Have you always been alive?

marmalade6 · #**421** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

You weren't honest. You said:

"I favor allowing women to kill their unborn zefs (thanks Wyse) definitely without legal consequences, for any (or no) reason. You really have no idea of a woman's plight, do you. That is what the OR NO tells us."

1. You couldn't bring yourself to say child which is what we are talking about. You used a word in an attempt to dehumanize a human being. In doing so, you became the equivalent of an old klansman saying nigger this and nigger that in an attempt to dehumanize blacks by using a word meant specifically to deny their humanity.

2. Why lucky? We all make choices and luck rarely has anything to do with where we are in life. I have never won a lottery.

3. A great deal of hard work, a lot of sacrifice, and a very long time which is why it is somewhat offensive to be called luck.

4, I think that maybe you are further removed than you know. You described the horrors of the slaughter house, but failed to see that as far as unborns are concerned, the slaughter house and the "family planning" clinic are analogous. Family planning clinics are mechanized slaughter houses. No dignity is afforded to those who are about to be killed, and no thought is given to their pain. And don't claim that because there is a dispute with regard to unborns at 8 weeks, that there is a dispute further into the pregnancy. When very late term abortions were still legal, the proceedure was carried out without regard to the fact that the child was perfectly capable of feeling pain. In fact, the proceedure was even more brutal than the killing done in slaughter houses and if the law banning late term abortions were lifted, the killing would start up right were it left off.

1. A zef is a zef. A child was a child until pro-life advocates altered the meaning to include 'the unborn', to gain sympathy for their cause.

Prior to 1968, unless stated 'with child', CHILD meant: a boy or girl, a baby or infant.

2. Don't be petulant. I saw this reaction coming and tried to avoid it with the phrase that followed. I meant it sincerely and in a good way. What you've created sounds wonderful.

3. no offense meant.

4. Unborns have you to fight for them. Slaughter house animals don't.

marmalade6 · #**422** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Which animals besides us would hold a food drop for those who have none? That fact alone demonstrates that we, among all the animals on earth recognize the right of others to live.

Bull! Food is carried back to litter, group, nest, pride. The intent is the same. They have no great civilization, nor the means to see the condition of others. And, again we only know what has been observed, and what we are capable of understanding. We see very little.

There are examples of one animal deferring to another. A kitty that has been the sole playmate with the fly thing, will defer play participation to a new kitty, until that kitty has had his fill, then will join the play. They both come looking for the fly toy, and both defer to the other. To have a rambunctious round, I must get each alone.

PaleRider · #**423** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

1. A zef is a zef. A child was a child until pro-life advocates altered the meaning to include 'the unborn', to gain sympathy for their cause.

Prior to 1968, unless stated 'with child', CHILD meant: a boy or girl, a baby or infant.

Once more, where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up and suppose that no one will know the difference. Do you really have any idea how old the term "with child" is and what it means. Here is the etymology of the term:

"with child," 1545, from L. prægnantem (nom. prægnans, originally prægnas) "with child," lit. "before birth," probably from præ- "before" + root of gnasci "be born." Used much earlier in Eng. in fig. senses (1413)

As you can see, the term "with child" has meant pregnant since at least 1545.

The term child has always described a human being from the time of conception until one reached an age of responsibilty. Usually around 13 years old. It is the pro choice side that has attempted to redefine the word in an attempt to deny that child also describes the unborn.

Once more, your belief has proven false, but my bet is that you will hold just as tightly to your position and simply look for some other justification for holding it.

PaleRider · #**424** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Bull! Food is carried back to litter, group, nest, pride. The intent is the same. They have no great civilization, nor the means to see the condition of others. And, again we only know what has been observed, and what we are capable of understanding. We see very little.

Food is brought back to one's young. With regard to the group or pride, food is divided by who is the strongest. The weakest wait their turn and hope that some scrap is left.

marmalade6 · #**425** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Once more, where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up and suppose that no one will know the difference. Do you really have any idea how old the term "with child" is and what it means. Here is the etymology of the term:

"with child," 1545, from L. prægnantem (nom. prægnans, originally prægnas) "with child," lit. "before birth," probably from præ- "before" + root of gnasci "be born." Used much earlier in Eng. in fig. senses (1413)

As you can see, the term "with child" has meant pregnant since at least 1545.

The term child has always described a human being from the time of conception until one reached an age of responsibilty. Usually around 13 years old. It is the pro choice side that has attempted to redefine the word in an attempt to deny that child also describes the unborn.

Once more, your belief has proven false, but my bet is that you will hold just as tightly to your position and simply look for some other justification for holding it.

You don't get off that easily, my friend. If I hold on to a thing, it is for the truth of the thing.

You are promoting a lie, and purely to enhanse the sympathy quotient for your pro-life cause.

With child means one is pregnant. A lovely old term. You seem to need issues where none is necessary.

Info. source:1968, THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, COLLEGE EDITION. First Printing.

CHILD: 1. a boy or girl.

2. a son or daughter.

3. a baby or infant.

4. a chidish person: He's such a child about money.

5. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.

6. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: a child of poverty.

7. Brit. Dial. ARCHAIC. a female infant.

8. ARCHAIC, childe.

9. with child, pregnant.

marmalade6 · #**426** (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Food is brought back to one's young. With regard to the group or pride, food is divided by who is the strongest. The weakest wait their turn and hope that some scrap is left.

Yes, as with any pack of animals, whether it's food for the hungry, or a rush to grab clothing off the hanger, in a sale, the weakest get the scrapings.

So?

PaleRider · #**427** (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

You don't get off that easily, my friend. If I hold on to a thing, it is for the truth of the thing.

Well, we have already established that isn't true. And we have proved it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

You are promoting a lie, and purely to enhanse the sympathy quotient for your pro-life cause.

Marmalade, you made the claim that prior to 1968 the term "with child" didn't include the unborn then you provide a 1968 dictionary reference that states clearly that with child is a reference to pregnancy. On top of that I provide you with the etymology of the word showing that "with child" goes back into the 1500's.

Words mean what they mean marmalade and it is clear that the word child has applied to the unborn for a very long time. Playing word games is not going to win this argument for you marmalade. The science is on my side with regard to unborns being living human beings and the more we learn, the more ensconced that knowledge becomes.

PaleRider · #**428** (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Yes, as with any pack of animals, whether it's food for the hungry, or a rush to grab clothing off the hanger, in a sale, the weakest get the scrapings.

So?

Tell you what marmalade, you show me an example of a pride of lions killing a wildebeast and dragging it over to the next pride and leaving it as a gift, or a similar example of animals gathering food and gifting it to an unrelated group and you will have an analogy. Within established groups, who gets what is established by physical strength and when food supplies get tight, those near the bottom of the pecking order are the first to starve.

wvpeach · #**429** (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 09:02 AM

Pale rider

At best your a immoral unthinking beast. Strange that you should say animals don't have a right to life because as far as I can tell pale rider your no better than a animal yourself.

Talking about wanting abortions stopped and then not caring how the babies that are born are fed is immoral palerider and that describes you perfectly.

PaleRider says"who gets what is established by physical strength and when food supplies get tight, those near the bottom of the pecking order are the first to starve. " you are a immoral wretch palerider who God will judge for your ways. A moral person would take the food from their mouths to keep a child from starving pale rider. Not you though........................Your a immoral ludicrous joke now pale rider.

What surprises me is that you were stupid enough to show us all just how immoral and irrational you are.

PaleRider · #**430** (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Pale rider

At best your a immoral unthinking beast. Strange that you should say animals don't have a right to life because as far as I can tell pale rider your no better than a animal yourself.

No actual argument huh? Nothing more than personal attacks? And you call me imoral?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Talking about wanting abortions stopped and then not caring how the babies that are born are fed is immoral palerider and that describes you perfectly.

And exactly where did you get that from? Thin air? Is it just something you made up because you have nothing intelligent to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

PaleRider says"who gets what is established by physical strength and when food supplies get tight, those near the bottom of the pecking order are the first to starve. " you are a immoral wretch palerider who God will judge for your ways. A moral person would take the food from their mouths to keep a child from starving pale rider. Not you

You really are ignorant, and a liar. A lie of omission is still a lie peach. Why didn't you post my statement in context? I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by palerider

Tell you what marmalade, you show me an example of a pride of lions killing a wildebeast and dragging it over to the next pride and leaving it as a gift, or a similar example of animals gathering food and gifting it to an unrelated group and you will have an analogy. Within established groups, who gets what is established by physical strength and when food supplies get tight, those near the bottom of the pecking order are the first to starve.

Could you not tell from that statement that we were talking about the pecking order within any social group of animals? Or were you aware and just decided to deliberately lie about what I said? You tell me, did you get it wrong because you are stupid or was it a deliberate lie of omission?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What surprises me is that you were stupid enough to show us all just how immoral and irrational you are.

What surprises me is that you are genuinely unable to read words and understand what they mean. And I note that you still have no facts to support your argument. Personal attacks are not an adequate substitute for defending your position.