Nightingale

Your divorce paperwork may also prove helpful.

So the mother alone decides when the child mass she is carrying is a human life or not So if she has it's life functions ended at the end of a full term pregnancy but before it takes a breath, you are ok with that? (yes this is an extreme example but a real one today) It is human life from the very beginning. The cells are human (a simple DNA test will tell you that), and they are alive. Therefore, human life. However, I don't see why that's even part of the debate. It's a red herring. It's human. It's alive. It's a baby. It's a fetus. It's a zygote. an embryo. a child. So what? The terminology clouds the issue. On both sides. The issue is this: It's inside the mother. Therefore, though it is human life and has certain rights under the law (generally, not to be killed on purpose without the mother's express wish) because it is inside the mother, her rights trump the baby's rights. PERIOD. It's in her body, so she decides if it stays there. Unfortunately, at our current level of technology, taking it out means killing it. If we someday get the technology to raise an embryo through all the stages of development through birth in the absence of a woman to carry it around for nine months, then my opinion will become: It's in her body, so she decides if it stays there or is removed elsewhere to mature.

Please vote for my friend's girlfriend, Becky Sue, in the Ink n' Iron Pin-up Pageant! Click here: http://ink-n-iron.com/view-vote/ and click on "vote" under the picture of "Miss Becky Sue". Some of the other entries may be considered NSFW. All the pics are beautiful and most are very true to the classic 1940s pin-up style! It asks you to enter an email (I just used my junk email account), and then click on a link in your email to confirm your vote, as a way to make sure that people aren't voting a million times for one person and keep things fair. Thanks so much!

I'm so sorry for your loss, Michele. http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/02/16/len.lesser.obit/index.html?iref=NS1 (CNN) -- Veteran actor Len Lesser died in his sleep Wednesday morning in Burbank, California, of complications from pneumonia. He was 88. "It was very peaceful," his daughter, Michele Lesser, told CNN, saying the family had hoped for a quick and painless death. "He was a great grandpa, and an amazing father. He had a heart of gold -- and a sense of humor of platinum." Best known as Jerry Seinfeld's Uncle Leo on TV's "Seinfeld," Lesser made more than 500 film, television and stage appearances. His TV roles ranged from "Studio One in Hollywood" in 1949 to a 2009 role on "Castle." In addition to "Seinfeld," he had a recurring role as Garvin on "Everybody Loves Raymond." He also appeared on "ER," "Mad About You," "Thirtysomething," "Falcon Crest," "Quincy M.E.," "The Rockford Files," "Kojak," "The Bob Newhart Show," "The Mod Squad," "Green Acres," "All In The Family," "The Monkees," "Get Smart," "My Favorite Martian," "Ben Casey" and "The Untouchables." Lesser's films included "Gallipoli," "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Kelly's Heroes." Lesser also served in the Army during World War II. In addition to his daughter Michelle, Lesser is survived by a son, David, David's wife Julie and the couple's three children.

You're wrong. Plainly and simply wrong. The absolute truth of scripture is assumed absolutely, and that assumption underlies everything he's written so far. There is what passes for logic piled on top of that, but both the logic and the foundations are broken. And you're arguing what's in it when you haven't read it.

No, it really doesn't consider God's existence as a "fait accompli" and move on. It specifically addresses the following: 1. The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine 2. The Existence of God 3. On the Simplicity of God 4. The Perfection of God 5. Of Goodness in General 6. The Goodness of God 7. The Infinity of God 8. The Existence of God in Things 9. The Immutability of God 10. The Eternity of God 11. The Unity of God 12. How God Is Known by Us And that's just the first 12 sections, and most of them return to the premise of section 2 and go more in depth. You haven't even scratched the surface, and you started in the middle. And no, he doesn't use scripture as the basis. He uses LOGIC as the basis, and scripture as part of the explanation. There's a huge difference. As for why you should read it, because your opponents are, and it is always a good idea to know what those arguing the other side know, whether you agree or not. So, just like I'm not going to discuss the finer points of characterization of Romeo and Juliet with someone who's never seen or read the play, I'm not going to further discuss the Summa with you until you've read it. So, if you'd like to continue this, in the words of Lewis Carroll: "Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

I never said it was new. It was written around 1265. That said, I asked you to read the WHOLE thing before I would discuss it with you so we are speaking from the same frame of reference. Non-Christians are so fond of accusing Christians of cherry-picking the Bible, and non-Christians often make the same mistake with other works. A book needs to be read in its whole and then excerpted, particularly when dealing with logic, as arguments build on, refer back, and add to the others. Saying you've read "the bits relating to the existance [sic] of God." and concluding that you've gotten everything out of the Summa that you can is like reading half the prologue of Romeo and Juliet and saying you know the whole story because you've figured out you're in Verona.

Is it going to offer anything more than rip-off of Aristotle and the ludicrous first cause argument? Somehow I doubt it. Why don't you go read the whole thing (it's a really easy read if you do it in English, and even in Latin it's not that bad) and come back and we can chat about it all you like. It's pretty famous, and if you want to make arguments like this, should probably be in your repertoire of information, if only to know what the other side's got.

Ron, the problem is that you don't know how to explain to people who are certain that they've seen the light that they're looking at an LED instead of the sun. You're good at dealing with people who are stumbling around in the dark banging their shins on the coffee table, but not so good at talking to those who've found a flashlight and are content with that. If you can show them that there's so much more than what they can see with just that little light, then they might realize just how much dark is still there. Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Arguments with adolescents are useless. I have the victory in Jesus Christ. I only wish to share the path to that victory with others who seek or need salvation from their sorrow, mental anguish, double bind, bondage in sin, whatever. I will not invest more in their salvation than they are willing to invest. I know, from my previous interactions with you, that you mean to provide wise counsel and I thank you for your efforts. In this thread I'm going to see how far I can go with just Scripture, which is derived from the Holy Spirit inspired writings of 44 authors in 66 books covering a period of 1500 years. I don't think that passage means what you think it means. Some notes from Gill: For Christ sent me not to baptize,.... Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, Acts 26:16 in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about; this was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word who travelled with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work, but to preach the Gospel; for which he was most eminently qualified, had peculiar gifts for the discharge of it, and was greatly useful in it. This was what he was rather sent to do than the other, and this "not with wisdom of words". Scholastic divinity, or the art of disputation, is by the (f) Karaites, a sect among the Jews, called , "wisdom of words": this the apostle seems to refer to, and signifies he was not sent with, or to preach, with words of man's wisdom, with human eloquence and oratory, with great swelling words of vanity, but in a plain, humble, modest manner; on which account the false teachers despised him, and endeavoured to bring his ministry into contempt with others: but this way and manner of preaching he chose for this reason, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; that is, either lest men's ears and fancies should be so tickled and pleased with the eloquence of speech, the elegancy of diction, and accuracy of expression, the cadency of words, and beauty of the oration, with the manner, and not with the matter of preaching, and so the true use, end, and design of the doctrine of a crucified Christ be defeated; or lest the success of the ministry should be attributed to the force of enticing words, and the strength and persuasion of oratory, and not to the energy of divine power attending the doctrine of the cross..." What the passage is trying to say is not to get caught up in flowery words, not to fail to be able to answer the questions of those you are speaking to. I've actually witnessed the following conversation, on the street of a crowded promenade. Preacher: "Jesus loves you! He died for you!" Passerby, with apparently genuine curiosity: "Why?" Preacher: "um...because!" The crowd the rather enthusiastic guy had gathered pretty much all drifted away at this point. One single, probably genuine question threw this guy for a loop, and because of that everyone stopped listening. Not because they doubted his message, but because they doubted HIM, questioned his credibility, and therefore doubted the authenticity of his message. There are lots of seekers who have questions. Someone who preaches the Gospel should be prepared to have an open dialogue with someone, not merely to talk at them. Talking at someone leads to uncomfortable smiling, nodding, and backing away slowly, and if people are backing away from you, they're also backing away from your message.

There are indeed but nonsense, no matter how well articulated, or how well hidden beneath layers of psuedo-philosophical waffle, remains nonsense. (And those whose only qualifications are in theology, that really doesn't count as education.) That is a problem, sure. The other one would be that no-one has ever managed to come up with an intellectually sound argument for faith (never mind any specific brand of faith) that would stand up even if it wasn't drowned out by the crazies. Have you read Summa Theologica?

Ron, the problem is that you don't know how to explain to people who are certain that they've seen the light that they're looking at an LED instead of the sun. You're good at dealing with people who are stumbling around in the dark banging their shins on the coffee table, but not so good at talking to those who've found a flashlight and are content with that. If you can show them that there's so much more than what they can see with just that little light, then they might realize just how much dark is still there.

No... That is what YOU required to receive your evidence. What others required to receive theirs was to seek it AND find someone who knew how to explain it. Assuming that the experiences of others will be identical to yours is the height of ego, and the reason that believers almost never adequately debate those who require intellectual debate, which does a disservice to both the intellectuals and to God, and makes the believers come off as morons because they appear to fail to understand what they profess to believe. There are some extremely educated Christian scholars. The problem is that they get drowned out by a lot of the idiots that manage to get themselves on television and wander around handing out tracts. Those folks may reach some people, but when faced with an intellectual, they're clueless, and when questioned in front of others, can do far more harm than good because they lack the simple ability to articulate their beliefs.

What? They should be, WITHOUT, a constitutional amendment? So then why did they need an amendment to ban alcohol? Alcohol is 100%, a drug. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I asked if the government should be regulating health care and drugs without a constitutional amendment, and answered "Absolutely NOT". Therefore, they WOULD need an amendment to ban alcohol, which they knew back when they did it, which is why they passed an amendment to do it. And as for your mystery documents, I think you're probably hinting at "Two Treatises of Government" by John Locke. Admittedly, Jefferson was a fan. However, Jefferson being a fan of Locke does not exclude Jefferson using the argument of men being created equal as a tool of rhetoric to piss off the King of England. The two are not mutually exclusive. Ultimately, the point is that the purpose of the DOI was not to make a commentary on the nature of God and humanity. It was to get the English bloody mad, and attacking the god-given right of the king to rule was the best way to do that.

Like I said, Jefferson's views are well documented by his own hand, and therefore it isn't necessary for me to restate them here when he did an admirable job of that himself. However, whether he did or didn't believe personally isn't relevant to his point in the Declaration of Independence that the King of England wasn't divinely appointed to rule the colonies. Jefferson wasn't trying to make a religious statement. He was trying to make a political point that the King wasn't any better than anybody else, had no divine entity backing his rule, and if he thought there was, he'd better get his army over here and prove it. Since the King claimed divine backing, using religious rhetoric was the best way to make the point, and Jefferson understood that.

I'm not playing word games with you. Jefferson's views are well documented. Go read them.

The majority of those definitions are not in contradiction.

I'd love to do it, but every time I get called, it's for the courthouse where I worked for the City Attorney AND the Public Defender as an intern, so I don't have much of a chance of getting on a case.

Nope... gun owners are like skydivers in that respect. They assume the risk. No gun owner wants a gun manufacturer sued because the gun owner screwed up, and no skydiver wants a dropzone or gear manufacturer sued because the skydiver didn't set their CYPRES/maintain their gear/pack it properly/pull on time/etc... Therefore, we insist on proper terminology. Since it is well documented that modern, maintained guns do NOT fire unless something pulls the trigger, and when one observes proper safety procedures that doesn't happen unless it's intentional, there simply is no such thing as an accidental discharge. It's negligence. And if it happened to me, you bet I'd be saying the same thing, posting in the "incidents forum" on the firearms bulletin boards saying "hey, everyone, don't do what I did!" just like people do here when they screw up. In skydiving, you can do everything right and still die, because our equipment is still subject to the occasional failure even in the best situations, and we've got other factors, like other people in the sky that we don't control. In firearms, that's not the case. Properly maintained modern guns fail extremely rarely, and there's only one hand on the weapon. And that's the difference between an accident and negligence. In negligence, there's a very clear indicator of who fucked up. In a negligent discharge, it's the guy holding the gun, or the guy who left it lying around for someone else to pick up.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you got there. First off, the Declaration of Independence was written BEFORE there was a USA. Second, it was written primarily by THOMAS JEFFERSON. This is the DEIST talking. It wasn't meant so much as a commentary on religion as a commentary on the English system of rule. The king claimed a divine right to rule. The declaration basically challenged the king to prove it. Even if you buy that the bulk of the founding fathers were Christian, which is certainly open to debate, Jefferson's religious points of view are very well documented, as he placed the divine conception of Jesus in the same category as Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter [citation: Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)], though he did certainly acknowledge the value Jesus' moral teachings. Third, the founding fathers knew that the Articles were a mess and they were never intended as a permanent document. That's why, after several attempts to rewrite them, they chucked the whole thing and started over. So, moving on, the Constitution certainly encourages small Federal government. The Federal government is allowed to do certain SPECIFIC things that are listed in the Constitution. If they're not listed, they're not allowed. Unfortunately, in recent years, if a dollar changes hands, they slap a label of "interstate commerce" on it and call it "commerce clause" however inaccurate that may be. Is the Federal government regulating health care, drugs, etc? absolutely. Should they be doing so without a constitutional amendment? absolutely not.

I thought Lancelot was the one who had an affair with Arthur's wife?

Sometimes medical equipment is prescribed too, so I was just thinking of random stuff associated with the medical field. Not sure what kind of instruments you design. =) Best of luck!

The news says she's talking now! She's making a remarkable recovery.

I don't like the ones where the first letter isn't capitalized. It looks sloppy. The light bulb is too cliche, and honestly, I don't think the lightning is unique enough unless you do something different with it. Just lightning or just a lightbulb doesn't tell me anything about what your company does... I'd be more likely to assume you're the department of water and power. ;) I don't have photoshop on this computer, so I can't show you what I'm thinking, but find some way to fuse the concept of electrical energy "spark" with a traditional medical symbol. For example: take the caduceus and wrap lightning around it instead of a snake, or wrap a snake around a lightning bolt... mortar and lightning instead of mortar and pestle Mortar and pestle with atom or light bulb on it instead of medical cross Take the Rx symbol and cross the R with lightning instead of the usual / The caduceus and * symbol that's often on ambulances - put an atom behind a caduceus instead. Lightning coming out of a test tube, pill bottle, or syringe Light bulb in a pill bottle Pill capsule with lightning, light bulb, or atom on it. stuff like that. =)

I'm going to go with "none of the above." and add "a case of ammunition" to the list as my plans for V-day involve four beautiful women, six handguns and a shooting range. I should probably also add "excellent bottle of wine" to the list, as our post-range plans involve cabernet, Casablanca, and cleaning guns. You can fire my gun off all day, minus reloading time. Then you're more than welcome to drink some wine and clean it. Nah... mouse guns just aren't that entertaining.

Second from the bottom.