Posts by hooberus

82

"Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

hooberus

I may be off topic a bit, but I want to get something absolutely straight about the following quote:

At the national level, Obama has proved to be one of the most pro-abortion senators, going so far as to vote against a law that would require an abortionist performing an abortion on a minor transported across state lines to notify at least one parent. He opposed the US Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which the baby’s body is delivered leaving only the head in the birth canal, when the abortionist sucks the baby’s brains out then delivers the dead baby now that the head has been suitably shrunk. 21
I don't know what source this came from but I question all their "facts" and statements. Partial birth abortion is a hideous act and I am totally against it. It is normally used for late term pregnancies.
The real procedure is the head is delivered first, drilled into and the brains sucked out, the baby is then delivered dead. There is no way the body is delivered first....that kind usually has to be delivered by cesarean section. So I question where this information came from.
There is no way a baby can be turned around in the birth canal...ask any woman who has delivered a baby. I watched this debated in congress many years ago and they showed the entire procedure with photos on cable television.
r.

illustration: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

82

"Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

hooberus

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=

Full Text of SB1082

Introduced
Senate Amendment 001
Printer-Friendly Version PDF Bill Status

 093_SB1082  LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding 5 Section 1.36 as follows: 6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new) 7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant. 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any 9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various 10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", 11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant 12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any 13 stage of development. 14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with 15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion 18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean 23 section, or induced abortion. 24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall 25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate 26 protection under the law. 27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 28 becoming law.

82

"Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

hooberus

Dawg, when have you ever been able to trust ANYONE who makes a wedge issue out of abortion? The above is bullshit and lies and obfuscation. If their lips are moving.... you know the rest.

That's what I thought... if I don't see evidence this is true, then what else am I supposed to make of it?

Illinois General Assembly 2003 state bill, SB 1082

82

"Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

hooberus

Hooberus, if what you've posted is true, it's an outrage....

But you need to start your own thread, it's off subject of nut job Palin...
This thread is about rape kits, abortion after rape etc...

I'd be interested to see the facts on what you've posted... if it's true, then that not good for Obama's side either.

Would not your earlier comments here (quoted below) also apply to Obama? (especially since he is even closer to controlling the White House than the V.P. nominee Palin) http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/165641/3068645/post.ashx#3068645

Well, I can see your point... but the problem is it isn't a non issue, as I'm sure you'd agree... she is one heart beat from being President, and John McCain is a very old man... if congress were to be majority Republicans in the future, which could happen, and Johnny boy dies, which could happen, then nut job Palin could be the one who appoints Supreme Court justices.,...

And, I might add, it show her ability to reason, she may one day be in charge of the nuclear football... you want this nut job holding a device like that? And many more decisions this nut job may make if/when president.

82

"Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

hooberus

Ever heard of Partial Birth Abortion ?

How about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act ?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5828/

‘Unwelcome’ side-effect of abortion: infants who survive!

Photo wikipedia

Barack Obama

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) at the national level, and various bills like it in state legislatures, was introduced in response to reports that some victims of botched abortion, who were born alive, were being left to die. Jill Stanek was a nurse who testified about this practice, having seen infants shelved in dirty utility rooms to die. The BAIPA guaranteed infants born under such circumstances the same right to treatment as other prematurely born children, whether or not the parents wanted the child to be treated. The bill passed the Senate unanimously, with even the most pro-abortion senators agreeing that once a child was born, the mother’s so-called ‘right to choose’ ended. In 2002, BAIPA was signed into law at the national level. However, in the Illinois senate, a state version of the law failed to pass repeatedly, thanks in large part to then-State Senator Barack Obama (1961–). The Illinois BAIPA only passed after Obama left the State Senate. Stanek reports that when she testified before a committee of which Obama was a member:

‘Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed. In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.’ 20

At the national level, Obama has proved to be one of the most pro-abortion senators, going so far as to vote against a law that would require an abortionist performing an abortion on a minor transported across state lines to notify at least one parent. He opposed the US Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which the baby’s body is delivered leaving only the head in the birth canal, when the abortionist sucks the baby’s brains out then delivers the dead baby now that the head has been suitably shrunk. 21

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

"2002-03-27 | SCIENCE
NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep-Space-Like Environment

A team of scientists at the NASA Astrochemistry Laboratory today announced that they had created amino acids in conditions mimicking deep space. Amino acids are the basic components of proteins, from which all life is made. According to researcher Max Bernstein, "We found that amino acids can be made in the dense interstellar clouds where planetary systems and stars are made. Our experiments suggest that amino acids should be everywhere, wherever there are stars and planets."

The three amino acids produced in the Astrochemistry Lab are similar to those found previously in certain meteorites. Meteorites are pieces of asteroids or comets. The chemical similarities may indicate that amino acids were made in deep space, before the solar system formed, then eventually fell to Earth in meteorites. "This finding suggests that Earth may have been seeded with amino acids from space in its earliest days," said team member Jason Dworkin, adding, "[T]his increases the odds that life also evolved in places other than Earth." "

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

There goes that bit ofm purported 'evidence' of god.

S

Next time read more carefully. The article that I linked to on the origin of life in the first post assumed a generous supply available to begin with (as well as some other generous assumptions).

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

Look around you, the incredibly complex material world is evidence.
Here is why this argument doesn't convince me (being the atheist that I am). If there were to be a Creator, it would seem logical that any such Creator is greater than his/her/its creation. i.e., they'd be more complex than what they created. I think it's reasonable to assume that you cannot create something more intricate than you yourself are.
So where did this infinitely complex creator come from? Did he/she/it just pop out of a vacuum?
The only answer that creationists seem to give is a dogmatic one -- that the creator was already there, so next question please.
Once anyone can explain how a creator appeared out of a vacuum, then we'll next address how evolutionists believe the less-complex universe developed.

Your comments demonstrate a typical "Dawkins like" "God Delusional" evolutionist response to a valid probability argument against one of their actual beliefs.- that is to respond with an counter "argument" against something that no one in the discussion believes in (ie: a strawman).

There is nothing in a probability argument against something coming about by chance [e.g. fine-tuned universe; origin of life from non-life], that also requires a potential creator to themself also have come about by an even greater chance, (since there is nothing in the argument that requires the creator to themself also come about by chance at all.

For example: The probability of a "God Delusion" style book coming about by chance would be very improbable, (due to its relative complexity as compared to complete rubbish). Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of argument its creator must even be even more complex, (and hense even more improbable by chance), we still make no arguemnt against his non-existence since there is nothing in the probability argument against the book coming about by chance that also requires its author to themself have come about by chance.

Indeed, it would be bogus to claim that a probability analysis argument against a "God Delusion" style book coming about by chance is somehow a weak argument since "the odds of its author coming about by chance would be even greater !" This is due to the fact that there is nothing in the chance probability argument against the book that requires its author to themself have come about by chance (for example they may have come about by a non-chance method or be eternal). Yet this is the bogus style of argument that evolutionists frequently use to respond to valid arguments against things that they believe in.

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

Frankly, I find "evidence" that comes from a web site called "Global Flood" to be amusing. Whatever floats your boat. ;)

Dave

Yea, the site must be run by a real flake.

http://www.globalflood.org/biography.html

Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico (1984 - Present).

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

There are numerous resources that can be listed here. For demonstration sake the following is a simplified calculation of specifiying 1/2 of the amino acid sites to obatain a single functional protein. http://www.globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html.
So how does the existence of a "God" that did all these things resolve the "incredible odds" issues raised in the article?
What are the odds that a superhuman being could have somehow come into existence and using methods unknown brought forth matter and organized it into what we observe now? How would you calculate these odds? And why would this be a more simple, palatable, odds-friendly explanation?

This might be a good point against someone who believes in a "superhuman being" that had to "come into existence" like his creation, however it is no point at all against the eternal God worshipped by Christians.

64

"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus in

atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

hooberus

But you said this:
They almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc..
The italics for "their beliefs" were added by you. The word "atheism" is divided into "a-", meaning "without", and "theism" - meaning "belief in God". Atheism is not used to describe beliefs, but lack of a belief in any deity.

My comments were not to state here that "Atheism" itself is belief (that depends on its definition), but instead that atheists (people) usually also have positive beliefs that they claim are "backed by evidence"; "overwhelmidng evidence" etc. -which of course they do.