betsy

****WARNING**** GRAPHIC PHOTOS Shocking Photos Of Gosnell Murder Victims Included in Grand Jury Report We are posting copies of these images so that the full truth of the horrific nature of these crimes can be understood. In the report, the Grand Jury notes that several agencies and groups became aware of what has become known as Gosnells shop of horrors but did nothing. Just the day after the death of Karnamaya Mongar, Gosnell had applied for membership to the National Abortion Federations, whose meager guidelines Gosnell could not meet. Even though an NAF staff person spent several days in Gosnells abortion mill noting numerous violations, they did not think to report him to the proper authorities.The grand jury also had a stern rebuke for regulatory organizations who looked the other way, giving their stamp of approval on his criminal practices. http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/shocking-photos-of-gosnell-murder-victims-included-in-grand-jury-report/

How is it misleading?

Brutality of abortion rears its ugly head The most chilling story revolving around abortion has “quickly” surfaced from the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia. Abortionist Doctor Kermit Goshell has been arrested for eight counts of murder; seven infants which survived botched abortion procedures in which the babies’ spinal cords were severed with scissors while alive, and the death of a patient through sloppy medical procedures. The doctor’s wife and eight others are also under grand jury scrutiny. What is troubling is the lack of disclosure and silence that has accompanied this event. Why didn’t the regulating state agencies do anything after knowing that his “abortion clinic” was the source of so many complaints? Abortions are illegal in Pennsylvania after 24 weeks and Goshell routinely ignored this guideline. The word spread that if you needed a late term abortion, Goshell’s practice was the place to go. Goshell even trained his staff how to fudge ultrasounds so the pictures would appear at the 24-week requirement. More.... http://www.examiner.com/article/brutality-of-abortion-rears-its-ugly-head

***Disturbing photo. http://www.taliacarner.com/deadnewborningutter.html

http://www.davidgbayliss.com/murder-manslaughter-infanticide.html Thank you guyser for that. I've always thought infanticide is killing/murder of a baby (infant).

That is not the flip side of my articles (if you're referring to those). Whether the church excommunicate the father or not....it is not the issue. This is sort of what I mean about the issue being seen as a religion issue instead of human rights. Of course for those who are religious, to them it is more about their belief....that can't be helped. They see it as a sin. But just because religon view abortion as a sin, should that be reason enough for non-religious people to dismiss the real issue? The articles I've given is about the justice system and the law, and the attempt to provide the grounds for legislation (by argument that the infant should have the same status as the fetus) - in other words, trying to obtain the license to kill children who are outside the womb. Set aside religion.

Now that you ask, I'm not quite so sure I know the difference between 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide. Can you explain the difference(s) please.

This article was posted first on this thread. If the information such as the article provided here is crucial to the point that I am trying to make on the other topic, I would think that it is allowed, especially if the excerpt posted is short (only the pertinent details were given). It would be one thing if it was being posted again for frivolous reasons. Btw, I've been away for quite sometime so I'm not aware of any changes here. The last time I was here Michael Hardner is the moderator, and I think he still is. Are you now a moderator too?

I've come across these three articles on abortion. Although they are unrelated to one another, together they present a very chilling picture. Message: Babies with abnormalities can be killed. Message: should you find the demands of pregnancy and childbirth too onerous, it is okay to murder your child, what more if you have no support. Message: The child should be regarded just like the fetus. The child will therefore be de-humanized like the fetus. You can dispose of him anytime you want if the "well-being of the family is at risk." I guess this must mean if we find this child a "high maintenance" then it's okay to kill him. This reminds me of a bad futuristic B-movie - you know, the survivalist kind of movie after a nuclear explosion and rag tag survivors try to survive. The weak are the first ones to get whacked. The handicapped, along with old people, never make it. I guess it doesn't have to be a nuclear aftermath. "Don't dampen my lifestyle" should do it. Surreal. Of course the future generation will be more likely to embrace the after-abortion proposal, thanks to us. We teach our children that there's no value to human life. This will go beyond the womb.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

Miss me?

Oh yeah sorry, that does happen when replying. Anyway, the rebuttal is that article I gave you! I highlighted (boldened) the key words! That's why I said, "in this case, it's abortion." And take note that I said militant secularists.

Yes I did. You deleted them!

Some of the rebutts used in forums by militant secularists cite the influence of religion why the fetus is viewed as a human. Rights of all???? Gimme a break. Yep. To militant secularists, everyone and everything had a right to exist. They fight for all these....except for the human baby. Human rights these. Human rights that. Yet they choose to be blind about the baby's human rights. In this case, baby-killing.

Yes it is not a good analogy. When are you an atheist? When are you an agnostic? Isn't that a good example of relativism? Could it be you still haven't found your true self - which category you truly belong? Psychologist perhaps will say you're vocalizing your inner turmoil - and perhaps Dawkins is also in the same situation now? Even if you say you're only 1% agnostic and 90% atheist. That 1% makes you a skeptic. That 1% counts. The Occupy Movement will agree with me....and I'm sure so will the NDP - especially the NDP -and the Liberals. Whether it is Zeus or the unicorn or the spaghetti monster....it's still the same logic. So am I what? Agnostic like you? I hope you're not seriously thinking that. You don't want another lecture on faith. I tend to agree with you on that. In your book. Because you think it suits your argument....at the moment. Well I think for militant secularists, it is about religion! Their loudest defense why we should keep on butchering helpless babies, is that because the religious groups say it is wrong!

God's will, will always prevail.

So, Dawkins did not show up for the debate with William Lane Craig. I can only speculate, but perhaps he knew he couldn't go face Craig as the same champion of atheism, perhaps he'd acknowledged he's no longer confident as an atheist (not when he'd admitted to the possibility of God's existence). Whatever the real reason why he refused to face Craig, it must've been quite a let-down for some of his followers, or those who wished to be enlightened through a face-off between two heavies....like the author of this article. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG (not vs) RICHARD DAWKINS SAGA http://aatheism.blogspot.ca/2012/03/william-lane-craig-vs-not-richard.html

I needed a break. Re-energize. Are you ready?

His message may be the same....but the impact won't be anymore. This is the same guy who was gloating with scorn and contempt when he said: "I am confident no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?" Let's face it. It's that kind of hardhitting insults to religion that made him the darling of atheists. And now he's saying, "I can't be sure God does not exist." Hard to be in an arrogant insult-spouting mode when you've got a chink in your armour....when your faith in a no-god is propped on shaky legs. But he's not your everyday atheist. A lot of atheists are normal people, confident in their position and are not rattled by religious folks spouting off about salvation and God. They're sure of their position. Snug in their atheistic belief. And one can't help but respect them for it - same way they respect your belief. Not exactly victory for the team Jesus. Boy, it's gonna be like pulling teeth with Dawkins. But at least, looks like he's starting to come around even though it's so excruciatingly slow. Mind you, with his stature in the atheist community it must be tough for him to admit to a change in belief - for he could lose a lot by doing so. No, it's not victory for Team Jesus. The only time it will be victory is when he accepts Him as his Saviour. Let's not make it sound too complicated. An agnostic is a skeptic. By admitting he is not sure that God doesn't exists....means that. A possibility that He does exists, and possibility that He may not. Percentage of how much he believe don't mean squat. He raised the possibility of God's existence. Why did he have to admit to such a statement anyway? It's not like he's lying on the rack when he admitted to that! Oh yes I agree with you. They're as looney as militant secularists who advocate tearing up helpless babies inside their mother's womb - hiding behind the banner of women's right when perhaps the most motivating factor that they do so is simply the fact that they see baby-killing as a religion issue, and not human rights.

I must've missed that part. Link? Yep. That's reaching out to me. But hey, I don't mind, don't get me wrong.

I must admit the first thing I read when I opened the thread was the article given by the author and his short statement. I responded to that. Then I read somewhere here that Swinimer was allegedly badgering fellow-students. Now, if he was badgering - that could be deemed as harrassment - and therefore should be the reason for complaints and suspension. HOWEVER. And this is a big however....nowhere have I read from the schoolboard's statements that Swinimer's been warned about badgering students. He was repeatedly warned about the t-shirt. To me, that means there's no real ground for the accusation of badgering if the school board itself had not acknowledged that in their press releases. Obviously it would be to the schoolboard's benefit if they release the information that they've warned Swinimer against harrassing his fellow-students....especially when they - the schoolboard - were being hammered for stifling freedom. As for religious zealots being not welcomed by you....you know I'm a religious zealot. Well, I only responded to your post - which you addressed to me! I thought it was only polite to answer... You're the one who reached out to me. Remember?

If that's the way you understood it, what can I say? If you insist in knowing (more than I do) what I was replying to, what can I do? But I know what I was responding at....and that's that. Do I take it you're not happy to see me? No big hugs? Anyway...whatever. bye.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1vFO9iBij A rare display of logic! I guess secularist militants - I think that's the new buzz word for the New Atheists (?) - will have to find another champion.

Thanks Michael. I missed you guys believe it or not.

From what I've read in this thread he was allegedly "badgering" other students. What strikes me as odd is the fact that the school didn't warn him about harrassing others - because that's what badgering is. That the school board warned him repeatedly about the t-shirt and yet didn't warn him about badgering (which is more serious than just wearing that t-shirt), surely, it throws question to the reliability of reports that he was indeed badgering other students.