Anthrax Threats Mass Mailed to Abortion Clinics

Los Angeles Times ^

[CyberCowboy777]

Ravinson :My philosophical belief is that there is more to people then flesh and blood, and there is some scientific evidence to support my belief and which suggests that a "soul" is implanted in fetuses shortly before birth. Studies have found that small children can recite knowledge (i.e. memories) which would only be known by a person who died while the child was in the womb shortly before birth, which suggests that people have reincarnated souls.

So that is why it is ok to abort, huh?

Your Strawmen, not mine. LOL

[ravinson]

Then why is it ok to abort?

I never said it is "ok" to abort anything. Why do you have such a hard time sticking with the facts? I actually take a position of neutrality as between a woman and her reproductive system.

[CyberCowboy777]

Yea, there is a soul. Only, you have no idea where it comes from or when it becomes apart of the Human life. Therefore you have no right to destroy the Human life. As far as you know it becomes apart of the human life at conception, since this is when the new human being — the single-cell human zygote — is biologically an individual, a living organism — an individual member of the human species

[CyberCowboy777]

Sure man. You did say it though didn't you. LOL!

Glad to see you have no opinion on the matter. LOL

[CyberCowboy777]

Why do you have such a hard time sticking with the facts?

That’s funny, what were your sources again?

[CyberCowboy777]

I actually take a position of neutrality as between a woman and her reproductive system.

Last time I checked there was no human procreation without both sexes.

[ravinson]

Where is the "scientific evidence"

Keep in mind that I offered the referenced scientific studies not as proof of any of my religious beliefs as to when personage begins, but as scientific evidence which is consistent with a possibility that you cannot disprove and seem to be wholly ignoring. Here is what I was referring to:

Carol Bowman's website; Dr. Ian Stevenson's website; Duncan MacDougall, M.D.'s "Soul Substance" research

[CyberCowboy777]

I do not ignore the idea; I just don’t believe it. However you view it, it has not been proven. You would get all over me if I said “God creates the soul a conception, so we can’t kill it”. Also unproven, just a belief. That is why it is not my argument against abortion.

[CyberCowboy777]

I intend to read your information and report back. I would hope you would do the same.

[ravinson]

I do not ignore the idea; I just don’t believe it. However you view it, it has not been proven.

You still don't seem to comprehend the simple point that if you believe that "abortion is murder" then you are the one who has the burden of proof to establish your theory of what is a "person". I have only offered up the "implanted soul theory" as one of numerous possibilities which you cannot refute with any scientific evidence. Since I am neutral on the issue of abortion, I have no burden to prove anything because I am not proposing that government have any roll at all in getting involved in a conflict between a woman and the fetus she is bearing.

[fod]

...

WHAT!?

Look, kevin I don't know how you got that from my statements, and you know damn well I find abortion repugnant, and I feel it should be illegal.

I was bashing some group of oppurtunistic assholes using the latest tradgedies to further thier cause.

Sending or threatening to send anthrax spores to any person or organization is wrong on all counts and should be punished severely.

I agree

But this anthrax crap could just as easily be the work of an anti-God squad trying to discredit the pro-life contingent.

"could" be, but the"army of god" has a preet poor track record, IMO.

I cannot understand why you would think they are on the wrong side of this issue ethically and morally.

I'm not, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion, yet again.

The problem I have is a group (apparently) has taken the law into thier own hands, so how can you ethically and morally support that?

I thought you were a real law and order type of guy, but I guess you posses anarchist tendencies when they suit your needs.

sad

[CyberCowboy777]

By what standard do I have to prove personhood? I advocate non-destruction, which is always the safe course of action. If one was to destroy human life – an Individual Human (which has been proven), it is that person’s responsibility to prove why it is just. Your assertion is that, though it may be a Human Life (More than a blob) and an individual life, it may be ok because we don’t know when personhood occurs.

When it can be proven and it turns out that personhood occurs at conception, are we to say “sorry” to all the “persons” we killed (40 million)?

We cannot base our course of action on a philosophical conundrum. We should instead use the data we have, which says that the fetus is an individual Human life. Not a part of human life, but a complete human by all scientific standards. Those that want to kill the Human must provide Proof of non-personhood. Those who actually want to kill have the burden, not I. That is only logical.

You should chose a side and not sit on the sideline. If you in-fact believe that we have souls, but do not know when it is joined with the Human anatomy. I would think you would protect the possibility of complete human life and personhood at conception.

“For a good man to do nothing”

[CyberCowboy777]

Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government — legislative, judicial or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

Moreover, this right should never depend upon a majority of justices on any court, including the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v Wade is illegitimate, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government — legislative, executive, and judicial.