jefferiah

So? To engage in someone elses stupid comparisions with your own, is just as stupid. I was merely responding to her unfounded claim that I am in the minority on this issue.

OK Dark Angel let me point something out to you. You assert that a book is unfair, that you shouldnt have to blindly follow a book but follow your own heart etc. etc. That religion has kept people in the dark for many years and not allowed others to have their own opinion. Well the fact that you have another opinion is fine DArk Angel, but just because you think have freed yourself from the Bible or whatnot through your own majestic free-thinking (which I think is often a blind faith in some other idea or concept) does not mean that every one who believes in what the book says and believes that there is a God is being forced to. Do you understand that? I was not forced by anyone to believe in God. I was never forced to church. I had lots of books growing up on zen and eastern religion. I had Thus Spake Zarathustra. But I chose Christianity. My own heart tells me that it is right. My own heart has led me to believe that to say that all religions are equal and point in the same direction is bullshit, although at one time I fully believed it, because it is a nice idea. There are many points on which different faiths and philosophies converge but yet there are some very profound differences. This would mean that each faith to some degree contradicts the other. Now in order to maintain that all thoughts are equal at this point, you have to compromise each mindset. This means revisionism. Perhaps there were mistakes in the writings of the ancients so we will say oh they meant this and they meant that. But who gets to decide where the mistakes are. In order to do so the ecumenicalist must use his own individual discretion deciding where and on what issues he can (thousands of years later) soften the position of one faith and another to make them the same.

Once again I will point out another fallacy. Totalitarian Christian? I am not preventing people from having abortions. There is no infringement here on my part on what you say is the right to have an abortion. Abortion is legal. OK but lets summarize the progression the argument has taken so far. You say that free abortion is a right. Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, etc. I say well abortion is legal, so no one is telling a woman what she can or cant do with her body. And I argue that you are not upholding your own standard of free-choice. You say free-choice covers all view points but then when you get your way you say now people who disagree must pay for it. This is insulting to people. There are a lot of rights. Something being a right does not mean that they have a right to public funding for it. We dont fund things simply because they are rights, we need a good reason, to show a need. For instance we dont fund boob-jobs for self-esteem purposes. So you say well medicare covers other operations. I say you cant compare an abortion, which in most cases is an unneccessary surgery, to a heart transplant. And I ask you to keep in mind meanwhile that the law is not restricting anyone from having an abortion, and the Charter already states that in cases where pregnancy does constitute a health condition abortion is covered. You and Norm and Saturn then say that pregnancy results in deaths. I point out that their are relatively few deaths from pregnancy, all the while asking you to keep in mind that this argument is not infringing on anone's right to go to a clinic and have an abortion. I also point out that its logical to say few of these women probably were women who wanted an abortion but could not access one. I point out that like anything else if surgery for health is deemed necessary or beneficial to the woman then she is entitled to free abortion. Then your next plan of attack is to go back to "uhm well its a right -no questions asked-who has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body-". Which is your first argument. Thus I said you were arguing in circles. If you go back there, I have to point out again that no one is saying you cant have an abortion. And here we go again---right? So therefore the last point was made by me. You are calling me a Christian totalitarian. I never told women what to do with their bodies. I am not going out and stopping abortions. I am asserting my right to have an opinion, while abortion is fully legal (it seems i must keep reminding you of this point). I am asserting my right to say that medicare should not cover "all" abortion since most of them are not done when pregnancy constitutes, as you call it, "a health condition". And you call me a mysogynist for doing so. When I point out that polls show that relatively few Canadians support medicare for "all" abortion, you deliberately ignore that. Oh those polls cant be right. But then I wonder why you value your own assessment of what all Canadians think above people who actually did research. The question was not about who is or who isnt Christian. Its about subsidized abortion. You make a claim without source that most of Canada supports this and tell us "red necks" and "neo cons" we are basically nothing. Yet why should we believe you anymore than you believe these surveys. Have you discerned the opinions of the majority through your own psychic insight?

i know you are not asking me, but i just got back from recovering from surgery! heray! ya my apendix go cloged by a lofthouse cookie... a mystery to say the least. but could you grant me this moment to interupt? i feel so guilty for this, but the opinions based on religion being absolute truth, is very very worthless, not the people. its worthless because it has no relevence to any gained knoledge assertivly abtained through the act of scientific method, religion is to say you happen to have the knoledge, just by being granted it, whilst science is to absolutly gain it from the most basic found form. religion has not gained any useful knoledge, but instead, has granted doctrination of past morals into peoples that then practice it by the will of a super-being. it is old and filled with bad morals. like the evenglical beleif that all us non-beleivers will be left to die and suffer for our sins: thats no god worth worshiping, if he would leave even good men to die. the problem with this beleif is: any who do not beleive in god are bad. is that discrimination? i feel really bad, but in the finding of knolegde, origin is not one that is found, so way declaire such as a raving loony? (and this is only 1 example) i rest my case. There is no one who is Good.

And I dont buy for one second that you "feel so guilty about this".

i know you are not asking me, but i just got back from recovering from surgery! heray! ya my apendix go cloged by a lofthouse cookie... a mystery to say the least. but could you grant me this moment to interupt? i feel so guilty for this, but the opinions based on religion being absolute truth, is very very worthless, not the people. its worthless because it has no relevence to any gained knoledge assertivly abtained through the act of scientific method, religion is to say you happen to have the knoledge, just by being granted it, whilst science is to absolutly gain it from the most basic found form. religion has not gained any useful knoledge, but instead, has granted doctrination of past morals into peoples that then practice it by the will of a super-being. it is old and filled with bad morals. like the evenglical beleif that all us non-beleivers will be left to die and suffer for our sins: thats no god worth worshiping, if he would leave even good men to die. the problem with this beleif is: any who do not beleive in god are bad. is that discrimination? i feel really bad, but in the finding of knolegde, origin is not one that is found, so way declaire such as a raving loony? (and this is only 1 example) i rest my case. What you dont understand is that the person Bernard Nathanson was an abortion doctor who came to believe through his own observation that the feotus was a living thing. Now the man also happened to convert to Christianity later and Catch Me says that any opinion he may have on any issue is suspect since he is a Christian. I would also like to add that there is no such thing as the Superman (are you are certainly far from having the capacity to be one, although so am i likely). I find your posts wierd and self-indulgent. I dont think you are as wise as you think you are but nonetheless I was a teenager once too, and I may have been wierder.

Anyone's beliefs in a mythological entity, or place, or philosophy, as denoted in a book written by men, have no bearings on my right to self determine my life. So, no, I do not take anything and religious person says as being pertinent to my choices in life. And no, it came after his conversion from what I have read so far at least. Again you are NOT funding anything to do with my life and my health care, you are too busy funding your own. I am taking NOTHING from you, nor is anyone else, What don't you get about that? Why do you think, you have a right to demand, that you have a right to have a say, in my right to access universal health care, that I pay into both through taxation, and additionally right off my pay check and my husband's for medicare costs levied by the province? Say nothing of why you you think you have a right to demand access over ruling my rights of privacy and demand a right to have a say in my self detrmination? That is what truly sickens me, that others, than God a minority, are so irrational that they believe their personal beliefs have a right to trump several of my human rights as a Canadian. So how about you spare me, your self righteous desire to involve yourself in the rights of others? Um, yes I can prove there is NO brain functioning before the 5 month. You however can prove nothing. You keep failing to acknowledge that most abortion is not a necessary procedure for health-care. YOu assert you have a right to do so and I cant stop you. But there is a big difference between paying for an actual health problem and paying for something that you think should be paid for even when it is unneccessary. You are the one who is being unreasonable. YOu are the one who is lacking any logic. And you Dark Angel should go start a cult already. For one thing it wont stand on its own legs since you claim to love Neitzches ideals of freedom and then you think people should accept the Coldest of All Monsters "The State".

Catch Me Says "When my tax dollars are on the line because some fat lazy middle aged or old man/woman ate their way to 300k + worth of bypasses, it then by the same token is my business and their right to universal health care would be in question, amongst many other "self-inflicted" diseases we tax payers pay for." Here I will point out another fallacy in her ridiculous comparisons. The diseases of these people may be self-inflicted, but they are diseases. Given the previous points made about percentage of women who die from pregnancy and the percentage of that percentage who wanted abortions but could not afford them, I dont think you could actually call pregnancy a disease. I dont know too many people who define pregnancy as a disease. So while ill-health conditions and pregnancy are comparable in that they can both be self-inflicted so to speak, they are certainly not comparable in their status as a medical urgency. Another thing I would like to point out is that in a recent post Catch Me made she asserts on behalf of all Canadians that we pro-lifers are in the minority. First off, given the issue at hand this is the wrong statistic to point to since the question is subsidization of abortion. But just to give the statistics from a 2001 Gallup poll on the subject of abortion itself: The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52% believed abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14% thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000). Now if 52% of the population thought abortion should only be allowed in special circumstances, I think it is safe to say that there is a larger percent of the population which would be opposed to subsidizing all abortion. I do not have a statistic to prove this, but if 52% of the population believe that only certain abortions should be legal, that means that 52% of the people believe that not all abortions should be legal. I think it is safe to say that if they dont approve of all abortions, they dont approve of funding all abortions either. I project the number would go up when it comes to the question of subsidized abortions since I am certain that some of the 32% who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances do not all feel that people should be forced to fund it. Because unlike Catch Me, some people are not totalitarian socialists. Either way it seems that Ms. Catch Me feels that her minority should be counted as a majority. I think the term for this is elitism. Furthermore in a National Post article from 2005 http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...66-8ba51d2910f1 the results of a poll show that "Only 29% believe that medicare should pay for all abortions"

You faliled to get my point, I was using that stat showing just one of the decisions, or questions, women face in choice, that men will never face, so could never understand. I was not using the stat to support abortions at all. They need no support, it is a right. You are going back and forth. First we try to establish whether all abortion is comparable to a heart transplant in order to establish whether it should be publically funded or not. Just because the law allows something does not mean people have a right to public funding for it. The law allows me to drink a beer, its a right, but I cant tell the government to buy me beer. But we do agree as a society that when something is of urgent need we pool our money to provide it. Abortions are funded already when there is a medical concern. If you have no medical problem you have to fund it yourself. If I was in the hospital and I was on a very expensive drug the government would pay for that. If I wanted to use that drug personally, but unprescripted use was illegal I could lobby the government to allow recreational use, but then it would be quite brass of me to demand that for a situation which is not urgent that the tax payers fund my habit.

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive". You will understand that the definition of life is a philosophical one, and neither one of us can prove either one of us wrong. Given that, do you think it is too much to ask that you respectfully allow people who have a strong moral conviction about Pro-Life off the hool when it comes to funding all abortions. Once again I point out abortion is fully legal. It is subsidized automatically in cases of medical concern. A small percentage of women die from pregnancy related issues, and I think it is safe to say that a small percentage of those women were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them. Given all of this data, do you think it is unreasonable to ask that you spare people who are sickened by the idea of abortion the further gut-wrench of having the government appropriate their money to fund it. I am asking you for the right to keep my money out of it---asking you.....whilst you stand here (not asking) demanding, saying it is your right to take it.

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive". Moreover, IMV his conversion to Catholicism makes anything he says suspect, or even if was any fundamentalist religion that erodes the rights of women! What's even more unusual, when one googles this man, one sees no other medical reports or commentary on his contentions supporting this thought form of his, all one finds is religious anti-choice rhetoric and web pages. As I said, I prefer to support the rights of those who really truly are alive and breathing, and who are capable of making their own choices with their own life and body. He abandoned abortion before his conversion I believe, and also.....hmmmm are you saying that the opinions of a religious person are of no value (or less value in society)....That could be discrimination.

I advocate that you keep your mouth shut and you respect other people's rights. Apply your view on abortion in your own life but keep it out of others' lives. And missy is most cases is too young to know what the risks are and what she is doing anyway. Parenting is not a business for 15-year-olds. If you advocate freedom of choice then you should have no problem. Abortion is fully legal. What we are discussing is the subsidization of abortion. The charter says that when a doctor refers a patient to have an abortion then it must be subsidized. If there is no sign of medical complication, you can still get an abortion, but you have to fund it yourself. Given the moral objection to abortion by a substantial segment of society, given the fact that very few women die from pregnancy and most likely a small fraction of those were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them, given the fact that you think people should mind their own business and keep their mouths shut is it not too much to ask you to mind yours when it comes to asking (not even asking, but making a totally selfish respectless demand that it is your right to other peoples money) people who are Pro-life, who are sickened by the idea of abortion to be able to abstain from funding an abortion. We dont perform operations on patients unless they are recommended to surgery. You are saying women die during pregnancy which is an after the fact statistic, as if abortion would have saved all these lives when probably a very minute percentage (those who wanted abortions but couldnt afford them) of a very minute percentage of these women (those who died from pregnancy related causes). If you think people should have their own rights, well I say mind your own business and shut your own mouth and let people who believe in abortions fund their own.

Complete bullshit. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any life in an embryo prior to the 5th month of gestation and abortions beyond the 3rd month are performed only when the mother's life is in danger. Life prior to the 5th month is a figment of religious fanatics' imagination. But according to them, the earth is also flat and 6000 years old. Stats show that 5 out of 100,000 women in Canada die from pregnacy related issues, though the medical community says this might be a serious underreporting. That is NOT even considering those who have severely damaged renal systems, cardiac, or other pregnacy related illnesses that last for life. Or even considering those women who have pregnancy related strokes and are disabled forever. What kind of "supposed life bringing" condition do men face that may kill them, or diable them for life? Oh, yes, that would be NONE! Perhaps they should try facing that one? They can't and it is the main reason why anything a male says in regards to pro-choice is waste products, they do not know what it is like to face such a thing, and put their lives and future health on the line for something they did not want and perhap cannot even deal with. As I said, and will say again, I support the living, not the potential life that does not start until after the 5 month "quickening". The asshats that say the women should keep their legs closed need to keep both zippers shut that give access to either of their heads output. 5 out of 100, 000 women die from pregnancy related issues. Good work. But hardly done, since this is not the statistic which is required to make your point. Which percentage of those 5 out 100,000 were women who opted for abortions but were unable to get one.

And I also point out the charter allows for situations where it is needed (referred by a doctor) that it will be funded. Of course doctors can be wrong, but life is not perfect. Do you think the government should fund chemo-therapy for the hell of it in case you have cancer they never detected? What percentage of abortions are because women are living in abject fear that carrying the feotus is going to terminate their lives?

Significant number? to what? I bet a far more significant number of woman die in car crashes. Even one is way too many. Are you fucking telling me that you are going to force women to have unwanted children because too few die in childbirth. That's about as bad as a rape! Pedestrians get killed in car accidents. And one death is too many, yes. But do you suggest everyone stop driving. Kids get killed in bus accidents on the way to school, one childs death is too many, but would you say we should keep our kids out of school. In one hundred percent of abortions a death occurs.

If ethiopian women had abortions more often instead of having 10 children on average, believe me, a lot fewer of these children would be starving to death and dying of diseases that can be treated for $10. And who the hell do you imagine you are to tell people whether to have children or not? Just shut up and mind your own business! Once again Saturn I point out, that people are allowed to have abortions. Who are you to say everyone, including pro-lifers are tax payers should have to fund it.

"Uh first premise is wrong a feotus is not a child, it may have the potential to be, if everything goes well, and if a woman chooses to abort that feotus you're correct a male has NO say, even more reason to keep that fly zipped, eh?"----Catch Me Now this is a debatable point. This has never been proven or established. Alot of scientists disagree. One of them, Bernard Nathanson, was an abortion doctor who was active in the movement to have abortion legalized. Years later, he had a change of heart due to insider experience in the procedure. He now believes the feotus is a living thing.

"What's funnier is that when you read statistics you don't like, you say they are probably made up." I think Catch Me has a bad habit of being totalitarian in her views. Any dissent and she conveniently blackens you as a mysogynist or a bigot. She supports freedom of conscience and freedom of thought as long as they are her thoughts.

"Missy" cannot get pregnant on her own. I hope you don't suggest that the guy who helped her should have a body part amputated as punishment because he didn't use birth control."---Saturn If she wasnt raped, she was a willing partner. Can a drunk use "well officer, my friend bought me a beer" as a defense against drinking and driving.

Imagine telling an ethiopan kid "Well I live in squalor to you know. The federal government wont give me a free abortion."

I doubt he causes you anything besides an urge to type nonsense. But what norm is saying is true. Whether you like it or not. In fact only someone totally uninformed and ignorant would claim otherwise. What he forgot to mention is that a significant number women die in childbirth too. I believe the Charter states that public funded abortion is a right only when the patient is referred for one by a doctor. Why is it ignorant to believe otherwise? That is not an argument. Thats just an insult. Only people who are ignorant would disagree with you and Norm? What percentage of women die in child birth? A significant number? What is a significant number? A significant number relative to the amount of pregnant women? Are women dying left and right? You are right Norm doesnt cause me anything. Thats just the point. I am making a mockery of his "psychological suffering" argument. I would say his argument that pregnancy has such an unbearable psychological affect on women that it justifies the "subsidization" of abortion for people who would just have one in order to be rid of an inconvenience is just another example of the "poor me, pity me" attitude that exists in society. Not unlike Catch Me saying that if you cant get free abortions we might as well go back to serfdom. Does she really believe herself?

And to bring up M. Dancer's analogy to referring someone to atheist.com for information on becoming a Christian. Well if I had been referring people to a site which sought to defame masonry or was opposed to it then the analogy would be reasonable. But once again I reiterate my website is a Magazine for Freemasons by Freemasons. So in this case the proper analogy for M. Dancer to have made would be "Would it be reasonable if I told someone who was interested in Christianity to check out www.somethingblahblah.com (non-existant), an online Christian Magazine for Christians by Christians?" In which case I would have said "yes. that sounds reasonable."

I dont believe in the Da Vinci Code Scriblett, nor National Treasure. I dont believe in a Holy Grail. Nor do I put much stock in conspiracy theory websites. Would you not say that the quotes I posted make masonry questionable for people of certain faiths? I did not get these quotes from a conspiracy theory site, nor from a website seeking to defame masons. You say that people need to get their heads out the conspiracy theory sites, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that I have repeatedly shown that my sources were not a conspiracy theory website. The website was www.freemasons-freemasonry.com. If you look at the site you will see it claims to be a Magazine For Freemasons By Freemasons. It claims to be recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. It is not anti-masonry. So if the site is not genuine that leaves one possibility. It is a mock masonic site. And if Albert Pike is not associated at all with masonic thought, then the wide range of Masonic websites (not conspiracy theory websites) that recognize him as a scholar on the topic of all must be mock masonic sites. I did not propose any conspiracy theory. I did not say the masons killed Kennedy or any such thing. I just posted quotes which I thought would create enough question in the mind's of people who are religious to determine that yeah maybe this is heretical and I would not want to be involved with them either. But let me ask you the same thing I asked M. Dancer. If all these sites are posers, are they part of some elaborate "conspiracy" to make phoney masonic documents and post them on phoney masonic websites in order to defame the order. Is that what you assert?

Ah I see. Perhaps there are half-truths out there. However you would place the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry at a higher level than other encyclopedias?

Actually I have read quite a lot of Morals and Dogma. And how far beyond and prior to a quote must one reasonably read in order to obtain the "context". I think it would be ridiculous to assert that I should quote the whole text of Morals and Dogma on here. I have quotes that say that the charge that low level masons are led to believe they know the meanings of masonry are not false. How far back do I have to quote to make the context different. YOu can use the context argument all you want. In this case, its bullshit. I have read around the said quotes, the chapters which they appear in. Are you suggesting to me that if I look back far enough I will find in the preface of the book these words "I am writing this book on Opposite Day. Therefore everything I say is really the opposite of what I am thinking."