Science > Abortion > Does Flower Power think this boy should have been aborted?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Steenkin Man" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2004 04:28:00 AM |
| Object: |
Does Flower Power think this boy should have been aborted? |
Flower Power argues for the killing of unborn babies who have
disabilities.
This disabled boy got on the best-seller list before he died. He began
writing poetry while only three and eventually produced five volumes
that sold millions of copies.
The world is fortunate that a haggard old hippy didn't get her
knitting needles into him.
Story:
US child poet dies after illness
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3833573.stm
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 02:33:43 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9514DDBF4C6A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most
prolific
liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
================================
To a pathological liar they're not lies anymore. The PL believes them to be
truths. In Heishman's mind the lies he tells are "truths." Even when
confronted with his lies he either ignores them or denies they're lies. A
dead giveaway....
FP........
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 06:49:41 PM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <WomenFirst@noslaves.net> wrote in
news:UbSdnQMPwfPG5UPdRVn-ug@heartoftn.net:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9514DDBF4C6A5keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science
that will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
================================
To a pathological liar they're not lies anymore. The PL believes them
to be truths. In Heishman's mind the lies he tells are "truths." Even
when confronted with his lies he either ignores them or denies they're
lies. A dead giveaway....
i wondered about that .... if coward bobby actually believed some of his
lies. i have the feeling that he does not. i'm curious how you have come to
beleive that bobby believes his lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SomeSappyWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 06:15:04 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2004 01:47:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most prolific
liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
He's incessantly lied about everything from the story behind his
crossdressing posts -- to his educational status -- to about other
people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 08:23:46 AM |
|
|
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:huatd0tqd2fvck850g38pnitpsmne1shkj@4ax.com...
On 27 Jun 2004 01:47:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most
prolific
liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
He's incessantly lied about everything from the story behind his
crossdressing posts -- to his educational status -- to about other
people.
Yet when you were asked to prove anything was a lie, you couldn't.
why can't you prove your claims?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 12:44:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:23:46 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"SomeSappyWriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:huatd0tqd2fvck850g38pnitpsmne1shkj@4ax.com...
On 27 Jun 2004 01:47:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most
prolific
liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
He's incessantly lied about everything from the story behind his
crossdressing posts -- to his educational status -- to about other
people.
Yet when you were asked to prove anything was a lie...
Your posts are saturated with lies. How much MORE proof do you need???
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 06:50:40 PM |
|
|
SomeSappyWriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in
news:huatd0tqd2fvck850g38pnitpsmne1shkj@4ax.com:
On 27 Jun 2004 01:47:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
that is an odd remark coming from you, the abortion newsgroups most
prolific liar.
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
pr0r3p@hotmail.com (pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
He's incessantly lied about everything from the story behind his
crossdressing posts -- to his educational status -- to about other
people.
yes he has.
"You start with your scummy lies every time somebody
dares to tell the truth about you. You have so little understanding
of morals that you have used every despicable lie and then tried
to justify it by whining "they did it first""
(Ray Fischer) writing to coward bobby
heishman in <c71c0u$2ml$1@bolt.sonic.net>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
25 Jun 2004 09:44:42 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:B5Wdnc80xJAiWkHdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
## Distort what? No one CARES what the anti-choicers believe about when
life starts. The eggs and sperm are alive too but you don't seem to care
about them at all.
urse are talking about human life when a new, individual human life
begins.
Paul is trying to distort and go back to evolution crap and distort the
topic.
## I repeat: Distort what? No one CARES what the anti-choicers believe
about when life starts. What difference does it make? The eggs and sperm
are alive too, but you don't seem to care about them at all. Look at all
those poor eggs that are shed every month - all those POTENTIAL human beings
being flushed down the commode. How DARE women allow them to die!!!
We are not talking about the beginning of time, creation, or evolution.
We
are talking about when a new individual human being's life begins...which
is
at conception.
## So? No one CARES what the anti-choicers believe about when life starts.
What difference does it make?
Paul, when are ready to be a big boy and play right you let us know.
## Playing right means to try and outlaw safe legal abortion and force women
back to illegal abortionists in hopes the desperate woman/teenager will die
at their hands.
--
Flower Power...
pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Pro-Choice
~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~{@
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SomeSappyWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 06:50:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human life
begins.
Since when have you given a ***** about human life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 06:58:09 AM |
|
|
SomeSappyWriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> writes:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human life
begins.
Since when have you given a ***** about human life?
His problem is that he gives far too much, in this instance, and demands
everyone else take...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
25 Jun 2004 10:55:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human life
begins....
That wasn't what you said. Pro-Lifers keep moving the goal posts.
Even your modified question is covering two meanings of life. Human
life began a couple of hundred to a few million years ago.
When does a new individual human life begin?
The answer, if correct, will always be true. As presently defined, a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The beginning of
the life of a human being so defined is at birth and thus cannot begin
at conception.
You want evidence that the life of a new individual human being does
not begin at conception. This scientific evidence has been posted
many, many times -- twins and chimerae. The first is two lives from
one conception, the other is one life from two conceptions.
How about answering a question for a change? On what grounds can I
justly ban abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 08:25:51 AM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcf03a.79434611@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human
life
begins....
That wasn't what you said.
You know what I meant...run along now.
Pro-Lifers keep moving the goal posts.
Even your modified question is covering two meanings of life. Human
life began a couple of hundred to a few million years ago.
When does a new individual human life begin?
The answer, if correct, will always be true. As presently defined, a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The beginning of
the life of a human being so defined is at birth and thus cannot begin
at conception.
You want evidence that the life of a new individual human being does
not begin at conception. This scientific evidence has been posted
many, many times -- twins and chimerae. The first is two lives from
one conception, the other is one life from two conceptions.
How about answering a question for a change? On what grounds can I
justly ban abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 09:29:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:25:51 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcf03a.79434611@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human
life
begins....
That wasn't what you said.
You know what I meant...run along now.
Pro-Lifers keep moving the goal posts.
Even your modified question is covering two meanings of life. Human
life began a couple of hundred to a few million years ago.
When does a new individual human life begin?
The answer, if correct, will always be true. As presently defined, a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The beginning of
the life of a human being so defined is at birth and thus cannot begin
at conception.
You want evidence that the life of a new individual human being does
not begin at conception. This scientific evidence has been posted
many, many times -- twins and chimerae. The first is two lives from
one conception, the other is one life from two conceptions.
How about answering a question for a change? On what grounds can I
justly ban abortion?
Talk about running from the subject. You ignore facts and in another
message simply repeat the same disproven *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 12:23:05 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dd87f4.118282831@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:25:51 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcf03a.79434611@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science
that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human
life
begins....
That wasn't what you said.
You know what I meant...run along now.
Pro-Lifers keep moving the goal posts.
Even your modified question is covering two meanings of life. Human
life began a couple of hundred to a few million years ago.
When does a new individual human life begin?
The answer, if correct, will always be true. As presently defined, a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The beginning of
the life of a human being so defined is at birth and thus cannot begin
at conception.
You want evidence that the life of a new individual human being does
not begin at conception. This scientific evidence has been posted
many, many times -- twins and chimerae. The first is two lives from
one conception, the other is one life from two conceptions.
How about answering a question for a change? On what grounds can I
justly ban abortion?
Talk about running from the subject. You ignore facts and in another
message simply repeat the same disproven *****.
You have not presented any facts
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 06:50:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:25:51 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcf03a.79434611@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human
life
begins....
That wasn't what you said.
You know what I meant...run along now.
Pro-Lifers keep moving the goal posts.
Osprey, you can't even make your unmarked deletions properly. When
you deleted the first part of the line, you also deleted the '>',
making it look like you had written that line.
Even your modified question is covering two meanings of life. Human
life began a couple of hundred to a few million years ago.
When does a new individual human life begin?
The answer, if correct, will always be true. As presently defined, a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The beginning of
the life of a human being so defined is at birth and thus cannot begin
at conception.
You want evidence that the life of a new individual human being does
not begin at conception. This scientific evidence has been posted
many, many times -- twins and chimerae. The first is two lives from
one conception, the other is one life from two conceptions.
How about answering a question for a change? On what grounds can I
justly ban abortion?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 05:14:50 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcf03a.79434611@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:59 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
Try again.
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
We of course are talking about human life when a new, individual human
life
begins....
That wasn't what you said.
You know what I meant...run along now.
LOL! ***** Heishman, who LOVES to deliberaely misread and
misrepresent people's words, whining that others should give
him a break.
What an irresponsible hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "007" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
02 Jul 2004 11:19:21 AM |
|
|
I am new in the thread and ot an native english speaker, excuse my
faults. I am a happy mother of a 5 year old, she is the best thing has
ever happened to me. However, I am pro-choice. Life begins with the
spirit, and there is no credible evidence on that, but we ALL know
that. If we are talking living things, ALL of our cells are alive,
every single molecule. I personally BELIEVE that the problem is
actually hurting the baby. I agree with abortion before the heart
starts pumping blood. Without a heart flowing the blood, there are
just two molecules in the middle of development. Without the heart,
there is no blood, no ervous system, nobody dies, nobody feels, nobody
suffers. The heart starts beating at 2nd or 8th week, I dont remember.
Anyway, it is enough time to make a decision. Now, if it happens
afterthat, it is irrespnsible and selfish. Irresponsible bc/we must
keep close track of what's going on inside our bodies, and being
responsible of our own bodies if we are to claim total authority over
it. Now, I am pro-freedom. But freedom, as well as happiness, are to
be reached and valued. Now, we can go over a philosophical tread, but
even if freedom is inherited to all human beings, I shall never give
my 5 year old daughter ALL freedom she's got. It's just as giving a
orphan minor a multimillion inheritance whitout preparing him/her to
handle it. Same God does with us. We are to deserve it. That's what
life is al about.
Ana++++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Ballsac... Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
02 Jul 2004 12:47:49 PM |
|
|
"007" <ana@youwager.com> wrote in message
news:6582e78a.0407020819.5972aed0@posting.google.com...
I am new in the thread and ot an native english speaker,
I am pro-choice. ......... I agree with abortion
WHY?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
02 Jul 2004 11:30:41 AM |
|
|
007 wrote:
I am new in the thread and ot an native english speaker, excuse my
faults. I am a happy mother of a 5 year old, she is the best thing has
ever happened to me. However, I am pro-choice. Life begins with the
spirit, and there is no credible evidence on that, but we ALL know
that. If we are talking living things, ALL of our cells are alive,
every single molecule. I personally BELIEVE that the problem is
actually hurting the baby. I agree with abortion before the heart
starts pumping blood. Without a heart flowing the blood, there are
just two molecules in the middle of development. Without the heart,
there is no blood, no ervous system, nobody dies, nobody feels, nobody
suffers. The heart starts beating at 2nd or 8th week, I dont remember.
Anyway, it is enough time to make a decision. Now, if it happens
afterthat, it is irrespnsible and selfish. Irresponsible bc/we must
keep close track of what's going on inside our bodies, and being
responsible of our own bodies if we are to claim total authority over
it. Now, I am pro-freedom. But freedom, as well as happiness, are to
be reached and valued. Now, we can go over a philosophical tread, but
even if freedom is inherited to all human beings, I shall never give
my 5 year old daughter ALL freedom she's got. It's just as giving a
orphan minor a multimillion inheritance whitout preparing him/her to
handle it. Same God does with us. We are to deserve it. That's what
life is al about.
Ana++++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
That makes a lot of sense.
We note that you do not mention the father of your daughter. Raising a
child without her father is irresponsible and selfish.
Do you support equal rights for men/fathers to also make decisions
regarding our children, or are you another of those "women's rights"
sexist fanatics?
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Ballsac... Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
02 Jul 2004 12:48:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40E58DB1.5010807@hotmail.com...
007 wrote:
I am new in the thread and ot an native english speaker, excuse my
faults. I am a happy mother of a 5 year old, she is the best thing has
ever happened to me. However, I am pro-choice. Life begins with the
spirit, and there is no credible evidence on that, but we ALL know
that. If we are talking living things, ALL of our cells are alive,
every single molecule. I personally BELIEVE that the problem is
actually hurting the baby. I agree with abortion before the heart
starts pumping blood. Without a heart flowing the blood, there are
just two molecules in the middle of development. Without the heart,
there is no blood, no ervous system, nobody dies, nobody feels, nobody
suffers. The heart starts beating at 2nd or 8th week, I dont remember.
Anyway, it is enough time to make a decision. Now, if it happens
afterthat, it is irrespnsible and selfish. Irresponsible bc/we must
keep close track of what's going on inside our bodies, and being
responsible of our own bodies if we are to claim total authority over
it. Now, I am pro-freedom. But freedom, as well as happiness, are to
be reached and valued. Now, we can go over a philosophical tread, but
even if freedom is inherited to all human beings, I shall never give
my 5 year old daughter ALL freedom she's got. It's just as giving a
orphan minor a multimillion inheritance whitout preparing him/her to
handle it. Same God does with us. We are to deserve it. That's what
life is al about.
Ana++++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
That makes a lot of sense.
We note that you do not mention the father of your daughter. Raising a
child without her father is irresponsible and selfish.
Do you support equal rights for men/fathers to also make decisions
regarding our children, or are you another of those "women's rights"
sexist fanatics?
Does this person also support a paper abortion for men if men choose to not
want a child.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "007" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
05 Jul 2004 03:31:52 PM |
|
|
Its good to know that there is one reasonable, mature and smart person
here. If they are so strong on their arguments why do they react so
aggressively? Do they feel threatened?
Annnnna +++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
Verner Karleborg <vk@hotbrev.com> wrote in message news:<40E7FA73.50EE0CEB@hotbrev.com>...
Harry Ballsac..a. wrote:
"007" wrote:
Yes, Bob, I do support men's rights as well. Even if I'm divorced, I
am a very good friend of my daughter's dad.
That sounds very odd, your divorced but no kids, and your good freinds with
your daughter's dad.
Harry, how are people supposed to discuss things with you if you can't
read what they write?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "007" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
05 Jul 2004 03:37:31 PM |
|
|
Whatever.
LOL!!! Do you think I care if Im divorced or not?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That comeback is really making me laugh.
Are you on drugs or what???????
Ana. +++++++
http://www.oobg.com
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40E75DEE.6010200@hotmail.com>...
007 wrote:
Yes, Bob, I do support men's rights as well. Even if I'm divorced,
Shame on you for being divorced. It's not right to treat your child
that way. And no, it doesn't matter why you divorced.
Bob
I
am a very good friend of my daughter's dad. I did not mention him bc/I
was giving my personal opinion, not his. When we decided to have our
daughter, we BOTH decided and a huge part of my good friendship with
him is the fact that he is extremely supportive. I really don't care
anymore the reasons we divorced, the fact that he is such a good dad
is enough to me to give him the place he deserves in our daughter's
life. It is actually my daughter's right, not his right or my right.
People tend to forget that.
Ana. +++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40E58DB1.5010807@hotmail.com>...
007 wrote:
I am new in the thread and ot an native english speaker, excuse my
faults. I am a happy mother of a 5 year old, she is the best thing has
ever happened to me. However, I am pro-choice. Life begins with the
spirit, and there is no credible evidence on that, but we ALL know
that. If we are talking living things, ALL of our cells are alive,
every single molecule. I personally BELIEVE that the problem is
actually hurting the baby. I agree with abortion before the heart
starts pumping blood. Without a heart flowing the blood, there are
just two molecules in the middle of development. Without the heart,
there is no blood, no ervous system, nobody dies, nobody feels, nobody
suffers. The heart starts beating at 2nd or 8th week, I dont remember.
Anyway, it is enough time to make a decision. Now, if it happens
afterthat, it is irrespnsible and selfish. Irresponsible bc/we must
keep close track of what's going on inside our bodies, and being
responsible of our own bodies if we are to claim total authority over
it. Now, I am pro-freedom. But freedom, as well as happiness, are to
be reached and valued. Now, we can go over a philosophical tread, but
even if freedom is inherited to all human beings, I shall never give
my 5 year old daughter ALL freedom she's got. It's just as giving a
orphan minor a multimillion inheritance whitout preparing him/her to
handle it. Same God does with us. We are to deserve it. That's what
life is al about.
Ana++++++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
That makes a lot of sense.
We note that you do not mention the father of your daughter. Raising a
child without her father is irresponsible and selfish.
Do you support equal rights for men/fathers to also make decisions
regarding our children, or are you another of those "women's rights"
sexist fanatics?
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "007" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
05 Jul 2004 03:26:24 PM |
|
|
You have a problem. It seems like you can not have a peaceful,
reasonable "conversation". I am not fighting with you. If you do want
to fight, I'm not interested in exchanging opinions with you. If you
do not want to fight and are interested in giving and receiving
constructive feedback, then, I'm very interested.
If you are to criticize something, start by don't doing it.
Annnnnnna+++++++
http://www.youwager.com
http://www.payoffsplus.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
25 Jun 2004 11:54:27 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
That coming from someone who resorts to outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
26 Jun 2004 11:54:00 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbivi2$v62$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
That coming from someone who resorts to outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
============================
Like many anti-choicers Heishman feels justified in lying to push his
anti-choice agenda. Note that none of them come up with a plan as to how to
help all those already born and stuck in cold, uncaring State Custody. No
plan on how to help those teenagers out there with unwanted pregnancies....
he would love to see them suffer by forcing them to carry to term. After
all they had the utter audacity to have sex and should now PAY, PAY, PAY.
If that takes LIES, then he and his ilk will do it.
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
Do they also warn women of the dangers of term pregnancy and
birth?.......like:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/deaths_smj.html
====================================================
====================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Ballsac.1a.. Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 02:08:45 PM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <LiberateTheWomen@thisNGs.net> wrote in message
news:kM-dnadCa6lJN0DdRVn-sQ@heartoftn.net...
Like many anti-choicers Heishman feels justified in lying to push his
anti-choice agenda. Note that none of them come up with a plan as to how
to
help all those already born and stuck in cold, uncaring State Custody. No
plan on how to help those teenagers out there with unwanted
pregnancies....
he would love to see them suffer by forcing them to carry to term. After
all they had the utter audacity to have sex and should now PAY, PAY, PAY.
If that takes LIES, then he and his ilk will do it.
When you can read let us know what your stupidity is about powerless and no
mind
Most feminist from the beginning have now jumped ship because they know you
idiots can't read let alone have any brains,
What was happening in the world of feminism were groups of left leaning
white middle class women gathering together to hate men. And flower Power
your stupidity is right up there with someone who going to grow up one day
and see what a moron you were.
From the Personal to the Political What is the Women's Movement for?
By Erin Pizzey
mailto:
December, 2000
One of the most interesting debates in the new century might well be the
question of how and why the women's movement in the Western world was
founded? Did it, as many of the women journalists explained, rise from the
needs of the oppressed women of the world? Or was it manufactured by leftist
women tired of being relegated to the role of 'chief cook and bottle
washers' in the kitchens of their revolutionary lovers? According to Susan
Brownmiller in her excellent history of the women's movement, In Our Time
Memoir of a Revolution,1 the women's movement was founded in New York after
many of the female activists returned from Mississippi after attempting to
help black people register their votes. The men in the revolutionary
movements who expected them to take inferior roles hugely discouraged the
women activists. The famous quote from Stokely Carmichael when asked about
the position of women in the forthcoming revolution was: "What is the
position of women in SNCC (Student Non violent Co- ordination Committee)?
The position of women in SNCC is prone.' Thereby precipitating a revolution
the outcome of which, even the most dedicated of Black Panthers would be
unable to imagine.
I joined this amorphous movement in 1971 when Jill Tweedie and other left
wing journalists were writing in newspapers and magazines that what women
needed were several very sensible demands. There was a national sigh of
relief from millions of women in Britain whose only reading matter was
filled with cooking and knitting patterns. With the exception of SHE
magazine which was run by the redoubtable lesbian Nancy Spain, most of us
were lectured on how to be perfect housewives.
The Guardian gave details of how to contact this new, exciting, liberation
movement for women and I telephoned the main telephone number in London and
was directed to my local group in Chiswick. I left my husband facing his
first night of baby sitting the children and set off for my meeting. I was
less than impressed to find myself in a very big house hosted by a small
woman with a sharp tongue. If I thought I was going to join a movement that
was going to lessen my isolation with my two small children I was wrong.
'Your problem is not you isolation,' I was told. 'Your problem is your
husband, he oppresses you.' I looked at the other white middle class women
in the room with me and tried not to blush. We were also told that we were
to call ourselves a collective, to refer to each other as 'comrades' and pay
three pounds ten to join the Women's Liberation Movement. There were posters
of fierce women waving guns over their head and a very large portrait of
Chairman Mao on the wall. The violence of the posters upset me and because I
was a child born in 1939 - a child born into a terrible war.
I was born in China in 1939. My father was working in the Consular Service.
Both parents were friends of Chaing Kai Check who was exiled to Taiwan by
the communists. My parents and my brother who returned to China in 1942 were
captured by the communists and put under house arrest for several years. My
twin sister and myself believed them to be dead. My father's hatred and
disgusts for any totalitarian regime left its mark on me and I was offended
by what I saw as a manipulative attempt for the local communist party to add
my three pounds ten shillings to their account.
Still I passionately believed that women in this country needed a place to
meet and to organize in their local areas. I was aware of a huge group of
isolated women many of whom had invaluable natural gifts and some work
experiences that we could use to work in our own communities. I braved the
hostility towards my high heels and my make up in the women's liberation
office and took over the typing.
I didn't last long. What I saw happening were groups of left leaning white
middle class women gathering together to hate men. Their slogan was 'make
the personal political.' What I saw happening was that the most vociferous
and the most violent of the women took their own personal damage, their
anger against their fathers and expanded their rage to include all men. Many
of these women were 'trust fund bunnies' meaning that they lived of their
rich father's money. What made the movement so immediately violent, was the
fact that it was founded in England by American women who were on the run
from the FBI. This was not the first time America exported its
revolutionaries. Trotsky was deported along with other revolutionary's years
before. Some went to Germany to join the Badermeinhof group. Others went to
Holland to join the Red Stockings and some chose to come to England. England
seemed destined to become the revolutionary hot bed for terrorists all over
the world, Beirut- by - Thames. I was at a BBC party when the taxpayers
shelled out to pay for all the famous revolutionaries to be flown in from
across the world to make a BBC program. I watched 'Danny The Red,' argue
with the sweating producer that he wanted bigger expenses and a more
comfortable hotel. Kenneth Tynan told me that we should take over the BBC
and launch the revolution ourselves. I was also forced to attend a tedious
lecture where Bernadette Devlin harangued us and various black panthers gave
salutes. A row of BBC would be revolutionaries raised their pallid fists in
reply. In 1970 terrorist women from groups everywhere poured into London for
the first women's liberation March but by this time I was becoming far more
politically aware.
I stood up in many of the violent and threatening collectives to tell the
leaders of this movement that hating all men was not anything that I wanted
to be part of. I told them that I considered my life a luxury. I had a
husband who went to work and paid the mortgage so that I could stay home
with my two children. I reminded them that most people were slaves. I
reminded them of the murderous regimes of Mao and of Stalin but of course
many of those women were followers of both Mao and Stalin. Their attitude
was that if thirty million died for the cause of the revolution so be it. I
was hated with a passion and finally ironically, excluded from the
liberation movement.
The Beginning Of The Women's Refuge Movement - and Its Capture
I left to open a small community centre for women and their children so that
my vision of the lessening of the isolation found in the Western world due
to the breaking down of the extended family. For many months this little
community centre for women and their children attracted all sorts of women
eager to have a place where they could use their abilities and entertain
their children. Very soon women who avoided the statutory services came to
us and we befriended them. Then one day a woman came in to the little
upstairs office and took off her jersey. She her body was streaked with
black and purple bruising. 'My husband beats me,' she said. I took her home
that night rather than leave her on her own. However, from the very
beginning I was aware of the violence of some of the women coming into my
refuge. By this time I had attracted the two things the women's movement
wanted: a just cause to clothe their political agenda and money to fund this
agenda. By 1972 the women's movement had run out of money. Ordinary English
women were far too intelligent and educated to want to be included into a
movement that so obviously desired to destroy the family and men. Only the
very isolated pockets of women living in areas like grizzly Islington and
Kew, refused to let their boy children have any male toys, and boasted that
their husbands or lovers had now been changed over night into 'new men.' The
rest of us accepted that men would always be men and any help in the house
was gratefully accepted.
While the bras burning antics of the women's movement became a stock joke of
television and in newspapers, the movement slid into obscurity except in
certain newspapers and in the academic circles. Here the misandry of the
women's movement found its exponents amongst untenured women professors.
They created a whole new discipline called 'Women's Studies' and brain-
washed generations of young women coming into Universities.
I found schools filled with 'teachers,' who were not teachers but political
activists. I went to Universities to lecture and was roundly berated when I
pointed out that 62 of the first hundred women who came into the refuge were
as violent as the men they left. I addressed public meetings and talked
about 'battered men.' Since 'Domestic Violence,' was considered a 'female'
issue it was women journalists who covered the subject. If I tried to
interest newspapers in publish my views, I came up again the same problem. I
was in the hands of women editors who refused to allow me to air my views.
Things were no better in the publishing field; editors routinely censor
books especially the radical lesbian editors. There was, and still is, a
strict censorship against anyone trying to break the code of silence. No one
wants to acknowledge the extent of the damage that the feminist movement has
done to the family and to men in the last thirty years.
Over the last thirty years I saw great corruption in the English courts. I
saw fathers of children denied their rights and persecuted. I have seen our
own government concur to a television advertisement on Scottish television
where children were advised to contact a telephone number should their
fathers shout and their mothers. I had a very early memory of a small girl
of my own age who also lived in China during the time of the communist take
over, denounce her father who was taken from the family and tortured for
seven years. I watched as the 'consciousness raising groups,' which again
reminded me of Mao's teachings spread, like a rash over the Western world
designed to brain- wash women into believing that their husbands were the
enemy and must be eradicated from the family. I saw the rise of the single
parent mother glorified in the women's sections of some newspapers. Four
women journalists wrote about their search for the right man to give them
their children and the four women promised their readers that the children
would never even know their fathers. I felt that these rich privileged women
journalists were acting irresponsibility, by now I was divorced from my
husband and I was a single parent mother and suffered the anxiety and the
loneliness of bringing up children on my own.
Most of all I saw feminist women teachers discriminate against the boys in
their classrooms. I saw the huge tide of women pouring into the work force
hungry for jobs and careers. Many had no choice. Financial hardship made it
imperative for both partners to work. In spite of promises there was no
national childcare plan so illegal and often dangerous attempts were made by
other women to take in children. Men, free of any restraint by the birth
pill demanded sex whenever they wanted it and then many ran away from the
subsequent pregnancies. London became not only the abortion capital of the
world but also had the highest level of teenage births in the West. Men
turned their backs on marriage and commitment many fearing quite rightly,
that whatever commitment they offered would end up with women fleecing them
for the rest of their lives.
Ostracism Around The Globe
In 1977 congresswoman Lindy Boggs and Congressman Newton-Steer invited me to
a luncheon of honour on Capitol Hill. I realized by now that what I was
going to say was going to make me deeply unpopular. Everyone who came to
meet me always assumed quite wrongly that I was a 'feminist.' I was nothing
of the sort. I have always disbelieved in 'ists' of any sort and the only
way I am willing to define myself is as 'a lover of God in all his aspects.'
By the end of my speech everyone at the table was avoiding me and I faired
no better at the Press Club in Washington. The expression on the faces of
the hard-bitten women journalists was a source of amusement to me. Many of
my speaking engagements were cancelled especially in New York and Boston. I
spent a hilarious night with another member of staff in a communal lesbian
household of professors in Anne Arbour but I was very glad indeed to be
hosted in another city by a sweet young wife and mother. I could see then
that the feminist movement everywhere had hi-jacked the whole issue of
domestic violence to fulfil their political ambitions and to fill their
pockets. By now feminists in America and other countries were redrafting the
law. 'In the past decade, feminist legal theory has become a formidable
presence in many of America's top law schools. Feminist activism has also
had a major impact on many areas of the law, including rape, self-defense,
domestic violence, and such new legal categories as sexual harassment.
However, the ideology of legal feminism today goes far beyond the original
and widely supported goal of equal treatment for both sexes. The new agenda
is to redistribute power from the 'dominant class' (men) to the 'subordinate
class' (women), and such key concepts of Western jurisprudence as judicial
neutrality and individual rights are declared to be patriarchal fictions
designed to protect male privilege.'2
My sojourn in Germany at the invitation of the German Minister for Sport was
no different. I left some very grim looking German refuge workers at a
dinner table because I could no longer bear the future of what the refuges
were to become. I watched the feminist movement build its bastions of hatred
against men. Fortresses where women were to be taught that all men were
'rapists and bastards,' and the damage done to the children in the refuges
who were to learn that man were not to be trusted.
I was asked to visit New Zealand in 1978 and I'd hoped to be invited to
speak to groups of refuge in Australia. At that time New Zealand hadn't yet
fallen into the arms of the totalitarian women's movement (it has now), but
I was refused a visit to Australia because the militant lesbian movement
there had control of most of the refuges. Since, as in many other countries
the Lesbian movement was in control of most the financing, they merely
instructed the Australian refuges to withdraw their invitations.
To show how this movement had the power to censor information I will quote
one example amongst many. In 1984 I gave evidence in San Antonio to The
Texas Force on Family Violence. There was huge trepidation in the minds of
the various shelter groups who were gathered there to give their testimony.
Woman after woman gave her personal evidence. In some cases the evidence was
grim and dreadful. Those were the genuine victims of their partner's
violence. However, many of the women giving evidence gave a bravura
performance which elicited much clapping from the audience of excitable
sisters but puzzled the members of the Attorney General's Task Force. 'I
understand your grief,' one of the women members said to a particularly
histrionic woman. 'But you said this happened to you ten years ago? Don't
you think it is time you moved on?' She spoke for most of her task force who
were very puzzled by what they could see as a definite split between the
women who were genuinely giving evidence and the other who were violence
prone women who were not innocent victims of their partner's violence but
violent themselves. I gave my evidence about the differences between women
who were genuine battered women and those that were violent themselves and
needed treatment. The committee thanked me and I received a standing ovation
from the audience. When the report arrived at my home in Santa Fe, it
recorded one meaningless sentence and referred to me as 'Erin Shapiro
author.' Even though my written evidence was submitted in the name of Erin
Pizzey and my standing, as the founder of the refuge movement was well known
to everyone.
Women As Child-abusers
By this time I was working in Santa Fe, New Mexico on child abuse cases and
against pedophiles. Here is where I discovered that there were just as many
women pedophiles as there were men. Women go undetected as usual. Working
against pedophiles is a very dangerous business. I rescued a little British
girl from a female pedophile in Britain while I was in New Mexico. It took
three years of fighting against the English courts to rescue her and return
her to her parents. When the official solicitor finally telephoned me and
said I was right all alone, the child had been abused, I asked him if he was
going to prosecute the woman. 'No,' he said. Yet another woman got away and
is still getting away with abusing children.
During all these years that I worked and specialized in working with violent
women and their children, I could never come to terms with the fear men had
of violent women. I sat around dinner tables and in sitting rooms, listening
to the feminist women abusing the men they lived with. I saw some women
running what amounted to mini concentration camps behind their front doors.
I rarely ever saw a father stand up to a violent wife or lover. I hardly
ever saw a father stop his wife abusing the children. They would come to me
for help but when faced with an angry and violent partner the men stayed
quiet and tolerated the violence. Even now people laugh when a man says he
has been abused. I don't find any sort of abuse to any living thing a
laughing matter. I do feel that it is time that men recognized that women in
the last thirty years have made many changes. They have become much more
independent of men but men have not yet made that step themselves. It is
depressing when working with men to find them running out of one violent
relationship and then immediately looking for another woman to 'look after'
them. Men have to get used to the idea that they can look after themselves.
The younger generations of men seem to be aware of this male dependence upon
women and can and do live by themselves.
When I was in Santa Fe a man came to see me who had lost his children and
everything he owned because his little daughter had accused him of molesting
her. I knew from the moment he confessed that he was a womanizer that he
wasn't a child molester. After seeing the mother who was a violent and
manipulative narcissistic exhibitionist, I realized that she had instructed
the child to name her father. I could see from the behaviour of the child
that she had indeed been molested. Finally after three months of work with
her she told me that the molester was a man who lived across the road. This
man was a government official. When I took the evidence I had to the D.A's
office he refused to target the case. A state trouper who also tried to get
cases targeted me told me the DA was divorced on grounds of suspected child
molestation so I had no chance anyway. I knocked on all the doors of the
private houses I could find around his house and warned the neighbours. Many
of them knew but were to frightened of him to do anything. When I confronted
him he told me he was safe from prosecution because of his position and he
would move his family to Alaska were there was less chance of being
convicted. He had, like so many violent and dangerous men, married a bride
from the Philippines. She didn't dare say anything. Another little girl told
me that her father, his new wife, and a neighbour raped her every Saturday
afternoon during her access visit. I asked what hurt her the most about the
abuse and she said 'her nails they are very long at sharp in my...and she
pointed to her bottom. Those are the terrible details that confirm horrible
truths.
Part of the problem with men is that they do not want to accept that woman
and particularly the women they have loved can be just as evil as men can.
And yet we know that women perpetrate 60 per cent of all child abuse.
According to research from the NSPCC:
Over 75 per cent of perpetrators of child maltreatment were Parents, and an
additional ten per cent were other relatives of the Victim. It is estimated
that over 80 per cent of all perpetrators Were under age 40 and that almost
two-thirds (62 per cent) were Females.3
When I was in Canada for a six weeks lecture tour in 1999, I was appalled at
the fear I saw in men across this huge country. Sexual harassment cases at
work mean that there are virtually no more office parties. I met a very fine
professor who had been accused of sexual abuse of two of his students. He
said living in Canada was like living in a totalitarian state. Indeed it
was. I spoke to groups of men and women all over the country. Men there were
already feeling the heavy hand of the state taking away their rights to
their homes and their children. Men told stories of leaving the house to go
to work and returning to find the woman had 'hovered' the house which means
she had taken everything she could out of the house and disappeared with the
children into a refuge. The distraught fathers were unable to find their
wives and children because the refuges refused to disclose any information.
In some cases where the father was very violent it is a necessary precaution
but I never intended it to become routine so that many delinquent women
could use this recourse against totally innocent men. For a woman declaring
your partner violent is a known fast track to a divorce, if that isn't
sufficient women can now recourse to what is called 'the silver bullet.'
This means that she accuses her partner of sexually molesting the children.
He then is cut off from his home and his family immediately. I was speaking
to men's group in the West Country recently. Two police officers were at the
meeting. They agreed when I asked them about the truth of false sexual
abuse, they were indeed forced to take a father away from his family even
though was no evidence. In this case a woman had accused the child's father
of having 'interfered' with her in her bath. She called the police and he
was taken away immediately. Later he was released for lack of evidence. We
should have a law that allows innocent victims of such allegations to sue
their attackers.
The Neglect Of Abused Men
I find that men will not help each other the way women do. Men have had
thousands of years of conditioning that enables them to work together very
successfully but when it comes to organising the same sort of help over
their personal lives, they fall apart. I saw this happen when I tried to
open a men's refuge almost immediately after I bought the main Chiswick
building for the women's refuge. I had seen sufficient men who were horribly
abused and needed somewhere to go. What offended me was that even though the
Greater London Council were willing to give me an excellent building in
North London, I could not get one single fund raiser to help me raise money
for the men.
Now we do have men's groups running in most countries, but as yet they have
no funding when millions of pounds are given to the women's refuges some of
whom abuse the money they are given. We know we have huge problems with our
young men. For the last thirty years they have been discriminated against in
the media and in schools. These young men have been fed a diet of feminist
rhetoric that assures them that they are 'rapists' and 'batterers.' Those
were the placards that surrounded The Savoy Hotel when I was there for a
luncheon and the launch of my book Prone To Violence *3. This was my book
that catalogued my work with violence-prone women and their children. I was
used to the pickets because anywhere I spoke or appeared I was followed by
these hate filled women. I was aware that they held their secret conferences
that excluded men all over the world. They have infiltrated most large
institutions and the UN is filled with women who are determined to destroy
the family and marriage as an institution. They want the family to be
defined as women and children only. Men are to be sidelined. Their role as
fathers is to be used as sperm banks and wallets. Fortunately those of us,
who believe in marriage and in the necessity of children having both
biological parents in their lives if at all possible, have time on out side.
The women's movement is dying out as the elderly proponents now write books
recanting their misspent youth and totter to their graves.
---
1 Susan Brownmillar, In Our Time Memoir of a Revolution The Dial Press, 1999
2 Michael Wiss and Cathy Young, Cato Institute police analysis paper @
Feminist Jurisprudence' @ <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pubs/pas/pa- 256.html>
3 Erin Pizzey and Jeff Shapiro, Prone To Violence Hamlyn Paperbacks 1982
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "desaparecido" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanna see a pro-aborts argument killed? |
27 Jun 2004 01:01:11 AM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <LiberateTheWomen@thisNGs.net> wrote in message news:<kM-dnadCa6lJN0DdRVn-sQ@heartoftn.net>...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbivi2$v62$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dcb1e7.63477716@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:20 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
....
Flowerpower, show us any credible evidence supported by science that
will
agree life doesn't begin at conception.
http://www.oceansonline.com/origins.htm
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/living/living.html
You see, this is a typical example of how liberals like to distort.
That coming from someone who resorts to outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
============================
Like many anti-choicers Heishman feels justified in lying to push his
anti-choice agenda. Note that none of them come up with a plan as to how to
help all those already born and stuck in cold, uncaring State Custody. No
plan on how to help those teenagers out there with unwanted pregnancies....
he would love to see them suffer by forcing them to carry to term. After
all they had the utter audacity to have sex and should now PAY, PAY, PAY.
If that takes LIES, then he and his ilk will do it.
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
Do they also warn women of the dangers of term pregnancy and
birth?.......like:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/deaths_smj.html
====================================================
====================================================
That last accusation is thouroughly irresponsible. As believed by the
American court system, nobody performs any action without a movitve.
Heishman has no motive to punish some 17-year-old pregnant girl
half-way across the country because she gave herself to a man she
thought she could trust to give her value in life. In fact, I'm sure
Heishman is such a person as would help this girl with caring for and
raising her child - after all, HE is the one who cares abou | | | |
