Re: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged -- Paradigm Shifts Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject:

Re: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

Author:
Zisel ben

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:23:29 04/02/01 Mon
In reply to: Bisel Zen 's message, "Re: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" on 13:45:26 04/02/01 Mon

What are you talking about?

I was making the point that, Yes, the child is biologicaly a part of BOTH the mother and father so that YES both should be equally responsible for it, not just the mother because of her 9 month physical attachment.

Is that more clear?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Subject:

Re: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

Author:
Bisel Zen
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:16:15 04/03/01 Tue

----I was making the point that, Yes, the child is biologicaly a part of BOTH the mother and father so that YES both should be equally responsible for it, not just the mother because of her 9 month physical attachment.
Is that more clear?----

No, that is not more clear. It is exactly what you said before, and it is dead wrong.

You say:
----the child is biologicaly a part of BOTH the mother and father----

This is false. The truth is, the mother and the father are biologically part of the child. The opposite of what you said.

Then you write:
----And Just because the woman is biologicaly connected to the physical being of that baby for 9 months does not mean that the child is ONLY a part of "her".
Again, see how I had written "DOES NOT MEAN...." did you miss that or something?----

You contradict yourself in this sentence. Do you even realize that? You write the contradiction the second time in all caps even:
----"DOES NOT MEAN...."----

Then ask me:
----did you miss that or something?----

I think I should ask you the same thing. Did you miss that or something?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]