On May 28, 5:12*am, Gary Forbis wrote:
On May 27, 3:40*pm, Meldon wrote:

You heard it here first! Men by simply having sex, are not responsible
for unwanted pregnancies because there’s no guarantee of pregnancy.

While there can be no meeting of the minds between the mother or
father and the life created there can be a meeting of the minds
between
the mother and the father concerning any life created. *It behooves
the
couple to make a contract concerning such matters.

We can move down the road to what obligations a society can force
upon an individual if you'd like. *We'd need to start from basic
principles
concerning such matters so we know these principles are consistently
applied in all our decisions. *Both the left and the right seem to be
helter-skelter on the application of first principles.

GF - Classic Liberal Secular Society Thinking :
* make a contract
* obligations a society
* force upon an individual
* principles are consistently applied in all our decisions
* application of first principles

Where is the Humanity and Love {Sense of Family}
Between a Man and a Women and the New Life
{Children} That They Have Created in Your Thinking ?
* Humanity
* Love
* New Life
* Family
* Society

On May 28, 11:05*am, "~ RHF" wrote:
On May 28, 5:12*am, Gary Forbis wrote:





On May 27, 3:40*pm, Meldon wrote:

You heard it here first! Men by simply having sex, are not responsible
for unwanted pregnancies because there’s no guarantee of pregnancy.

While there can be no meeting of the minds between the mother or
father and the life created there can be a meeting of the minds
between
the mother and the father concerning any life created. *It behooves
the
couple to make a contract concerning such matters.

We can move down the road to what obligations a society can force
upon an individual if you'd like. *We'd need to start from basic
principles
concerning such matters so we know these principles are consistently
applied in all our decisions. *Both the left and the right seem to be
helter-skelter on the application of first principles.

GF - Classic Liberal Secular Society Thinking :
* make a contract
* obligations a society
* force upon an individual
* principles are consistently applied in all our decisions
* application of first principles

Where is the Humanity and Love {Sense of Family}
Between a Man and a Women and the New Life
{Children} That They Have Created in Your Thinking ?
* Humanity
* Love
* New Life
* Family
* Society

In the case of those who would chose abortion,
no where. If you think society should oblige a
woman to carry to term you are considering
where a society can force an obligation onto
a woman. Where is the love in that?

The weather outside is cool.What happened to all that global warming?
cuhulin

wrote:
The weather outside is cool.What happened to all that global warming?
cuhulin


The scientists predict cooling in many places (including N. America) and
warming in others. Agriculture will quickly collapse. There will be
famine, displacement, wars, and megadeath. Hoopla!

On May 28, 6:52*pm, Gary Forbis wrote:
On May 28, 11:05*am, "~ RHF" wrote:



On May 28, 5:12*am, Gary Forbis wrote:

On May 27, 3:40*pm, Meldon wrote:

You heard it here first! Men by simply having sex, are not responsible
for unwanted pregnancies because there’s no guarantee of pregnancy.

While there can be no meeting of the minds between the mother or
father and the life created there can be a meeting of the minds
between
the mother and the father concerning any life created. *It behooves
the
couple to make a contract concerning such matters.

We can move down the road to what obligations a society can force
upon an individual if you'd like. *We'd need to start from basic
principles
concerning such matters so we know these principles are consistently
applied in all our decisions. *Both the left and the right seem to be
helter-skelter on the application of first principles.

GF - Classic Liberal Secular Society Thinking :
* make a contract
* obligations a society
* force upon an individual
* principles are consistently applied in all our decisions
* application of first principles

- - Where is the Humanity and Love {Sense of Family}
- - Between a Man and a Women and the New Life
- - {Children} That They Have Created in Your Thinking ?
- - * Humanity
- - * Love
- - * New Life
- - * Family
- - * Society

- In the case of those who would chose abortion,
- no where.

Yes - Forcing a Women to have an Abortion as her
'only' Choice is very De-Humanizing for the Woman.

-*If you think society should oblige a woman
- to carry to term you are considering where
- a society can force an obligation onto a woman.

Society is 'obligating' Women Everyday to Have
Abortions and Living with the Emotional Pain
and Suffering of Having Killed Their Own Babies.

-*Where is the love in that?

Yes - Abortion ! -really- Where Is The Love In That ?

On May 29, 1:40*am, "~ RHF" wrote:


Yes - Forcing a Women to have an Abortion as her
'only' Choice is very De-Humanizing for the Woman.

-*If you think society should oblige a woman
- to carry to term you are considering where
- a society can force an obligation onto a woman.

Society is 'obligating' Women Everyday to Have
Abortions and Living with the Emotional Pain
and Suffering of Having Killed Their Own Babies.



Duh. You are an affront to logic. Please name a woman who the gov't
"forces" to have an abortion. A woman choosing to have an abortion is
not the same as being "forced". Time to call up the angels in your
brain, so that you can make them dance on the head of a pin, again.

Please, show us the mental masturbation you are so good at.

Michael W. Bryant, the totally confused dufus who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:

On May 29, 1:40 am, "~ RHF" wrote:


Yes - Forcing a Women to have an Abortion as her
'only' Choice is very De-Humanizing for the Woman.

- If you think society should oblige a woman
- to carry to term you are considering where
- a society can force an obligation onto a woman.

Society is 'obligating' Women Everyday to Have
Abortions and Living with the Emotional Pain
and Suffering of Having Killed Their Own Babies.


Duh. You are an affront to logic. Please name a woman who the gov't
"forces" to have an abortion. A woman choosing to have an abortion is
not the same as being "forced". Time to call up the angels in your
brain, so that you can make them dance on the head of a pin, again.

Please, show us the mental masturbation you are so good at.

Lying about having a PhD is mental retardation, dufus boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute.
They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows,
there may be more dufi there.

On May 29, 4:35*am, dxAce wrote:
Michael W. Bryant, the totally confused dufus who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:

Please, show us the mental masturbation you are so good at.

Lying about having a PhD is mental retardation, dufus boy!

How is this responsive? One needn't have a PhD to understand logic.
I have no degree at all. I learned Boolean logic while in the 6th
grade
by being a sounding board for my dad as he was learning it.
Interestingly
his text book introduced many wacky techniques to help optomize a
formula and thereby reduce the number of components to implement it
in an electronic device.

I suspect RHF doesn't know how to use predicate logic. Many on the
right (and left) would be well served by learning the rules of logic
so that
they can discuss issues rationally and improve their arguments rather
than attempting to twist other's words. Clarity of thought rather
than
strength of conviction is the surest way to the truth of the matter.
I'm
trying to bring him along but it's hard to help someone who doesn't
know how to determine the validity of an argument let alone the
soundness
of one.

Gary Forbis wrote:
On May 29, 4:35 am, dxAce wrote:
Michael W. Bryant, the totally confused dufus who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:

Please, show us the mental masturbation you are so good at.
Lying about having a PhD is mental retardation, dufus boy!

How is this responsive? One needn't have a PhD to understand logic.
I have no degree at all. I learned Boolean logic while in the 6th
grade
by being a sounding board for my dad as he was learning it.
Interestingly
his text book introduced many wacky techniques to help optomize a
formula and thereby reduce the number of components to implement it
in an electronic device.

I suspect RHF doesn't know how to use predicate logic. Many on the
right (and left) would be well served by learning the rules of logic
so that
they can discuss issues rationally and improve their arguments rather
than attempting to twist other's words. Clarity of thought rather
than
strength of conviction is the surest way to the truth of the matter.
I'm
trying to bring him along but it's hard to help someone who doesn't
know how to determine the validity of an argument let alone the
soundness
of one.

A = B
B = C
A = C

On May 29, 5:27*am, Gary Forbis wrote:
On May 29, 4:35*am, dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the totally confused dufus who once claimed to have a PhD,
wrote:
Please, show us the mental masturbation you are so good at.

Lying about having a PhD is mental retardation, dufus boy!

How is this responsive? *One needn't have a PhD to understand logic.
I have no degree at all. *I learned Boolean logic while in the 6th
grade
by being a sounding board for my dad as he was learning it.
Interestingly
his text book introduced many wacky techniques to help optomize a
formula and thereby reduce the number of components to implement it
in an electronic device.

- I suspect RHF doesn't know how to use predicate logic.

How Would You Know . . . What I Know ?

-*Many on the right (and left) would be well served
- by learning the rules of logic so that they can
- discuss issues rationally and improve their
- arguments rather than attempting to twist
- other's words.

For 'many' on the Left (and Right) Feelings Are Facts :
* I 'feel' what I know.
* I know what I 'feel'
* Those Are My Factual 'Feelings'
-and- Your Facts
-and- Your Knowing
Can Not Will Not Change Them.
{Your Reality Is Not My Reality}
+ Feelings Trump Logic
+ Feelings Trump Rational Reasoning
= My Feelings Trump Your Arguments

-*Clarity of thought rather than strength
- of conviction is the surest way to the
- truth of the matter.

The Clarity of the Strength of Conviction
Is The Truth of the Matter : For Those
Who 'Feel' That They Are Justly Right.

- I'm trying to bring him along but it's hard
- to help someone who doesn't know how
- to determine the validity of an argument
- let alone the soundness of one.

GF - Ah Shucks - I hope that I am not
hurting you 'feelings'. - idtars ~ RHF