Stephen,

Fair enough.

She states that unborn children have no rights, while born children do, and yet she takes issue with me calling Flint to task for not acknowledging an infant's right to life.

The logic of her whole "outlaw rags", "outlaw pillows", "outlaw alcohol", bit was completely beyond my comprehension. If you can make something coherent out of it for me, please do.

She seems to think that because of allegations of abuse in Waco, I should be happy that the government killed all of the women and children there.

She loosely cites some story about pastors who allegedly whip children, and then somehow tries to make it look like I approve.

She tried to say that I believe that raping 12 and 13 year old girls is good for them, with, of course, no supporting evidence, as there is none.

She said that I felt that the state had no right to "interfere" in Waco, because I was outraged that the state "killed" everybody in Waco.

She said that "I" stated that the OK bombing was somehow justified because of the murders in Waco. When, of course, what I said was that "McVeigh" felt that the OK bombing was justified because of the murders in Waco. A subtle distinction that must have been too subtle for Anita.

The classic, "but once the Waco folks shot two agents, the emotions of the other agents took over". As if "emotions" made it okay to burn 80 women and children to death!

Her belief that the federal agents the day of the shootout were trying to remove children when they were actually there on a trumped up gun charge.

Her belief that the evidence pointed to the fire being started by the Davidians is an opinion that is open for debate, but one that I believe is false.

I may have missed others.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 21, 2001.

Here's a hot link to the example given for those too lazy to copy and paste it. Heh...[much like I was too lazy to fix the thing.]

J: The Koresh organization was a cult. I've read through the transcripts of the phone conversations with the FBI numerous times, and it was clear to ME that they set the fire themselves. I understand your fascination with God, guns, and gold, but you've implied yourself that children shouldn't be put in situations where the state has no authority to intervene in cases of abuse. Well, I THOUGHT you implied that in your condemnation of infanticide, but now you seem to state that child welfare should NOT be monitored by the state.

I don't have any objection to your lobby against abortion. Lobbying, however, is done via writing Congresscritters with your objections to current law. It is NOT done on obscure fora using "slippery slope" arguments. I regularly lobby my Congresscritters, myself, but I don't lobby for the unborn. I lobby for the kids who find themselves in abusive situations AFTER they're born. My three turned out just fine without a need to ever lay a hand on them in punishment. If folks can't raise children, I'd much rather they abort them than have them suffer at the hands of their own parents or those the parents trust to tell them what to do.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

Dennis,

Let's try not to rewrite history here. I recall very well the thread where you WERE defending the Oklahoma bombing as a legitimate action taken because of government oppression. Someone of your upstanding moral background realyy shouldn't lie like that. And shame on you for supporting the rights of dangerous nuts to rape little girls! Wouldn't be a hobby of yours would it?

Anyway hunker down in your bunker with your trusty AK-47. We will come to get you sooner or later. While you are biding your time try reading the Harry Potter series, they are really quite entertaining, harmless pieces of fiction.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 22, 2001.

In some societies it is perfectly right and moral, to them to kill children, mostly due to limited resources. They kill their children sometimes so they do not die an agonizing death from starvation. Just one example. Can I really say that these people are wrong? That in their society, if they have a 5 year old male, who may become a strong hunter, and another child is born of either gender who is weak or sickly, and only enough food for one, is it wrong? I cannot make that judgement. In fact, I cannot necesarily make ANY morally ABSOLUTE judgement.

That is the biggest distinction between myself and most others on this board. I am NOT a moral absolutist. Good and Evil are entirley relative and man-made. I have no idea why one soul would murder another and the other choose to be murdered, but those souls made those choices. Hitler went to heaven.

I know but one person here who understands my point-That though I believe in no absolutes, I will fight passionately for what I believe is right. Remove moral absolutism from the picture, remove socrates, and Locke, and Kant from the picture, and the dichotomies dissolve-such as pro-life/pro choice.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2001.

No point here, just something I remember from Mitchener's book Hawaii. In the beginning of the book, he wrote about the life of the native Hawaiians before Europeans and Asians arrived.

The royal family always bred within itself, brother to sister. Many generations of this incestuous breeding produced some interesting eugenic results. The Royals were physically grander than the general population. Also, not surprisingly, there was a high rate of freaky kids born to the Royals. The freaks were always immediately drowned.

Sooner or later, there was a male and a female keeper. Lono blessed them and the fun continued.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 22, 2001.

Interesting story there, Lars. FS, I think there are more folks who feel the way you do on this forum than you think.

This "slippery slope" logic has always fascinated me. I'd already seen it used several times by folks against abortion. I've seen it applied elsewhere, as well. I think we all remember someone telling us that if we tried marijuana, we'd turn into heroin addicts. Some folks think that if a young girl gets her ears pierced, she'll go on to navel piercings [and piercings of other areas], and by golly, by the time that young girl skates down that slippery slope, she'll be riding on the back of a motorcycle, robbing the local convenience store. As JBT pointed out, some folks think that reading Harry Potter books lead a child into devil worship or something. I'll have to pick those up some day. I really miss keeping up with the children's books.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

Anita,

The FBI also clearly said that they didn't use incendiary military gas cannisters that day, too. Until they were caught in their lie, of course. Believe what you wish about Waco, just try to understand that what you believe is by no means certain.

Debating with you is frustrating, Anita, because you make the same errors over and over again. Your primary error is that you state that people have said something that they have not. This means that you are either badly mistaken, or lying. Either way, one must take the time to refute your assinine statements. Here is a perfect example:

You wrote, "but you've implied yourself that children shouldn't be put in situations where the state has no authority to intervene in case of abuse". How does your brain work? Please explain where I "implied" that.

You then concede, "Well, I THOUGHT you implied that in your condemnation of infanticide, but now you seem to state that child welfare should NOT be monitored by the state". Again, it is far beyond my scope to figure out where your brain is rambling, so please make a specific argument using what I actually said, instead of drawing some harebrained conclusion based on what you think that I implied by what I seemed to have state.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

FutureShock,

You have no morals. Congratulations.

Souls choose to be murdered, huh? Wow, that must be some good dope that you're smoking, dude.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

FutureShock - You are correct. Good and Bad are relative and are human constructs. These types of arguments are generally pointless. I think everyone here is abhorred at the thought of aborting a fetus. Fortunately, we live in America where we have the right to choose. I think the problems start when right wing moral majority fuck heads decide to push their definition of morality onto everyone else. It is a pro choice or no choice question. Keep killing out of the equation. By the way Future Shock, your confusing the hell out of the less evolved souls here when you let them know that they choose the death of their physical body. RIP!

-- Mikel (mej023@earthlink.net), March 22, 2001.

J: I can assure you that I'm not lying. My memory isn't so hot, but I do NOT lie intentionally.

It was my understanding that you felt that the state should intervene in cases of infanticide. If the state doesn't, who will? Actually, your "lobby" for abortion being illegal indicates that you feel that the state should intervene before birth. OTOH, you have stated on this thread [and I don't need a memory to go back and read what you said] that you didn't approve of the state intervening in child- rearing. So, if parents choose to whip their children, subject them to the abuse of others, etc., you seem to think that's okay as long as it doesn't result in death.

Tell me where I got the incorrect impression, J, if not from your own words.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

J

Christ would not have disagreed with me. After all, what is the biggest consolation at the funerals of the sudden dead and the death of children? That we say "God" must have needed him/her. God had a better plan. That it may seem that this child died senselessly at the hands of a serial rapist/murderer-but somehow at the end of the day the family comes to a place in their "faith" where God needed the soul of the child a little more than the world did.

What makes you think the child's soul did not know this? What makes you think the soul is not completely "formed" at birth, and has an agenda to change that form through incarnating? What makes you think that the soul may make a quick decision that this was not the correct timing? My wife's good friend had a fiendishly deformed child which perished within weeks(A huge 8th house Pluto inconjunct the child's sun if there are any astrologers reading this). What was the purpose of this child's birth and death, J?

You only want to talk about willful acts of people which wash away what you define as a person. Do you want to talk about the natural births that lead to horrible deformities and short lives? What does YOUR God mean by that?

And I aint smokin nuthin, DUDE.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2001.

Anita,

I expect the state to punish a parent who commits infanticide. I don't expect the state to take all children away from their parents at birth so that infanticide cannot occur.

Your incorrect impressions are a problem of the way that you think, not a problem of the way that I write.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

FutureShock,

I'm not exactly sure what kind of new age hocus pocus it is that you believe in, but The Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Savior of all that will believe in Him, would not agree that:1) It is okay to kill children.
2)Good and Evil are entirely relative and man-made.

Contrary to what you claim, your words show that you do not know Him.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

J: Don't put words into MY mouth, now. Are you also in favor of the state intervening in cases where parents are whipping their children to the point of welts on their bodies, or [and this one might strike to the bone], parents not just allowing but encouraging their 13-year old daughters to be either married to or engage in sexual relations with a man up to four times their age for religious reasons?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

FS that is interesting. You say that Hitler went to heaven. I am not saying that he didn't because I believe only The Lord would know the answer. BUT what makes YOU think so? Do you have some divine knowledge of this that the rest of us are not privvy to?

-- (@ .), March 22, 2001.

Interesting thread, Anita, but there's a big problem. "J" himself isn't actually opposed to infanticide. You see, infanticide is a means of killing, and as "J" himself said just yesterday, As a general rule, it is unadvisable to kill anyone, government agent or otherwise.

In "J"'s world, it is not wrong to kill someone, only "unadvisable" [sic]. Therefore, "J" considers infanticide "unadvisable"[sic] rather than wrong.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.

Tarzan you are an idiot

{grabbing some duct tape for Tarzan's mouth err...fingers)

-- (please@spare.us), March 22, 2001.

Tarzan,

What's the matter old boy, are you sore because you were proven WRONG ? LOL.

You really look like an idiot when you put [sic] behind a correctly spelled, correctly used word. I suppose that you are used to it by now. Looking like an idiot, that is.

In my world, it is not always wrong to kill someone. For instance, if someone were trying to murder you (yes, even you), I would use deadly force in stopping them. In so doing, I may even (gasp) kill them. Would it be wrong to save your innocent life in such a case, Tarzan? By killing another?

Regardless of the correctness of such an act, I still may be drug into civil court by the relatives of the deceased perpetrator, where a jury of bleeding heart liberals may find in favor of the criminal, what with his relatives there sobbing and so forth. I would also receive a certain amount of notoriety, which I would find detrimental to the way that I prefer to live my life. So, even though killing someone may not be wrong in all cases, I still hold that it is unadvisable .

In regards to your childish attempt to say that I don't believe that infanticide is wrong, let me say that it is just the type of assinine maneuver that I would expect out of you; especially after your humiliation over the whole unadvised situation.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

J: I know you have more fun insulting people than sticking to the topic at hand, but I AM curious regarding what child-rearing practices you find acceptable and which you don't.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

What's the matter old boy, are you sore because you were proven WRONG ? LOL.

Yes, yes, Dennis. I am wrong, just like Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, Newbury House, the Cambridge International Dictionary of English and every dictionary produced by Funk and Wagnalis (including Random House and Webster's Collegiate) are wrong. Only you and the 1913 edition of Webster's know that unadvisable[sic] is actually a word. Sure thing. Whatever gets you through the night.

You really look like an idiot when you put [sic] behind a correctly spelled, correctly used word. I suppose that you are used to it by now. Looking like an idiot, that is.

Better an idiot than a terrorist, Dennis.

In my world, it is not always wrong to kill someone.

Especially if they happen to be asking for it, the way those bastards in the Oklahoma City daycare center were, right, Dennis?

For instance, if someone were trying to murder you (yes, even you), I would use deadly force in stopping them. In so doing, I may even (gasp) kill them. Would it be wrong to save your innocent life in such a case, Tarzan? By killing another?

Dennis, if you or any of your militia buddies ever, and I mean ever do what your heros Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph did and claim that you did it on my behalf, I would personally see to it that you were put in jail for the rest of your natural life. I would see to it that you did not get the death penalty, so that every other person who confuses terrorism with patriotism would be denied a martyr.

(Ridiculous militia boilerplate snipped)So, even though killing someone may not be wrong in all cases, I still hold that it is unadvisable.

Just for the record, I asked you if it was okay to kill government agents. What you said was:

I believe that if anyone, government agent or otherwise, opens fire on a building full of women and children, then they shouldn't be surprised if they are killed by return fire.

Then, when I called you on the hypocrisy of this statement, you said:

I answered your question. Surely you didn't expect me to say something that could lead to jail time, did you?

In regards to your childish attempt to say that I don't believe that infanticide is wrong, let me say that it is just the type of assinine maneuver that I would expect out of you; especially after your humiliation over the whole unadvised situation.

Whatever. Your own words have proven my point. You think that murder is acceptable, even advisable, so long as you can wrap it in a thin veneer of patriotism. Save the feti, blow up the government workers, and just pass the dead children off as "collateral damage".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 22, 2001.

J-

In a very un-deft manner you sidestepped my entire question about freaks of birth, and the purpose in being born. You cannot in any, way, shape, or form speak for Christ as his personal representative and say that any other soul does not know him. That is the ultimate in spiritual pride, and, some christians have written, the ultimate sin-to claim judgement over another soul.

@

I know that Hitler went to Heaven because I know that the outcome is not in questions for all souls. We will all return to the highest form of ourselves-the we will all evolve and return to the Godhead. Christ was one of the most highly evolved sould to have ever worked the earth. I am a christian in the sense that I live by the spirit of his words as I understand them-not as interpreted by some church or some fundamentalist religion.

There is no Hell-never was, never will be. All souls are experiencing, through flesh, who they are, and who they wish to become. All souls are in the process of remembering who they are, and redefining that. No one but no one can be sure of the intentions of any one else's soul. As egregious as the murder of 6 million people was in human terms, there is absolutely no way to know why those people chose to die that way, or why Hitler and his people were the souls who obliged.

Good and Evil, the existence of a hell, is the unevolveds way of trying to keep their head from exploding in fear. Has it not been proven to these fops that the threat of a hell is not, has not, and will never improve the way man treats man? Treating another soul with the uptmost kindness and respect has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, and everything to do with the level of evolution of the soul.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2001.

Anita,

There is more to life than just arguing with liberals online, so you will have to cut me some slack if I don't instantly get back to you, okay?

I think that parents should follow the law. If they do that, everything else pretty much falls into place, right?



Tarzan,

Keep on going, and you are going to blow a vein. LOL.



FutureShock,

Your new age response to @ pretty much sums up how you feel. I'm in a hurry, but let it suffice to say that I don't share your new age views.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 22, 2001.

And J, you do not have an answer to my question about why deformed babies are born, because the only possible answer traps you into my view-the view about the consolation that God needed the baby more than the world did, and that the baby somehow knew that.

It must fell good to try and trump someone's position by simply saying "new age-nah nah". You cannot avoid the sin of spiritual pride in judging another's relationship with Christ-so you avoid responding-one of your classic tactics.

Christ invited everyone to a personal relationship with him. How can it be personal if someone else tells me what that relationship should be-how it should be conducted?

You have no answer so you skip my questions. You are exposed-as usual.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2001.

FutureShock,

I didn't mean to give you such a short answer, but I was literally walking out the door.

I don't know why deformed babies are born. Of course, neither do you. Your assertion that there is only one possible answer is absurd. Your assertion that the baby must necessarily know of your supposed answer, is even more absurd. Even if your one possible answer were true, why do you believe that the baby would necessarily know? I figure that there is at least a 50/50 chance that the baby has no clue as to what's going on in such a scenario.

No, it doesn't feel good to trump your position. You seem to be searching for God, but from what I can garner from your posts, you are nowhere near the God of the Bible. You seem to be a very lost soul, and the worst part about it is that because you have fallen for this new age, all souls go to Heaven, return to the godhead foolishness, you are running the risk of stopping short of the true Savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I don't have all the answers, it is true.

I have more to do than just debate online all day, that is why I skipped your questions. I have time now, so I am answering them the best that I can, but to be candid, I think that you are into some pretty weird stuff. I know that you believe that you are on the right track and far ahead of the rest of us in your quest, but I think that you are off on some spiritual wild goose chase.

Now what was that again about me being exposed? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 23, 2001.

I remember the post where Dennis/J defended McVeigh and Rudolph. Sick, sick, sick.

And as far as not having time to debate . . . well, when arguing semantics, you obviously do.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), March 23, 2001.

Is Alice some big ugly bull-dyke who wears a dildo in her pants and a massive chip on her shoulder?

-- (she@is.gross), March 23, 2001.

J careful now, your exposing yourself again. lmao.

-- isit (is@this.real), March 23, 2001.

It's true, Alice. You're nasty. fuccilagynococca

-- (she@is.gross), March 23, 2001.

I think Alice brought up an important point regarding J's preference to discuss semantics than the issue at hand, although I disagree that J is Dennis. I met Dennis on the MSNBC forum. He's of the LDS persuasion [and I think that means Mormon]. Those folks believed that one should maintain at least a year's worth of food before Y2k even entered the picture. Y2k may have been the impetus for Dennis to finally stop his impetuous spending and follow what he'd been taught, but he is NOT J, despite both of them having housed children in late 1999 into 2000.

J's claims are of a "born again" Christian after being an atheist. I suspect he was/is zealous in both beliefs, although I don't think he's yet come to understand his newfound faith. He approaches it with the same zeal that he probably approached atheism, as a True Believer tends to do. IMO, he hasn't yet reached the "comfortable point". For this reason, he's still more interested in insulting others [be it over semantics or a difference of opinion], and he doesn't yet have the experience to LIVE like Jesus of Nazareth lived.

On this topic of semantics, has anyone looked at their posts of days past? Jeez...I just did it AGAIN. Anyone is singular, and their is plural. I mix these in posts routinely, read them the next day and laugh at my use of the English language. I also read posts wherein I've left out words, the mind going faster than the fingers. I may need to read the posts four or five times to even spot the omitted word. Life's too short to concentrate on these little shortcomings.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 23, 2001.

What the hell are you people discussing and do you think it really matters? Anita, what the hell is your point in starting this thread? If it's to make a mockery of this whole issue, you have succeeded. Did you actually believe anyone would change his or her mind? Do you believe that you are so persuasive that a light will go on in someone's mind? I've seen you in these abortion threads perpetuating the topic and no resolution, no end. What drives you?

-- Give (it@up.woman), March 23, 2001.

Must one need a drive to post on an internet forum? It seems to me that one only needs a little free time. I don't really know what others do with their free time. I don't shop as a form of amusement. I rarely watch T.V., my kids are grown, SO is on contract out of town. What would you have me do?

No minds will ever be changed. It's simply an exchange [much like folks talking over tea.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 23, 2001.

You think this is just idle chit chat. Ah! Retired people we really need to give them something more productive. Take up a fuckin' hobby!

-- Give (it@up.woman), March 23, 2001.

Take up a fuckin' hobby!

What do you think this is, dumbass?

-- (what@a.maroon), March 23, 2001.

Personally, I ENJOY talking to folks who think differently than I. I've met some folks via the internet that I never would have met IRL, simply because we tend to associate with folks who think as we do.

I'd never agreed with Hardliner's stance on things, but I enjoyed meeting him at a picnic here in Texas, as well as some other folks who'd engaged in online conversations. Hell, Dennis Olson sent me his old scanner because he learned I needed one for some legal documents to be transmitted from Texas to Illinois. I STILL use it. He refused any money for it, but when a mutual internet acquaintance showed an interest in some things that *I* wasn't using, I sent them along with some friends I have who had recently bought a house in Taos. I told Dennis that I was passing on HIS kindness to Julie [who in turn would pass it on to someone else.] I've never even met Julie, but my friends returned [their house only intended to be a summer home until retirement], and they'd hired her to tend the house while they were gone, while hiring her husband to do odd jobs around the place.

What begins as idle chat turns into "networking." If you don't like my posts or my occasional threads, your back button works as well as the next person's.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 23, 2001.