From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  Yet another pro-lifer with no reading comphrension (Was: March...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:37:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.123435.13106@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr8.002621.19380@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>[Deleted:  Steve whines about how badly he's getting flamed, how much it hurts
>>to have his "logic" flaws pointed out to him.  He tries to paint a picture of
>>us mean old pro-choicers ganging up on the pro-lifers].
>   How flattering of you Keith... Let's see if your post gets any
>better...
>[
>>Gee, Steve, if the pro-life movement is just begging to work with everybody,
>>then why do the pro-lifers in this group flame the other pro-lifers?
>   For every flame I have posted, I have begged at least twice for
>reconciliation or an effort towards it at least. You seem to do
>nothing of the sort. Who's the unbending party in this battle? 

Answer the question, Steve.  If the pro-lifers are just trying to work together
to solve the abortion problem, then why do the pro-lifers flame other pro-
lifers?

>
>>Now, (1)If you're going to play with fire, you're going to get your fingers
>>burned.  It's sad, but it's true.
>   No, if you're going to play with ignorant unbending fools, you're going
>to get your newsnet account flamed... THAT is sad but true...

Gee, you wouldn't be judging my intellect and claiming that I'm "ignorant",
would you?  After all, you've posted several times that you don't judge...

>
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)) have this funny feeling that if we
>>let you "pro-lifers" get rid of a woman's rights just because she's pregnant,
>>the next thing you might decide to do is get rid of homosexual's rights just
>>because we're not popping out those children like "normal" people are.  Or you
>>might decide that we have to get rid of the rights of the American Indians,
>>because they're not "truly" white.
>   Well, this deserves flames, but I will hold back and deal with this
>post civilly. The tactics of pro-choice are to through as many analogies
>and concepts at you as they can, hoping some of them you can't answer.
>I'm used to this.
>   Homosexuals are not frowned upon in the Catholic church. There is nothing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BAHAHAHAHAH!  And what planet are YOU living on???
>wrong with being a homosexual, but to practice homosexuality IS wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe you should step over to talk.religion.misc, and make that statement?
You'd be suprised how many of your christian brothers diagree with you...
>You shall not share relations with another man (or woman as the case
>may be). Just as the church believes this, you cannot practice or
>exercise heterosexuality until you get married. Homosexuals are welcomed
>into the Catholic church, but they must exercise discipline and realize that
>they must refrain from exercising that which feels natural to them. I know

So, the double standard is that if you're gonna be popping out them kids, you
can have all the sex you want after you're married.  If you're not gonna be
popping out them kids, you can't ever have sex.

>this will piss you off royally, but it is true. If you are homosexual and

No, Steven, it used to piss me off.  Then me and God had a little talk one
day, and I realized just how much you "holy people" had perverted his love.

>don't agree with this practice then you are free to worship elsewhere.

Of course, I'm going to burn in Hell for not believing just as you do...
(Or so you claim...)

>We have no justification to exercise this legally. 

No, but you certainly would LIKE to, wouldn't you???

>   Also, you really feel you can get away with alot don't you? Does it

Whoops.  Very true.  When I was using the word "you" up there, I was speaking
of groups in general, not you (or anybody else) in specifics.  I'd like to
apologize.  Sorry.  In no way, shape, or form was it my intention to suggest
that YOU would suggest any of this in any way, shape, or form.  It was my 
intent to suggest that the pro-lifers (in general), and the pro-choicer 
(in general), and the Catholic Church (in general), and this group, and that
group, and the other group (all in general) might/would like to do some of
these things.

>make you feel safe that you're thousands of miles away from me doesn't it?
>Wow, I would be awfully surprised if you could call me racist to my
>face. I have nothing against, and only respect for the Native Americans
>and for you to insinuate otherwise is ludicrous, offensive, and otherwise
>typical of your argument. As you already know, the Catholic/Christian faith
>tells us that all men/women/children/unborn are equal, and to judge 
>a man by his color is as silly as judging a book by it's cover, or a pro-choice
>by his posts. We are also taught to lover our neighbor (the american indian,
>the unborn child) as ourself. In fact, that even includes you Keith...

Steve, you OBVIOUSLY don't go to the same Catholic/Christian church that most
other pro-lifers do.

However, my point still stands.  Just as I'm not going to stand by and let you
take away the rights of a woman, I'm not going to let you take away the rights
of American Indians, Gays, or Blacks.  Or vice versa.  When you do, you can be
sure I'll fight back.

>
>>(3)If, as you stated before you're not judging people, how the hell do you
>>explain the fact that you feel you're more qualified to tell a woman what to
>>do with her body then she is?
>   I am not judging people. As I have said earlier, only GOD may judge,
>and he has already done that through his message in the bible. He has
>told us to honor all life, conception, and the very act of sex. He has
>told us to defend the weak and the innocent. And you know what? It makes sense.
>Even if God didn't tell us this, I imagine I would be the same. Wasting
>such a valuable resource is pathetic, and I would have thought it to be
>well below us morally. 
>
>>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
>>=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
>   Sheeez, this .sig kills me. Get a new one man
>
>steve
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA


--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=