IlliniBob72

Nice use of selective quoting there. You left out the fact that my next sentence was "I'll take that with a grain of salt". Translation: I don't put much stock in that.

I'll use small words so you can understand. If you feel that a baby in the womb is an actual baby, and that babies should not be aborted, it stands to reason that all babies, conceived under any circumstances, should not be aborted. A baby conceived in the back seat of a car by two high school sweethearts is a baby in every regard as one conceived by a rape or a case of incest. It is a s***ty situation, no doubt. Again, I never said that I felt this way. I am against abortion, but I would never judge someone who would get an abortion under any circumstance. But I also respect peoples views and beliefs. If someone believes that a fetus is a baby and that no babies, none, should be aborted, I respect their views. I understand why someone who is against aborting what is considered babies would be against aborting all babies. Is that clear enough for you? :headshake

It was mentioned that she had visions of stigmata and the crucifixion and anti-semitism. That really doesn't tell me anything. I just saw an interview he gave and he claims it's based on the gospels. I'll take that with a grain of salt. But he also said something else I found interesting. He said exactly what some other poster here said...that mankind is responsible for the death of Jesus, himself included. I don't know Mel Gibson nor what he believes, but if he believes what he said, that mankind, Jews included, are responsible for the death of Jesus, it stands to reason that he wouldn't agree with exempting them. I am not particularly a fan of Gibson's. I'm just reading this as someone on a jury, and if I were on a jury trying Gibson for being an anti-Semetic crazy, I'd say the case is bulls***. Who gives a f*** what Daddy Gibson has to say? My dad thinks the Bears are worth $5000 a year in season tickets. If that's not the definition of loony tunes, I don't know what is. Before some early twentysomething kid wants to try to show off his education again, I am not comparing being a Bears fan with being an anti-Semite. I am saying that little Mel shouldn't have his dad's nutjob beliefs held up as evidence against him. If Gibson is guilty of anything in my mind, it's of having a strict belief in the Bible. He believes non-Catholics are condemned to hell. Unfortunate, but OK. My mother believes that my unbaptized baby will go to hell if, God forbid, he were to die. I don't believe that, but that's her belief. My ex-wife thought that all non-Christians are condemned to hell. I asked what about Amazon tribesmen whose only sin is not being introduced to Christ...they too are going to hell, according to her. My ex-father-in-law believed the Bible literally. Adam lived to be 967 years old in the Bible, well, then he did. I didn't think they were nutjobs, just had different beliefs than I did. Also, I consider myself a Republican, but I don't believe in it's entire platform. You could say that since I'm a Republican that I am against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. You'd be wrong. His belonging to a sect of Catholicism that won't disavow the Jews culpability in the death of Christ is proof of s***.

1. I'm not talking about Gibson's faith or denomination. All I said and you pooh-poohed was that it sounds like this movie is an interpretation of the Bible. Exactly what Cubkilla and Fan14 said before. That wasn't disproved by cw, you, or anyone else. I didn't comment on MG's motives. I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on anymore than I've read about it. 3. "Come-f***ing-on" about what? Saying that it isn't possible to analyze something miraculous with science? How can you? Isn't that the very essence of a miracle? 4. Have you made it your goal to fill the void left by BMR? I didn't mean to compare Jesus to a fiction novel. I was just pointing out that that movie illustrated my question...if your future is already known, does it mean it is pre-ordained and cannot be changed? It was a reference that popped into my head, but since I can expect you to chime in with a smartass comment, I'll be sure to put more thought into my posts. I wouldn't want to get a :headshake from the new Dan Bernstein of the board.

OK, I finally decided to put in the time and read this thread and found a few things interesting. 1. The movie and Gibson are being bashed for being anti-Semitic, but at the same time I haven't read anything that says anything is made up or veers from the Bible story. If the movie follows the Bible, maybe the problem isn't that the movie is anti-Semitic but that the Bible is. While that may indeed be the case, many Christians believe every word of the Bible is true. That may seem insane to some and faith to others. I realize that some poetic license was taken in the writing of the Gospels to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, but many many people read it literally. 2. There was talk about how surprising it is that many people believe the Bible is true. Again, it's a thing called faith. I don't believe Noah lived to be 890 years old, but people believe it because the Bible tells them so. People have faith in an invisible being that has no beginning and no end, is everywhere and knows everything, so why is believing that Moses parted the Red Sea so outlandish? 3. I believe I read a book by Crassan entitled "Is the Bible True?". I think it was him. It was a good book but I had one problem with it. It went into detail trying to explain events described and stories and tried to debunk some of them. But one major factor was dismissed...THIS WAS THE SON OF GOD!!!! You can't tell me that Jesus did not cure the man of blindness because of this or that because being the Son of God the rules didn't apply to him. I kept saying this to myself as I read the book, "But this was Jesus!". 4. Has Judas gotten a bum rap? The idea of seeing the future also makes me wonder about this. Judas was told by Jesus that he would betray him...did Judas have a choice then? The idea that people can see the future, does that mean there is an element of predestination? Kind of like "Minority Report".

I wonder if they can change unis at half. It probably isn't as bad on the floor, but my God, I can't tell them apart. I have to wait for the players reactions before I know who grabbed a rebound.

The question is does the fetus feel pain as it is aborted. Having gone to Catholic school, I've been shown the films that claim that it does and it seemed that way to me while watching it. I do feel that at a fairly early stage of development the fetus is cognizant of things around it and does feel pain. I don't mourn a miscarriage a week after conception the same way I might a miscarriage at 3 months. I don't have a major issue with the "morning after pill", which I guess is a form of abortion. Some may find that hypocritical, but I guess it is no different than feeling worse about a 6 year old murdered on the street than I would about a person in a vegetative state passing away. They are tragedies on different levels.

I am all for both.

Brando, I'm just saying that to pro-life people you're asking them to ignore what is being done to what they consider another living human being. They/we believe that just because it needs the woman's placenta to survive doesn't make it not a living being. People who are pro-life are not just being nosy. They are against aborting what they consider human beings.

The funny thing is, I only got dragged into this thing because Brando objected to my use of the words "killing unborn babies". I guess its semantics. I really just meant getting an abortion. Do I believe they're babies? Yes. Am I against it? Yes. Am I passionate about it? Not really. If my daughter or sister were to consider getting one, I'd advise against it. In fact, recently my sister thought she may be with child and talked about "getting it taken care of". My wife and I talked seriously about taking in her baby if we could convince her to carry it to term. She wasn't pregnant so it was moot. But like I said, I don't drive around with pro-life bumper stickers or protest clinics. But really, I've got other things to worry about. I just disagreed with the line of thinking that in the debate as to whether it should or should not be legal that the increase in illegal abortions should be an incentive to keep it legal. On another line that I'll probably be attacked for. The surest way for a political candidate to lose my vote is to run an ad saying "My opponent is so radical that he is against abortion EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST!". OK, that is a terrible situation, but if someone is against abortion because they believe it is killing an unborn child, how CAN he be for it in cases of rape and incest. The child isn't at fault in how he or she was conceived. How can you be against killing what you consider a child in one case but for it in another? The ad ought to just say "My opponent isn't a hypocrite, so vote for me".

I hear what you're saying, but the quote above really is the rub. Pro-choice people make statements like this, where pro-life people feel that that's not true, that the rights of the baby are also an issue. I feel that if the terrible decision needs to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, of course, save the mother. With my son my wife had some issues and she said to me to make sure the baby is OK. I told her flat out no, whatever they need to do to save her I'm letting them do. Thank God it never came to that. But what has been discussed here is not that case, but where a woman has made a mistake and shouldn't have the rest of her life screwed up. It's not just legislating morality, it's legislating against murder to those that believe life begins at conception. I agree with your point about the picture. Looking at it made me cringe slightly.

I will check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation, cw.

Rome, 150 A.D. : "You're against throwing Christians to the lions? Well, don't go to the Colliseum then." American South, 1860 : "You're against slavery? Don't buy a slave then." Germany, 1943: "You're against gassing Jews? Well, don't gas any then." American South, 1960: "You're against lynching blacks? Well, don't lynch one." You can't tell people who believe that abortion is murder to just not get an abortion. And before you say that owning a slave or the Holocaust is much worse than aborting a "fetus", that's not true to a lot of people. Being insulated from the act by the fact that we never see the fetus or see it meet its end has lessened the impact. For those who believe that it is killing a baby, it makes no difference if the baby is a week old or still in utero. And the argument outlawing abortion will really screw up the person who made a mistake's life really creates a slippery slope.

That's funny. When I do an internet search of "FDR and Pearl Harbor" most every site is talking about how he knew. Anyway, originally I had only said that many historians have accused FDR of having prior knowledge, something that cannot be refuted. But after your statement that even mentioning what many have thought for years is "pathetic" I've done some more reading and the evidence sure is compelling. Perhaps you could recommend a few of those "100 that soundly dismantle" the theory. I could always use a new book to read.

Something odd though. A buddy of mine just emailed me saying that USA Today is reporting that Frank is demanding a trade to LA because he's tired of Guillen calling him out in public. Surely this is an independent report as he doesn't visit this site.

You've got 4500 posts. I must have missed the one where you said that. I'll be sure to get myself updated on all your postings.

Dude, if you find the reference to the victims of abortion as "babies" disgusting, then you seriously need to toughen up. People who believe abortion is wrong feel that a baby is being killed. That isn't rhetoric. That isn't spin. That isn't turning a phrase. Personally, I feel abortion is wrong, but I'm not out throwing blood on women walking into clinics. I don't understand how someone who has gone to a sonogram and seen their unborn child there with his arms behind his head relaxing, or be able to see that he has your nose, or have your wife say "Wow, he's going to be a wild one!", and not feel that he's a baby in the womb. I have certainly withheld judgment of people on this board on this issue, or tried to, and certainly haven't called what anyone believes disgusting. As for your saying the Pearl Harbor accusation is pathetic, what is that based on? There are certainly many historians that believe FDR was given prior warning and there's a lot of evidence to back it up. I'm not well read on it, but I do know it's out there. So for you to say it's pathetic blindly is no different than if I were to say it's pathetic to even suggest GWB went AWOL, ignoring the fact that there is evidence. I may not agree or believe, but I won't say it's pathetic.

My Lord, the hits just keep on coming. Is it just coincidence that the two biggest NCAA scandals of the past calendar year have taken place at Big 12 schools? First Baylor and the Patrick Dennehy fiasco and now Colorado. I wonder if the conference will face heightened scrutiny.

OK, you got me there. See, I can admit when I'm wrong!

I'm surprised you'd like FDR. Cheating on poor Eleanor with many a lass. Hiding his polio from the American public. Accused by many of having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Declaring war on Germany when the Nazis had done nothing to the United States. I'm sure Apu could give you many more grievances with good ol' Frankie.

My disgusting turn of phrase?? What was disgusting about it? If you are referring to the mention of coat hangers, don't look at me. That was mentioned before by someone else. If that's not it, I can't imagine what you mean. Maybe you're more sensitive to normal words than me.

If this is true, how is it hypocritical? He isn't accused of having a baby aborted while President or Governor, is he? One thing about having people's records so easily accessible is that people think once people take a position or stand that they are beholden to that position until they die. The woman at the center of Roe v. Wade is now anti-abortion. Is she a hypocrite or has she just exercised her right to change her mind? It was stated before about abortions being forced back to the back alley coathanger days. I've never understood this argument. The killing of unborn babies should continue to be legal because making it illegal will force women to go to great lengths to illegally abort their babies? Following that line of reasoning, purchasing, selling, and using illicit drugs should be made legal because the illegal drug world is dangerous.

I'm waiting for the exclusive report that Bush used to burn ants with a magnifying glass as a young boy.

Genius.

Yet Bush is never cut any slack on the economy even though that is exactly what happened. I've been told over and over again by libs that 9/11 has nothing to do with the poor economy. So, which is it?