Abortion:Slavery--Slavery:Evolution--Evoution:Abortion

[twin2]

Logic from the mind that is Tayrn (taken from Zhu's PP post):

The Bible-King James-is not set in an ideal world. I am 55 and I have never been forced to sin. Just as slavery was abolished, abortion should be abolished. Sometimes people argue about abortion like the pro-slavery people in the 19th century did. There's a William Wilberforce biography at keepersofthefaith.com and many other books that we of the 21st century should read-Booker T. Washington's autobiography, One Race,One Blood(answersingenesis)that speaks of the evolution-believing slave owners,etc. The evolutionists today are pro-abortion. I pray for the killing of unborn babies to be abolished. I was conceived before marriage and would have been aborted if it was legal-I know that to be a fact. I have a "mixed" granddaughter-full disclosure. I pray for the captives to be set free(Luke 4:18 KJ).

If any of you can figure out exactly what she is saying here, 10 free jinger points to you.

[debrand]

From arguing with other prolife people, my guess is that the writer is comparing being prochoice to supporting slavery. I've heard this argument before. Their reasoning goes like this: At one time, some people said that humans had the right to own others. Now some people say that humans have the right to kill their fetuses. Also, the writer believes that his/her mother would have gotten an abortion. And they have a mixed race grandchild so they feel that abortion is personal. They just tied abortion in with slavery so because slavery hurt their grandchild's ancestors, they have to be against abortion

Yeah....its an odd comparison. Don't think about it too much. It will just hurt your head.

[latraviata]

Logic from the mind that is Tayrn (taken from Zhu's PP post):

If any of you can figure out exactly what she is saying here, 10 free jinger points to you.

I am glad you don't understand what she is writing. I thought it was me, because English is not my native language.

T. is completely incoherent and, if you ask me, some sort of mentally challenged. I have really no idea what her message is this time.

[debrand]

The problem is that you two are trying to be logical. Shesh.

[twin2]

The problem is that you two are trying to be logical. Shesh.

Are we logical? Maybe Tayrn functions at a logic level that is far above our pay-grades and that is why I can't follow her stream of logic. Who knew the being an evolutionist was the link between abortion and slavery?

Someone out in FJ-land has a Tony translator, I think we need to make a Tayrn Translator.

[Brainsample]

It's a devaluing of human life argument, and a questioning of who gets to decide which life has value and which life doesn't. To get there in her argument, however, you have to agree with her that life begins at conception, that the same constitutional rights that applied to slaves apply to the unborn, and that all human life is equally sacred. If you don't agree with her on those points, you don't have a basis for debate of her premise.

As a collective (as opposed to collectivistic) society and nation, we once thought that slavery was acceptable and that those who were slaves were not also endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights. (Forget that this was penned by a Unitarian and deist, and that a portion of the language of the US Constitution was borrowed and adapted from the writings of John Locke.) As time progressed, society refused to accept the dehumanization of slaves based on skin color. A more contemporary society later decided and contended that those rights applied to those in servitude, and we gave those rights to slaves and eventually to minorities (but even that took another 100 years or so).

So I think she's trying to argue that if we realized we were wrong about slaves and spent almost 100 years denying them freedom and their inalienable rights, then we might also be wrong about the unborn. The only reason that the unborn don't have State enforced rights is because the State doesn't apply those inalienable rights to the unborn citizens of the U.S..

The connection is the fact that society would not protect her if she were conceived today, just like society failed to protect the slave because it denied the rights afforded to all living human beings. If we turned the application of the law and Constitution around for them, we should also work towards doing so for the unborn. She identifies with the unborn today on a deep level, realizing that she would not have survived if she were conceived out of wedlock today.

[twin2]

It's a devaluing of human life argument, and a questioning of who gets to decide which life has value and which life doesn't. To get there in her argument, however, you have to agree with her that life begins at conception, that the same constitutional rights that applied to slaves apply to the unborn, and that all human life is equally sacred. If you don't agree with her on those points, you don't have a basis for debate of her premise.

As a collective (as opposed to collectivistic) society and nation, we once thought that slavery was acceptable and that those who were slaves were not also endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights. (Forget that this was penned by a Unitarian and deist, and that a portion of the language of the US Constitution was borrowed and adapted from the writings of John Locke.) As time progressed, society refused to accept the dehumanization of slaves based on skin color. A more contemporary society later decided and contended that those rights applied to those in servitude, and we gave those rights to slaves and eventually to minorities (but even that took another 100 years or so).

So I think she's trying to argue that if we realized we were wrong about slaves and spent almost 100 years denying them freedom and their inalienable rights, then we might also be wrong about the unborn. The only reason that the unborn don't have State enforced rights is because the State doesn't apply those inalienable rights to the unborn citizens of the U.S..

The connection is the fact that society would not protect her if she were conceived today, just like society failed to protect the slave because it denied the rights afforded to all living human beings. If we turned the application of the law and Constitution around for them, we should also work towards doing so for the unborn. She identifies with the unborn today on a deep level, realizing that she would not have survived if she were conceived out of wedlock today.

I understood, what she was trying to say (well, minus the whole evolution bit), its just how she tries to say it that makes me giggle.

[Brainsample]

I don't know what the KJV argument means, unless that is a reference to the belief that the KJV is superior to all other versions of the English Bible as well as the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek from which it was translated. Neither the KJV nor any other Bible translation or text comes to us in an ideal world. We were messed up from since the second Chapter of Genesis before we know about anyone writing anything down.

And I guess the reference to her relative of mixed race is a disclaimer to let us know that she's not a racist, at least not when it comes to her relatives.

[latraviata]

It's a devaluing of human life argument, and a questioning of who gets to decide which life has value and which life doesn't. To get there in her argument, however, you have to agree with her that life begins at conception, that the same constitutional rights that applied to slaves apply to the unborn, and that all human life is equally sacred. If you don't agree with her on those points, you don't have a basis for debate of her premise.

As a collective (as opposed to collectivistic) society and nation, we once thought that slavery was acceptable and that those who were slaves were not also endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights. (Forget that this was penned by a Unitarian and deist, and that a portion of the language of the US Constitution was borrowed and adapted from the writings of John Locke.) As time progressed, society refused to accept the dehumanization of slaves based on skin color. A more contemporary society later decided and contended that those rights applied to those in servitude, and we gave those rights to slaves and eventually to minorities (but even that took another 100 years or so).

So I think she's trying to argue that if we realized we were wrong about slaves and spent almost 100 years denying them freedom and their inalienable rights, then we might also be wrong about the unborn. The only reason that the unborn don't have State enforced rights is because the State doesn't apply those inalienable rights to the unborn citizens of the U.S..

The connection is the fact that society would not protect her if she were conceived today, just like society failed to protect the slave because it denied the rights afforded to all living human beings. If we turned the application of the law and Constitution around for them, we should also work towards doing so for the unborn. She identifies with the unborn today on a deep level, realizing that she would not have survived if she were conceived out of wedlock today.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

This and the shadow bunnies make absolute sense to me now.

[twin2]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

This and the shadow bunnies make absolute sense to me now

Well you know, I bet slave holders, evolutionists and aborters all say okay and make shadow bunnies. I bet THAT is the connection. I'm following her logic now.

[latraviata]

Well you know, I bet slave holders, evolutionists and aborters all say okay and make shadow bunnies. I bet THAT is the connection. I'm following her logic now.

Yes exactly and shadow bunnies are from satan so theologygeek warned me and I warned my son who is a radiologist and because of the constant exposure to microwave radiation (sic JessiChad) he makes shadow bunnies all the time and continues to do so, even though I told him he will be shunned and disinherited Matthew 4:11 KJB. I talked about it with my American friend in Boston and she agrees wholeheartedly on this particular matter.

To make matters worse, he became the chairman of the society of shadow bunnie making of the university hospital at this place and will participate in divers international bunnie making contests this year, perhaps even the Olympics in 2012. My cousin married a mixed girl who has sent me a book 'the art of pouring concrete in a christian fashion while singing 'chistian soldiers' in A flat major.'

[twin2]

Yes exactly and shadow bunnies are from satan so theologygeek warned me and I warned my son who is a radiologist and because of the constant exposure to microwave radiation (sic JessiChad) he makes shadow bunnies all the time and continues to do so, even though I told him he will be shunned and disinherited Matthew 4:11 KJB. I talked about it with my American friend in Boston and she agrees wholeheartedly on this particular matter.

To make matters worse, he became the chairman of the society of shadow bunnie making of the university hospital at this place and will participate in divers international bunnie making contests this year, perhaps even the Olympics in 2012. My cousin married a mixed girl who has sent me a book 'the art of pouring concrete in a christian fashion while singing 'chistian soldiers' in A flat major.'

I understand what you are saying. Can you ask your son if I can join the shadow bunny society. I'm not European, but I did cook my dinner in the microwave tonight and took the bus to work. I also can play the flute and can write my name in Japanese.

But oh, Latravita, I am whole confused now about shadow bunnies, evolution and slavery. I have done some more research onto Taryn's slavery-evolution-abortion thoughts and now I'm all confused. According to the Bible:

1. This is what god says about bunny rabbits: The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. (Lev 11:6), so I get why shadow bunnies are evil.

2. But this is what god says about slavery: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves (Lev 25:44). Now if slavery=abortion and the Bible is the Word of God, does this mean its ok to have an abortion if its done in a country besides your own? Or is it bad to have an abortion because it will be done by an evolutionist, who believes that evil shadow bunnies evolved from rocks? I don't understand. I need help!!!!!!!!!

[Brainsample]

Guys, is this a subtle snark on me explaining what seems to be obvious, and it was more rhetorical? I'm concrete and I tend to miss stuff like this sometimes.

I guess that I disagree that these folks are not trying to follow logic, based on the foundational principles they accept. If you think that the moon is made of green cheese, it makes perfect sense to send people there to harvest it as a cure for world hunger, and that justifies NASA's existence because it's pragmatic. If you don't think that the moon is green cheese, then it's the most asinine thing ever.

I think that when they work from their accepted assumptions, it's pretty impressive sometimes just how much logic some of them have. (This doesn't apply to folks like Lady Lydia, because I don't think most of her stuff makes any sense, nor to half of Kelly Crawford's stuff.) It's the assumptions that start out as problematic, and half the time, these people have been duped and bullied into accepting the assumptions.

Sorry if I answered a question that was supposed to be entirely rhetorical. I tend not to snark and go into pity or empathy mode with some of these folks because I was once just as manipulated. But when I look at some of their reasoning, the reasoning is actually pretty impressive. I'd put this woman on the "more likely to get out of patriarchy of or ultra-fundieland" List because she does follow pretty good logic, and in a short comment, she's not done half bad. If given a chance to think freely, she might conclude otherwise, or she might better articulate her meaning.

[Cassandra]

Logic from the mind that is Tayrn (taken from Zhu's PP post):

If any of you can figure out exactly what she is saying here, 10 free jinger points to you.

I mean as long as you believe that unborn children have souls and miscarried babies go to heaven, then really the "captives" are set free a lot earlier because of abortion than through childbirth.

And maybe this is because of her poor writing skills, but the admission of having a mixed grandchild sounds like she's admitting to something wrong and negative.

[latraviata]

Guys, is this a subtle snark on me explaining what seems to be obvious, and it was more rhetorical? I'm concrete and I tend to miss stuff like this sometimes.

I guess that I disagree that these folks are not trying to follow logic, based on the foundational principles they accept. If you think that the moon is made of green cheese, it makes perfect sense to send people there to harvest it as a cure for world hunger, and that justifies NASA's existence because it's pragmatic. If you don't think that the moon is green cheese, then it's the most asinine thing ever.

I think that when they work from their accepted assumptions, it's pretty impressive sometimes just how much logic some of them have. (This doesn't apply to folks like Lady Lydia, because I don't think most of her stuff makes any sense, nor to half of Kelly Crawford's stuff.) It's the assumptions that start out as problematic, and half the time, these people have been duped and bullied into accepting the assumptions.

Sorry if I answered a question that was supposed to be entirely rhetorical. I tend not to snark and go into pity or empathy mode with some of these folks because I was once just as manipulated. But when I look at some of their reasoning, the reasoning is actually pretty impressive. I'd put this woman on the "more likely to get out of patriarchy of or ultra-fundieland" List because she does follow pretty good logic, and in a short comment, she's not done half bad. If given a chance to think freely, she might conclude otherwise, or she might better articulate her meaning.

By all means, I am sorry, I took your explanation very seriously. The snark was addressed to Taryn.

[latraviata]

I understand what you are saying. Can you ask your son if I can join the shadow bunny society. I'm not European, but I did cook my dinner in the microwave tonight and took the bus to work. I also can play the flute and can write my name in Japanese.

But oh, Latravita, I am whole confused now about shadow bunnies, evolution and slavery. I have done some more research onto Taryn's slavery-evolution-abortion thoughts and now I'm all confused. According to the Bible:

1. This is what god says about bunny rabbits: The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. (Lev 11:6), so I get why shadow bunnies are evil.

2. But this is what god says about slavery: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves (Lev 25:44). Now if slavery=abortion and the Bible is the Word of God, does this mean its ok to have an abortion if its done in a country besides your own? Or is it bad to have an abortion because it will be done by an evolutionist, who believes that evil shadow bunnies evolved from rocks? I don't understand. I need help!!!!!!!!!

I am afraid you are beyond help. The only one who is able to rescue your soul is the pissing priest Anderson.

My son will be happy to welcome you as a new memeber of the society provided that you continue cooking in the microwave at least 12 times a week.

Not being a European is a bit of a problem because of our rigid dresscode and evolution based slave keeping, but my son translates all the bunny articles into KJB English for various pharmaceutical companies and the Lancet, so he contributes to science the way Zsu does.

[twin2]

By all means, I am sorry, I took your explanation very seriously. The snark was addressed to Taryn.

Ditto, its snark on Taryn's rambling thought process. For example, in this post she starts the KJV and sin, goes into her argument on slavery and abortion, then she inserts a book list, back to her slavery and abortion argument now with comments on evolution, then to her mixed-raced granddaughter. Taryn's always commenting on Zhu's blog and it varies from rambling (the post in this thread) to WTF (the shadow bunnies). It's not necessarily this post in isolation but a sum of all her work. As I said earlier, I understood what she was trying to say, it was just the rambling way she said it. Hence why latrivita and I have been rambling for the last few post.

[notsocommon]

Did I miss something about shaddow bunnies?

[latraviata]

Did I miss something about shaddow bunnies?

Taryn's post on Zsu's blog about feeding Anna and talking 'baby talk'

My granddaughter(17 months) and I enjoyed watching these. I like the Bible name,Anna. We have a granddaughter named Hannah and our 5th granddaughter was born last week-Morgan Hope(Her older sister's name is Reagan Faith-2 years old). This gender thing reminds me again why we should use the word-children. I took out books from the library about marketing to children, years ago. The marketing industry likes the word -kids. I wonder what our Lord thinks of that word(Matthew 25:33 KJprofe). We also say the word "okay" too much and there's a history behind that-form the sign with your hand-what 3 numbers do you see.

June 30, 2011 6:45 AM

[Koala]

still holding out for Taryn to start a blog

[latraviata]

still holding out for Taryn to start a blog

So do I, it is so absurd and caricaturesc a fundie equivalent of 'Monty Python' a gold mine for snarkers!

[notsocommon]

that made no sense whatsoever

[uber frau]

Wow. My mind is blown. And I thought ppl who saw the mark or the beast in paisley dress fabrics were far gone.

She's got a whole level of crazy to herself.

[Squeaky]

Taryn's post on Zsu's blog about feeding Anna and talking 'baby talk'

My granddaughter(17 months) and I enjoyed watching these. I like the Bible name,Anna. We have a granddaughter named Hannah and our 5th granddaughter was born last week-Morgan Hope(Her older sister's name is Reagan Faith-2 years old). This gender thing reminds me again why we should use the word-children. I took out books from the library about marketing to children, years ago. The marketing industry likes the word -kids. I wonder what our Lord thinks of that word(Matthew 25:33 KJprofe). We also say the word "okay" too much and there's a history behind that-form the sign with your hand-what 3 numbers do you see.

June 30, 2011 6:45 AM

I'm feeling really dense because I've been making the OK hand symbol for several minutes now and staring at it and, I see a 3 and a 0, sort of? Is there something evil about the number 30?

[uber frau]

666.

The thumb and forefinger make the bottom of the 6, the other 3 fingers make the tails.