Curves - Bad News

In article ,
Dawn Taylor wrote:

On 3 May 2004 18:31:19 GMT, Ignoramus1563
announced in front of God and
everybody:

But in Dawn's case, it is the owner's money that is used "for the
cause". And Dawn, as a consumer, pays Curves because it is the best
choice for her. Now she is going to settle for some inferior choice
just because she s=does not ike what the owner is doing with his own
money.

You're absolutely right. Because "his own money" is coming from the
people who patronize Curves.

In other words, it started as Dawn's money.

Priscilla

On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:46:49 GMT, CarbAddict
announced in front of God and everybody:

In article , Dawn Taylor wrote:

On 3 May 2004 18:09:33 GMT, Ignoramus1563 said:

Suppose that, for every time you post to this newsgroup,
I contribute a small sum for the cause against abortions.

Would it make you a contributor to the struggle against
abortions?

If I knew about it and still posted anyway? Absolutely.

Why would knowledge determine "contribution"? You either contribute to it
or you don't. Knowingly is a different issue. I know you've thought about
this on another level with Polanski.

You're right. I would still be contributing even if I didn't know
about it.

The difference, to me, would be that doing so unknowingly would be
inadvertent and, therefore, innocent. Once I had the knowledge to make
an informed decision, if I still contributed then it would become a
question of ethics.

Dawn

Lictor wrote:

But human nature *is* to go against nature. That's what we have always done,
and what has made us human beings.

I disagree with this because humans are *part* of nature. There's some
sort of weird hubris in considering humans as somehow separate or
distinct from nature overall.

Everything we do, from using language (which I think is the most
distinctly "human" trait we have) right up to building the internet is
as "natural" as anything else on the planet; i.e., A skyscraper is no
more "unnatural" than a bird's nest. If we, as a race, were to decimate
the planet with nuclear weapons... that would be "natural" because
nature would be doing it... since we're part of nature.

Choices can be good or bad based on other criteria, but "natural" isn't
a criteria that makes any sense. People who use it as a criteria seem
to draw very arbitrary lines about what is "natural" that just don't
make sense to me.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
I disagree with this because humans are *part* of nature. There's some
sort of weird hubris in considering humans as somehow separate or
distinct from nature overall.

This depends on what you call "nature". We are indeed part of nature, per
definition of being an evolved animal. But some religious types would like
us to behave like common animals. That, we are not. We're perhaps the only
animals that can override many of its instincts and who can overcome its
limitations almost at will. We also are one of the few animals, if not the
only one, that rebels against these very instincts and limitations. Now, if
you find a way to say that better than I did, we are probably agreeing.

Choices can be good or bad based on other criteria, but "natural" isn't
a criteria that makes any sense. People who use it as a criteria seem
to draw very arbitrary lines about what is "natural" that just don't
make sense to me.

In that context and to me, natural meant "as the other animals do".

In article ,
"Lictor" wrote:

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
I disagree with this because humans are *part* of nature. There's some
sort of weird hubris in considering humans as somehow separate or
distinct from nature overall.

This depends on what you call "nature". We are indeed part of nature, per
definition of being an evolved animal. But some religious types would like
us to behave like common animals. That, we are not. We're perhaps the only
animals that can override many of its instincts and who can overcome its
limitations almost at will. We also are one of the few animals, if not the
only one, that rebels against these very instincts and limitations. Now, if
you find a way to say that better than I did, we are probably agreeing.

Choices can be good or bad based on other criteria, but "natural" isn't
a criteria that makes any sense. People who use it as a criteria seem
to draw very arbitrary lines about what is "natural" that just don't
make sense to me.

In that context and to me, natural meant "as the other animals do".


Aside from the fact that killing or abandonment of the offspring by
parents is far from unknown among animals, using animal behavior as a
guide to ethical questions is really off the point.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"Greg Lorriman" wrote in message
om...
The same logic applies in both cases : for example gong with nature as
opposed to going against nature. Its fundamental to much of animal
nature, and in a special way to the female, to reproduce.

Animals do practice birth control. Some will eat their offsprings at birth.

The nature of reproduction in some creature may demand offspring
munching to aid continuance of the species. That doesn;t mean that
eating babies is then justified for humans too. Whats natural to one
creature isn;t necessairly natural to another. Further, an environment
may become unsuited to the nature of a creature; its subsequent
(potentally unnatural) behaviour doesn't then define its nature.

Many animals experience reduce fertility when living conditions are bad
(crowed space, lack of food...), for instance rats. As usual, human beings
are very weak and inadequate animals, so we have to provide with technology
what other animals get in their natural state.

I wasn't talking about birth-control or contraception, but
"Artificial" contraception. The difference is that most forms of
artificial contraception work against nature, whereas natural methods
of contraception work *with* it. Natural forms don't stop conception,
they simply limit it. Humans have, in their natural state, an
effective form of birth control that only requires self-control (ie.
the Billings ovulation method which is also suited to irregular
periods). And its the latter that modern western society has given up
on.

Going against that fulfills one of the classic definitions of evil : going
against one's nature (Aquinas). Its also a self-evident recipe for
unhappiness.

But human nature *is* to go against nature. That's what we have always done,

Same distinction as above. It isn't our nature to go against our
natu that's a contradiction. The fact that we do suggests free-will
and the existence of hell. Its our nature to produce artificial
things. The concepts "artificial" and "unnatural" are distinct.

is *not* to behave like animals. Animals perform their sexuality in
unimaginative ways just to reproduce. We just enjoy having sex. That's our
nature.

Our nature is to "enjoy" sex *and* reproduce, both simultaneously.
That could be called the definition of sex. Take out one of the
elements and you don;t truly have sex at all; you have something else
but not sex.

This is much less simple than you are expressing. At least one
complication is the business of a soul.

Can you prove we have one? I don't think we do.

I don't need to. Abortion is still presumptive since it isn't possible
to prove that there isn't one.

If the baby has a soul then the brain becomes effectively irrelevant to
the argument in so far as
thought/life is concerned; the baby automatically has rights, even if
unable to choose, and the rights of the mother and child should
embrace rather than clash.


[snip]
Besides, rights are not granted to souls, they are granted to human beings.
If a soul has a right, it's the right to exist. But according to most
religions, the soul survives the death of the body. So, destroying the body
obviously doesn't harm the rights of the soul.

You assert this, but it doesn't fit the religious definition of human
being which is "soul and body united".

Most anti-abortion people believe in God and therefore in souls.

Many people do not believe in God anymore. Many people do not believe in
*your* God either, but in other ones. How can you force your beliefs onto
other people, and force them to make decisions accoriding to *your* value
instead of *theirs*? Doesn't your God teach respect?

Respect is a slippery customer; there is every reason not to respect
the view of an atheist. I wouldn;t say the same of an agnostic.
However I am confident enough of my knowledge of other religions that
my own view is the same as theirs on this particular subject,and on
most items to do with the nature of God. Hinduism, Islam, protestants,
catholics, Estern Orthodox don't vary much in their fundemental
beliefs. It was for this reason that Ghandi's morning prayer was an
explicit combination of Islamic, christian and hindu appeals to God.

Another is the nature of freedom. True freedom
can be defined as always doing the right thing; a truly free person
would be someone who will not do wrong and will always do right.

That's a very Zen definition of freedom, doesn't sound very Catholic to me.
The Wise Man has no freedom, he only does what he has to does. Somehow, you
manage to understand this as "The Wise Man has no freedom, he only does what
we have decided he should do".

I used the word "will", rather than defining it as "The good man
*cannot* do wrong". Ie. the good man chooses never to do wrong.

I was under the impression that God had allowed us the choice between Good
and Evil so that we could have Free Will and pick His Way of our own
volition. Are you going to deny us the choice that God intended us to have?

ref the previous reply.

The difference between "rights/choice" and freedom is rather like that
between "doing whatever you want whenever you like" which is
impossible and results in unwanted pregnancies, and "overcoming
yourself", which is possible and doesn't. To think only in terms of
"rights" and "choice" is somewhat narrow, though it certainly
justifies your argument above, but its unfair to use it agaisnt
anti-abortion people..

I don't believe in Right and Wrong. We all build our own system of values.
My system is mine, and mine only. It's not the one of my parents, it's not
the one of my girlfriend, it's certainly not yours. It has some level of
compatibility with society as a whole, but its specifics are mine only. So,
I'm the only one who can decide what is right or wrong to me. I'm the only
one who can decide what is a "sin" to me. I can tell you that many of the
things you do are very sinful to me. Yet, I'm not trying to change your way
of life, why are you trying to change the way other people live?

This is a recipe for anarchy. Your system of morality is completely
incompatible with a society of *cooperating* man, and with the concept
of law. Its also incompatible with the rules of logic : one truth
cannot contradict another at the same moment; in terms of belief and
morality that boils down to : for every one to discover genuine truth
is to end up all believing the same things.

When does a fetus become a baby?

When it is wanted, or when it is developped enough to be identified as a
human being - whichever comes first.

The first definition is absurd and the second is arbitary. At least
the first is practical; the second is unworkable.

If we have souls, as most even in the UK and US believe, then without
knowledge of the moment at which a
baby has a soul abortion could turn out to be murder; an act of abortion
is therefore presumptive.

I don't live in the UK or US. A majority of people do not believe that
aborption is a crime here. A majority do people than death penalty is one.
Less and less people believe in God the way you do. It's the 21st century...

That doesn't change the nature of reality/God. People have said the
same thing in other centuries without changing the nature of man one
jot.

Souls are irrelevant when it comes to murder. You can't murder a soul, it's
supposed to be immortal. You can only murder a human being. Having a soul or
not is not what defines a human being. Many religions believe animals to
have souls, it doesn't prevent their followers from eating animals.

This is over-simplifiying. Even christians have some scope for the
possibility of animals having souls, but if they do the nature of an
animal soul is not the same and not immortal. Other religions have
their own twists on the subject.

Besides, your country has separation from Church and State, so what the
various religions think is irrelevant to the Law. Your constitution bans
undue restriction of freedom. Unless you manage to *prove* their is a soul,
you're only stating an opinion. If you did manage to prove that souls exist,
you would then have to prove that it is attached to fetus right at the
moment of conception. And then, the Law would have to establish what are the
rights of a soul.

I'm not saying that laws aren't presumptive; many are. I'm saying that
good laws are not presumptive. It's presumptive to abort a baby on the
basis that it might not have a soul. The same can't be said for the
reverse since its already underway and no action/law is required.

Presumptiveness also applies to atheism : the atheist ultimately presumes
there is no
God (since there is no absolute proof that God doesn't exist).

What's wrong with that?

Presumption is self-evidently a route to error and problems. ie. one
believes/acts without adequate information.

Why should I be forced to believe in something that
is unprovable and doesn't even attract me? You failed to prove God's

God may be unprovable, but he can prove his own existence to the
individual. Thats made clear enough in the bible, let alone other
religions. And his own self-revelation is obviously going to be
superiour to science/logic/maths etc... Indeed its the only real
"proof" there is. All other proofs are really "beyond reasonable doubt
and until further notice". Physics is entirely theories and
approximations, maths (which used to claim the crown of proof) has
been demonstrated as being as arbitary as any other science (search
for Chaitin).

existance. Besides, there are thousands of existing religions, how do you
tell which one is right?

You don't, you get God to lead you. see next reply.

Any empirical attempt I have ever done at
contacting God has failed.

That would be the same as putting God to the test, which is a sin in
judaic religions. So its not surprising that you got no reply.

The proper way is to persevere in praying : "Oh God, if you exist
please reveal yourself to me." Its also advisable to add "and show me
what I should be doing and how to be at peace[happy if you insist]".
and if it takes ten years or 50 of praying that prayer then thats how
long it should be prayed. According to the bible if that prayer is
daid sincerely and perseveringly then the person will be answered in
good time (ie. the right time).

Your book tells us that Satan is easier to
contact, yet He never answered attempt to contact either.

One of the devil's tricks is to make sure that as many don't believe
in him as possible, and the icing on the cake is to make them also not
believe in God's justice (hell, for example). If he were to convince
you of his existence then he would also probably end up convincing you
of the existence of God as well, which is undesirable in his view.

So, the only
rationnal conclusion is that these beings only have illustrative purpose,
and do not really exist.

That is a presumptive conclusion. The better is that that either he
doesn't exist or you are doing it wrong, but not just the former.

Thats not true of religious types since God, in most religions, is defined
as self-revealing/self-proving (on condition of persevering in
"knocking on the door"), and therefore the (true) believer cannot be
presuming the existence of God.

You have a very narrow view of religions. Some religions are godless. The

godless religions tend not to describe themselves as religions, ref
bhuddism (which isn;t to say that some bhuddists don't call themselves
religious or don;t beleive in a supreme being; I've met one myself).
In anycase religions that claim no supreme being are at the very least
on the fringes of the definition of religion; its unfair to call that
a "very narrow" view.

huge majority of religions do not believe in a single God.

But almost all believe in a supreme God, and often the "gods" are
effectively angels and demons in christian parlance.

Some of these do
not even believe it is sentient. Besides, catholicism believes Evil to be
much more active and easy to contact than God, yet proving its existance
also fails.

I don't know where you get that idea from. I'm an educated catholic
and I've never heard such a thing.

The whole abortion argument pretty much spins on the question of the
existence of God. It shouldn't surprise anyoen that most anti-abortion
types are also religious. If God exists then so probably do souls.

Not really. Some religions do not believe in souls. Navajo didn't for
instance.

I did use the word "probably".

Many religions also believe that souls are recycled - if you
prevent a soul from embedding itself into a body, it will come back to
another body, no big deal. Catholicism does not believe in souls being
recycled, but it does believe in life after death, a life that is much
better for innocent than our earthly one. Newly born souls are innocent, so
performing an aborption is actually doing them a favor by sending them
straight to a better life without giving them a chance to get corrupted on
Earth.

Nor can they ever glorify God, which is the whole point and overrules
any concerns about (potential)corruption.

If souls exist then the most philosophically likely (least arbitary)
moment of ensoulment would be conception (birth doesn't cut the
philosophical musturd), and the baby is lovable and precious from the
moment of conception not just when it is born.

Why? Birth is a very symbolic event, many religions *do* believe it's when

It may be symbolic but that doesn't make it a strong candidate for the
moment of ensoulment. Your other suggestions are also weak. Conception
is a strong candidate. For a catholic its doctrine.

If God doesn't exist then each person is their own god, so some of your
arguments might be justified, but only really by nihilism.

That's actually what I believe. I don't see how this can be nihilism, this

Its nihilism because in the final analysis there is no point to
anything; we all cease to exist both generally and individually.
Suffering and pleasure are both meaningless. So is "progress", which
is usually nothing of the sort. The more that an atheist comes to this
realisation the more they lean to suicide and depression.

feels like the exact opposite of it. Recognizing that we *are* all godlike
seems on the contrary like an extraordinary positive attitude. A lot more

And totally deluded. What power we think we have is contained by our
environment and forces outside of our control (ie. psychological), and
repercusses unpredictably and uncontrollably. I laugh at politicians
who think they have power.

positive attitude than yours of considering us as worthless beings unable to
decide what is Good or Evil for ourselves and under the domination of an
"higher" being. If there is such a being, we should strive to beat it and
take his seat, instead of bending in front of it.

I believe none of what you have said of believers, least of all
myself. That view of religion is a caricature. There may be many
believers who also beleive in such a caricature, but its debatable
that they beleive in the true God.

If God does exist then all other abortion considerations, such as
difficult circumstances and even possible death, can be resolved by
trust in divine providence, assuming it exists, and turned to an
expression of selfless love.

I don't like trusting unexistant beings with my fate. I would much rather
build my own fate for myself. Of course, if you don't trust your divine
nature, that's difficult to do. If I wanted to be assisted, I would trust
the government and society a lot more than I would trust God. Last I
checked, he didn't provide social security, healthcare or even food stamps.
However, I do provide all that with my taxes. I don't even mind my taxes
being used to provide all these to illegal immigrants. I'm probably better
at selfless love than God is. He doesn't seem to do much to help the world
to go on.

Trusting in God has to be hard as it must be to have any worth or be
meaningful, but for those who do it fully money/circumstances become
irrelevant. I'm not saying that I am personally in that category.

[What further magnifies the wrong of
abortion is that even without trust in God is that the greater number
by far can be avoided with adoption, and so are ultimately
unnecessary.]

Then, start supporing adoption rights for gay people, that will make more
room for adopted children. Right know adoption often means waiting ages
before going to a foster home, if you ever do.

That is due to rediculous adoption procedures and the general
selfishness of modern society. It doesn't truly require gay adption,
which is obviously less perfect than a mother/father setup, which more
closely reflects nature.

Since God would be the likely creator of the soul its
considered by most anti-abortionists irrational for a person to both
believe in God and in abortion; it wouldn't be a valid expression of
freedom.

If souls exist, I would rather believe the parents create them through
love - for themselves, each others and the baby. If God knows all, as he is
supposed to do, he knows beforehand an aborption will occur. I would trust
him not to waste a soul if the aborption will destroy or harm it - which I
doubt, souls are immortal.

That revolves around the nature of free-will and God's relationship
with the temporal. It's rather too much for this reply so I'll
summarise by sayiing that God won't interfere with the consequences of
our rejecting oppotunities since that would contradict freewill, and I
should add that God appears to relate to the temporal on a temporal
level rather than directly from eternity.

It can probably be explained by a general lack of trust in
God in the first place, but that doesn't make it rational.

If I started trusting God, I would also have to trust a few several
thousands God, all with contradicting values. That would be the only logical

They may contradict in the details, but generally most religions have
almost identical beliefs, including those of sexual morality and
children. Even the Pope has said that Islam worships the same God.

thing to do, how could a single religion be more right than another one?
Just because I was born into it? So, I would have to follow God, Allah,

Ghandi's advice was good : learn deeply about the faith you are born
into before choosing another or rejecting it.

I won't be able to reply to replies to this message. My apologies if
you have worked in vain.

Greg

Dawn Taylor wrote:

On 3 May 2004 18:31:19 GMT, Ignoramus1563
announced in front of God and
everybody:


But in Dawn's case, it is the owner's money that is used "for the
cause". And Dawn, as a consumer, pays Curves because it is the best
choice for her. Now she is going to settle for some inferior choice
just because she s=does not ike what the owner is doing with his own
money.


You're absolutely right. Because "his own money" is coming from the
people who patronize Curves.

Dawn

Why does this thread remind me of the food stamp thread? If
it's your money and you don't like the way the Curves owner
spends it, so you take your money away, then should
taxpayers have a right to determine how people on food
stamps use them? And should union members be able to
withhold their union dues if they don't like the way their
money is being used?

Marsha/Ohio

On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:47:14 -0400, Marsha announced in
front of God and everybody:

Dawn Taylor wrote:

On 3 May 2004 18:31:19 GMT, Ignoramus1563
announced in front of God and
everybody:


But in Dawn's case, it is the owner's money that is used "for the
cause". And Dawn, as a consumer, pays Curves because it is the best
choice for her. Now she is going to settle for some inferior choice
just because she s=does not ike what the owner is doing with his own
money.


You're absolutely right. Because "his own money" is coming from the
people who patronize Curves.


Why does this thread remind me of the food stamp thread? If
it's your money and you don't like the way the Curves owner
spends it, so you take your money away, then should
taxpayers have a right to determine how people on food
stamps use them? And should union members be able to
withhold their union dues if they don't like the way their
money is being used?

Paying taxes isn't the same thing as purchasing goods and services.
Personally, I do think that it would be damn nice if we could choose
how a portion of our taxes are allocated. You don't like welfare?
Don't check that box. You're pro-war? Send your portion to the
military instead of, say, funding for arts programs. You think schools
need more money? Check that one. I do realize that's never going to
happen, though.

As for union dues ... well, if you have issues with the actions of the
union, you need to rethink belonging to the union and decide what
you're comfortable with. Seems pretty simple to me.

Dawn

Dawn Taylor wrote:

As for union dues ... well, if you have issues with the actions of the
union, you need to rethink belonging to the union and decide what
you're comfortable with. Seems pretty simple to me.

Dawn

Not simple at all. Most union contracts stipulate that all
employees will be paying members of the union, like it or
not. So an employee has no choice. A local hospital's
nurses recently decided to go union by a very narrow margin.
Right now, about 49% of those nurses are unwillingly
paying dues they don't want to pay. That's really sad that
they have no choice. Unions are nothing but big corrupt
bullies nowadays, IMO.

Marsha/Ohio

On Wed, 05 May 2004 21:20:27 -0400, Marsha announced in
front of God and everybody:

Dawn Taylor wrote:

As for union dues ... well, if you have issues with the actions of the
union, you need to rethink belonging to the union and decide what
you're comfortable with. Seems pretty simple to me.

Dawn

Not simple at all. Most union contracts stipulate that all
employees will be paying members of the union, like it or
not. So an employee has no choice. A local hospital's
nurses recently decided to go union by a very narrow margin.
Right now, about 49% of those nurses are unwillingly
paying dues they don't want to pay. That's really sad that
they have no choice. Unions are nothing but big corrupt
bullies nowadays, IMO.

You have a choice whether or not to belong to the union at all.

Keep in mind, I'm all for unions. Yeah, they're big corrupt bullies
and, yeah, there's a lot of valid criticisms that can be leveled. But
still -- think where we'd be if no one had ever organized.

My point was that there's always a choice. It may be a difficult
choice, and you may end making a lot of compromises as you come to a
decision. But you don't *have* to belong to a union, any more than you
have to join the military or take a particular job or purchase a
product. You might weigh your options and decide to do so, in spite of
your concerns, because it's your best choice ... but you don't _have_
to do it.

Dawn
..