In article <37Wdne2G4bDtkh_VnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
> "Nathan Sanders" <nathansanders@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nathansanders-E2B2A8.01061719072008@64.209.0-93.rev.gaoland.net...
> > In article <Ev2dnTQTHr0X9xzVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Who gets to determine whose life has value and whose doesn't?
> >
> > In Susan Adkins's case, she made that determination all by herself.
> > By committing murder, she subtracted from the world, making a very
> > definitive statement about what she had to offer us.
> >
> > If she didn't want us to think her life had no value, she shouldn't
> > have demonstrated how little value she herself placed on life.
>
> How can you say that anyone's life has "no value"?
Simple. Listen closely:
Susan Adkin's life has no value.
>
> Right now, you're using a single event in Susan Adkins' life, pathetic as it
> is, to massage your own conscience and worth. I don't mean this as a
> personal attack,
Liar
> but perhaps a little more humility might be appropriate.
Because he's smarter than you? People being smarter than you doesn't
mean THEY need humility; it means you need to accept most of the rest of
the world as your betters.
> It's also telling how those who claim to be "pro-life" are usually the first
> to judge the worth of others' lives.
And as usual, you couldn't be more wrong.
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
