threepercent

can you please explain to me how a "safe clean partial birth abortion" is different than "toss her newborn infant into the trash can"? can you tell me what is a right? can you tell me where rights come from? can you tell me how you can feel so bad for the person who is in a back ally by choice bleeding to death but not feel so bad for the person who is in a back alley to be executed via a coat hanger?

"And I'm sorry, but when you have something inside your body feeding off of you, then your body should also be considered in any decision. I don't need a double blind study to tell me that a woman's body is effected by pregnancy." so, according to your furtherance of intellectual dishonesty, Kendra can kill Maliyah. Herrintwins.com and Abby can kill Brittany YouTube - Conjoined Twins, Abby & Brittany Hensel turn 16 guess what? I dont need a study to tell me that a body is effected by having its brains sucked out. who is affecting who? whos body gets "consideration" ? is it easier for you to say "something" inside your body than to say "your child"

you said the "earth" is overpopulated. from the definiton you provided it is not. there is enough air, water, food, land, bla, bla, bla for everyone.

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922. "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12. "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976. "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review. "Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5. As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.... On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5. "The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics." Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5. "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind." Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44. "The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174. "The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..." Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922. "[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..." Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922. "Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization." Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review. "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know..." Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood". Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

I disagree so across the board with this I wonder where to start. you are a strong proponent of things that are evil and disgusting, that does not make you evil or disgusting, it makes you a supporter of evil. Abortion is not constitutionally protected. this would require an extensive thread, but in short it does not matter because the constitution is not being enforced anyway. I agree that there are circumstances that may justify an abortion, but this is a load of stink coming from you because you believe in unrestricted abortions, its intellectually dishonest for you to use this argument. for you, the "number of circumstances" is "I'm pregnant". its not her body. period. I can easily prove this with double blind dna testing. to call it her body is a lie. again, intellectually dishonest just to support your view. "Ultimately, no one in their right mind wants to kill fetuses" interesting choice of words. "kill" stands out here. On a different note, you are promoting this very thing, and you are wrong anyway. Ultimately, people don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, and given a choice of facing the music and doing the right thing or "killing fetuses" they choose to kill someone else instead of having their life interrupted. Just to head off any arguments here, I for the most part feel that you get one choice, if you didn't get to choose to engage in the activity that got you pregnant then you get the choice of abortion, but if you did get to choose that, then you have already made your choice. what alternative? how is it worse? are you trying to say the life of the mother might be tragically lost while she murders her child? please explain. of course it is, so are the words "pro-choice". I am not "anti-choice" I think the above shows where the choice is really made though, and "forced pregnancy', what a joke. How about we call it "forced murder prevention." This is just all spin, and you accuse others of it then adopt the tactic. More intellectual dishonesty. The difference is that the term "life" is really the central issue, as it is a life or death issue. the term "choice" was chosen to try to change the issue from a life/death issue to a freedom/slavery issue, except that the redefining of the argument is a lie. the choices were made prior to the abortion issue. we must define merit differently. no. I guess you didn't believe Him when the Lord said there is enough and to spare? Did you know that if you gave every single man, woman, and child 1/4 acre of land (so a family of 4 gets an acre) that the entire world population would fit in less that 2/3rds of Australia? that would leave the rest of the land mass empty. ponder that for a bit. also, "global warming" for the most part is a lie.

part 3 is up.

there are two things I want to say 1. I agree that the priesthood is the consolation prize for us lesser beings. that said, I think if you are not aware of who lead the woman's lib movement and who financed it you should apply a bit of due diligence. 2. I am really having trouble with this next part. I have rewritten it many times. If this comes across incorrectly forgive me. the bikers, the felons, those on the sex registry, those most would think of as the dregs of society, will be golden.

whoa, whoa, whoa! you mean you can COOK without a MICROWAVE?

please watch this to discover some truth about this subject. YouTube - -DVD Version: P5. Proper Role of Government its only 5 min, please watch the entire thing.

"The Bible of the American Revolution" As long as the United States remained under British rule, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. When the Colonies declared their independence, the importation of Bibles became restricted and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America. On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison. He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because, “the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great” and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.” The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative to supply the population with their most important book. On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people and a committee was immediately formed to determine if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance. Aitken’s impressive credentials (he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine) convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible. so much for the "could be any god" theory

no, nor is it prejudice, its a generalization and is the one most confused with racism. for example lets say everyone who has posted on this thread is in a room and a bomb goes off. 90% of the people die. you say, most of the people who posted on this thread are dead. do this with race and you will be called a racist, bigot, prejudice or stereotyping. now, is a-train dead? we don't know. the same is true of race. what people would call a stereotype can be as true as the day is long and it is not racist to apply it to the group in general. as soon as you assume the trait (in this case being dead) is applied to an individual you are prejudiced.

YouTube - LDS Freedom Project II-Follow the Prophet follow the prophet

the answer of course is that yes you are better off. The teachings of the church are no different that you telling a 5 year old to stay away from the hot stove. Or, perhaps I should say when God tells us things its like we are the 5 year old and we dont understand the full implications of why we are being told what we are. perhaps when we are 10 we will be allowed to cook, but for now it is not appropriate. You may feel like you are old enough to understand all the consequences but, of a truth we are not. everything we are commanded to do from God is for our benefit, and is meant to teach us natural law or consequences. God loves you beyond your capacity to understand. if you learn these two lessons, and really learn them, then the rest comes easy. because you have faith that even if you don't understand each and every teaching that comes your way, you still know that it is for your own good. You still learn line upon line, but you don't have to doubt line upon line, you can learn to understand line upon line. see the difference?

YouTube - LDS Freedom Project II-Follow the Prophet

I did 78 #10 cans for food storage this a.m. pinto beans, rice, wheat, flour, and sugar. we have had the product for a year or so, but this was my first chance to put it in cans. I did finally get some concord grapes to do grape juice, thanks to a fine neighbor. that will most likely be the last stuff I put up this year. I did 35 quarts of peaches, 21 quarts of pears, 4 gallons of honey, 21 quarts of tomatoes, 30 pints of stew meat, 5 pints of peperoni, 20 half pints of hot peppers, and about 20 half pints of chilies.

I really enjoy these topics. we should get another thread going. I have to go can but I will post more later but I would guess light is knowledge and intelligence and love is more like gravity, gravity is the weakest attractive force known, yet because of its reach it is the governing force of the universe, like love. this to me is an example of "I shall make the weak strong and the strong weak"

God weighs in. (emphases added)

no, tend to agree with quite a lot of the vast scientific consensuses out there, I think holding up a vast scientific consensus as proof of truth is laughable, well, its sad really but funny that on an lds board you would point and mock from your large and spacious institutes of learning and hold up the honors and learning of men as a light to be followed. I think its laughable that you use the same phraseology as Al the internet Gore uses to push his global warming agenda. Hitlers propaganda ministers used vast scientific consensus to push eugenics, even while Germany was producing the worlds top scientists. what a wonderful potpourri of truth and lies. LOL again, perhaps you should expound on what a "scientific matter" is. and tell me, is walking on water, raising the dead, moving mountains, having the sun stand still, parting rivers and seas, taking citys up into heaven, and tarrying till the second coming fall into that category? how utterly arrogant. you presume to the be only keeper of truth eh? conflicting views must have a source of dogmatic adherence to false gods and are proof of intellectual indentured servitude. how ignorant that you could trust so fully in the arm of flesh while accusing me of relying on the knowledge of others to form my opinion on what God has to say. perhaps we should pass laws against those who think like I do, o thats right, you already have... bully for you.

Introduction to spiritual matter, dimensions 5-11, and wave vrs particle! I have often wondered if outer darkness means you have no one to collapse your probability wave function.

I prefer realistic. Science must cater to it's master, funding. Funding springs from political considerations. Politics are run by politicians and lobbyists and, generally speaking, Satan is running the governments of the earth. Money is power, far greater than the sword or the pen, and science for many years has had to fight for funding. with just a little research you can track the effect of funding on our public education system and you can of course see how far we have fallen there, and science was more vulnerable than education by far. Of course I am not saying science is evil, anymore than religion is. nor is this a reflection on any one scientist.

and I have already stated that a consensus is not the standard of truth. and I have already stated that general profession of science, is bought and paid for. why so angry? why personal attacks? I search for truth through all methods not just one or the other. should I then recommend you resist the temptation to offer opinions concerning religious things? I believe this is an incorrect equation, and that there is unsubstantial proof of this. anyway, its not like I am uneducated in this, I am not offering an uninformed opinion, speaking strictly from a science viewpoint, I do not believe it. speaking strictly from a religious standpoint, I disagree with how you have blended science and the revealed word to make it fit. I am not saying, unlike you, that I have the sum total absolute answer to end all arguments. I am saying that the answers given so far don't hold water. In the Sherlock Holmes method of solving a problem: rule out all the likely solutions whatever is left, however improbable, must be the answer from my personal studies, macro evolution does not pass the test.

Evolution 101: Macroevolution Evolution 101: Microevolution

scripture mingled with the philosophies of man is a phrase that comes to mind

yepers.

according to Moses: planted does this mean evolution does not occur? nope. I think science has shown, without a doubt, that evolution does occur on a micro level. I still see no compelling evidence of macro evolution.