| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2007 06:04:57 PM |
| Object: |
Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
Number 9 (cue echo and fade: number 9...number 9...number 9...) was
going to be the last of this series but after seeing the
(un)believable stupidity of the theist contributions, particularly in
#9, it turns out that there is yet one more needed - perhaps the most
important one of all.
Not one theist attempted to address the actual point of this series,
which is not abortion, but the *hypocrisy* of the so-called pro-life
crowd.
Instead of addressing the topic, these fundamental cowards, liars,
hypocrites and morons resorted to their standard, unthinking, knee-
jerk herd response.
This typifies their behavior, and was, of course, no surprise at all.
They're not even pretending to adhere to the supposed premises of
Christianity. So let's take this ball into their court, shall we?
What does the Bible say about abortion?
The short answer is *nothing*. The Judaists did not agonize over when
a person became a person, or blindly declare it to be at the point of
conception. They had no clue what conception was, let alone when it
took place! Neither had they any idea of genes, gametes, zygotes,
embryos, fetuses, and so on.
The men placed little or no value on the female except as a means to
generate more males. She was never a true companion or even a mind to
them. She was either fair or she was worthless.
Quite literally nothing in the Bible ascribes any worth to "family
values", especially right at the root, which is the most important
place - on the need to get to know a person and fall in love with them
before a child is even considered.
And now these pathetic, lying two-faced hypocrites try to claim it's
god's will? These people who swallow whole a fantastic fairytale of
trading in women try to pretend they have family values? That the
Bible "teaches" that premarital sex is wrong?
Biblical men quite literally thought the female was nothing but dirt -
a garden in which they planted their "manly seed" which would then
flower into a man-child.
Of course, if this persistently failed, it was never the fault of the
seed, but of the dirt. The woman was *barren* - land that wouldn't
grow crops, and therefore worthless. But they could always go get
another piece of land by fair means or foul.
The Judaists thought menstruation was filth and women who experienced
it were effectively ostracised until they were "all better" and
"clean".
To them, a child was dead until their god breathed his spirit into it
- which was when it took its first breath upon appearing outside the
womb. Prior to that, it was a worthless non-entity and it pretty much
stayed that way if it was a female. Males fared little better until
they turned 13, which was old enough to start thinking of owning a
woman of their own.
And as we see, these rugged guys thought nothing of literally
sacrificing a child to their bloodthirsty god. There were no pro-
lifers in the OT. There was no love in the OT.
And what of modern so-called pro-lifers? Well, they wouldn't have the
first clue about what life is or when it begins if it were not for the
hard work of scientists of all faiths and no faith. Without science,
they would still be thinking a child is dead until it draws its first
breath.
The Bible writers made their (or - if you like to be insanely gullible
- their god's) position on children crystally clear right away - in
Genesis 6 - when this god of theirs destroyed every child on the
planet without a second's thought. You could argue that he planned it
that way before he even created Earth. Fortunately, it's all a myth.
The Bible writers amplified their god's total disdain for children in
Genesis 19, when not even one child was fit to salvage from Sodom &
Gomorrah, and daughters were evidently completely valueless except as
bribes for angry mobs.
They further exemplified their complete lack of a pro-life attitude in
Exodus 12 when the first-born of every family was slain.
The Old Testament contains a testament to the worthlessness of life
(in "Yahweh"'s view) in almost every book. Job lost every child he
had. They were meaninglessly and brutally slaughtered for no reason
whatsoever *except to settle a bet* between a god and his adversary.
Quite literally (if you believe these fairy tales) tens of thousands
of men women and children were deliberately and brutally massacred by
the Hebrews at their god's demand, request or with his approval. This
is no surprise. Their god actually deliberately created evil - and we
all know why, don't we?
The ultimate disregard for the value and worth of life is the very
foundation of Christianity. Yahweh rapes a young girl for no other
reason than to slaughter her child. To save lives! LoL!
Christianity is the ultimate in hypocrisy, so why is it any surprise
at all that Christians are fundamentally and overwhelmingly hypocrites
when it comes to the question of ETP?
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Rupert" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
31 Jul 2007 07:52:57 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 9:04 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Number 9 (cue echo and fade: number 9...number 9...number 9...) was
going to be the last of this series but after seeing the
(un)believable stupidity of the theist contributions, particularly in
#9, it turns out that there is yet one more needed - perhaps the most
important one of all.
Not one theist attempted to address the actual point of this series,
which is not abortion, but the *hypocrisy* of the so-called pro-life
crowd.
Instead of addressing the topic, these fundamental cowards, liars,
hypocrites and morons resorted to their standard, unthinking, knee-
jerk herd response.
This typifies their behavior, and was, of course, no surprise at all.
They're not even pretending to adhere to the supposed premises of
Christianity. So let's take this ball into their court, shall we?
What does the Bible say about abortion?
The short answer is *nothing*. The Judaists did not agonize over when
a person became a person, or blindly declare it to be at the point of
conception. They had no clue what conception was, let alone when it
took place! Neither had they any idea of genes, gametes, zygotes,
embryos, fetuses, and so on.
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion, but certainly it was an issue in Jewish law which the rabbis
had to deal with and their attitude towards it was more restrictive
than the attitude enshrined in law today in most democracies.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
04 Aug 2007 08:58:44 AM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 7:52 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:04 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Number 9 (cue echo and fade: number 9...number 9...number 9...) was
going to be the last of this series but after seeing the
(un)believable stupidity of the theist contributions, particularly in
#9, it turns out that there is yet one more needed - perhaps the most
important one of all.
Not one theist attempted to address the actual point of this series,
which is not abortion, but the *hypocrisy* of the so-called pro-life
crowd.
Instead of addressing the topic, these fundamental cowards, liars,
hypocrites and morons resorted to their standard, unthinking, knee-
jerk herd response.
This typifies their behavior, and was, of course, no surprise at all.
They're not even pretending to adhere to the supposed premises of
Christianity. So let's take this ball into their court, shall we?
What does the Bible say about abortion?
The short answer is *nothing*. The Judaists did not agonize over when
a person became a person, or blindly declare it to be at the point of
conception. They had no clue what conception was, let alone when it
took place! Neither had they any idea of genes, gametes, zygotes,
embryos, fetuses, and so on.
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion, but certainly it was an issue in Jewish law which the rabbis
had to deal with and their attitude towards it was more restrictive
than the attitude enshrined in law today in most democracies.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp
Those who are complete and utter dickheads and morons will quote Mat
25:31-46, claiming abortion is banned as a mortal sin. Of course,
they're liars and idiots because that passage has nothing whatsoever
to do with abortion, nor does it mention it or even hint at it. And
furthermore, it's complete overridden by the vicious disregard for
child welfare in other parts of that same book:
"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!" (Mat 24:19)"
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was
exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were
in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and
under..." (Mat 2:16)
"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 8:12)
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father
the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and
cause them to be put to death." (Mat 10:21)
"And every one that hath forsaken...children...for my name's sake,
shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Mat
19:29)
You may also note that the theists who haunt these fora are such
pathetic cowards and vacuous dimwits that not a single one of them can
find the guts or the wherewithal to step forward and address the
material in the opening message of this thread.
That's the poverty of spirit and culture that we're dealing with in
the abortion question and Christianity.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
04 Aug 2007 10:56:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:58:44 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion, but certainly it was an issue in Jewish law which the rabbis
had to deal with and their attitude towards it was more restrictive
than the attitude enshrined in law today in most democracies.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp
Those who are complete and utter dickheads and morons will quote Mat
25:31-46, claiming abortion is banned as a mortal sin.
It is. No doubt a-boot it.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
03 Aug 2007 12:41:31 AM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 7:52 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:04 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Number 9 (cue echo and fade: number 9...number 9...number 9...) was
going to be the last of this series but after seeing the
(un)believable stupidity of the theist contributions, particularly in
#9, it turns out that there is yet one more needed - perhaps the most
important one of all.
Not one theist attempted to address the actual point of this series,
which is not abortion, but the *hypocrisy* of the so-called pro-life
crowd.
Instead of addressing the topic, these fundamental cowards, liars,
hypocrites and morons resorted to their standard, unthinking, knee-
jerk herd response.
This typifies their behavior, and was, of course, no surprise at all.
They're not even pretending to adhere to the supposed premises of
Christianity. So let's take this ball into their court, shall we?
What does the Bible say about abortion?
The short answer is *nothing*. The Judaists did not agonize over when
a person became a person, or blindly declare it to be at the point of
conception. They had no clue what conception was, let alone when it
took place! Neither had they any idea of genes, gametes, zygotes,
embryos, fetuses, and so on.
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
That's my point (or one of them!). If there really were a god and the
Jews were his chosen race (yes, the Biblical god was racist too!),
you'd think they'd be a teensy-bit more clued in than the Bible
writers evidently were!
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion, but certainly it was an issue in Jewish law which the rabbis
had to deal with and their attitude towards it was more restrictive
than the attitude enshrined in law today in most democracies.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp
Well apart from the Taryag mitzvot, the halakha has nothing to do with
the Bible as far as I'm aware - it was all made up later. And not a
single one of the ten commandments specifically addresses the unborn
since they didn't consider the unborn to be alive until they came out
and took that first breath.
Their laws are hypocritical too, for that matter - that it's okay to
abort in some circumstances but not in others.
But the impression I get from them is that, as long as you don't steal
a fetus, have sex with it, eat it while it's still alive, worship it
or blaspheme about it, you're not really sinning under their laws!
On another note, I see Duck & Run felt it necessary to display both
his cowardice and his profound stupidity in one of these threads
again. No surprises there. He's just like a puppet on a string,
isn't he? And a pretty limp one at that.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
03 Aug 2007 11:20:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:57 -0700, Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion,
Not by title, but it is clearly covered as a mortal sin in Mat 25:31-46.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
14 Aug 2007 01:58:55 PM |
|
|
On Aug 3, 12:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:57 -0700, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion,
Not by title, but it is clearly covered as a mortal sin in Mat 25:31-46.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
A drunken man staggers in to a Catholic church and sits down in a
confession box and says nothing. The bewildered priest coughs to
attract his attention, but still the man says nothing. The priest then
knocks on the wall three times in a final attempt to get the man to
speak. Finally, the drunk replies: "No use knockin' mate, there's no
paper in this one either."
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
14 Aug 2007 03:41:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:58:55 -0000, Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:57 -0700, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion was in issue in Jewish law. The ancient Jews would have had a
concept of conception and of the fetus developing over time inside the
mother, although of course not the same as the modern scientific
concepts of these things.
I think you might be right that the Bible does not actually deal with
abortion,
Not by title, but it is clearly covered as a mortal sin in Mat 25:31-46.
I
A drunken man staggers in to a Catholic church and sits down in a
confession box and says nothing. The bewildered priest coughs to
attract his attention, but still the man says nothing. The priest then
knocks on the wall three times in a final attempt to get the man to
speak. Finally, the drunk replies: "No use knockin' mate, there's no
paper in this one either."
One of the brighter atheist wannabe's.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
01 Aug 2007 03:23:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:04:57 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Not one theist attempted to address the actual point of this series,
which is not abortion, but the *hypocrisy* of the so-called pro-life
crowd.
like what?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
04 Aug 2007 06:26:13 PM |
|
|
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist at www.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
"...Irrespective of an individual's viewpoint, the debate over
abortion in Latin America cannot be ignored. In Brazil, which has the
world's largest Roman Catholic population, abortion is only permitted
after rape or to save a mother's life. Yet every year 1=C2=B74 million
women undergo the procedure, terminating one in three pregnancies.
Almost 250 000 Brazilian women seek treatment in public hospitals for
subsequent complications, even though this action may make them liable
for prosecution for performing or consenting to an abortion. Across
the continent, 3=C2=B78 million women underwent such unsafe abortions in
2000, resulting in 12% of the region's maternal mortality.
"The burden of unsafe abortion is borne disproportionately by the
poor, the disadvantaged, and the young. Each year there are an
estimated 210 million pregnancies worldwide. One in five women will
choose an abortion. Over three-quarters live in developing countries,
where 97% of the estimated 20 million annual unsafe abortions are
done. A quarter of the women are aged 15-19 years. 68 000 women die
from unsafe abortions and 5=C2=B73 million are left with temporary or
permanent disabilities. In Kenya, where abortion is legal only to save
a mother's life, the 300 000 unsafe abortions every year account for
50% of maternal mortality. High death rates from unsafe abortion are
also seen in refugee settings. Clearly, Millennium Development Goal 5,
to reduce the maternal mortality rate by three-quarters before 2015,
is unlikely to be achieved without abolishing unsafe abortion.
"A woman's decision to seek an abortion arises from many complex
factors, including failures in preventive health-care provision and
social support. Hence there is a need for a respectful and
comprehensive debate informed by all who have a genuine interest in
improving public health, reducing poverty, and achieving gender
equity. Because reasons leading to abortion are many, so are the
opportunities for harm reduction--with valuable roles to be played by
those of any ideology.
"Examples of ways forward are given in the World Bank's
discussion paper, Population issues in the 21st century, published on
July 19, in which the Bank regards financial and physical access to
effective contraception as essential for economic security. The report
finds that negative attitudes to women create barriers to receiving
reproductive health services, particularly among adolescents. The Bank
calls on governments and donors to honour their commitments to family
planning, so that services can be expanded to meet people's needs, to
empower women, and to address unsafe abortion and highlight its
dangers.
"Providing women with a choice of contraceptive services reduces
demand for abortion. If contraception were provided to the 137 million
women estimated to want contraception, but who lack access, maternal
mortality could fall by an additional 25-35%, and improved maternal
health would benefit child survival. In the Netherlands, where
contraception is both freely available and openly discussed, the need
for abortion is below ten per 1000 women. Around the world, aggregate
patterns show that contraceptive accessibility is inversely
proportional to abortion rates.
"Although accessible contraception and safe abortion are a start,
additional steps are required. Pregnant women need to be reassured
that society will respect their decision:: whether it be abortion,
adoption, or raising a child perhaps as a single parent. Attitudes to
motherhood at a young age, to non-nuclear families, and to children
influence this choice, as do practical measures to affirm support
during pregnancy and afterwards.
"Former President Bill Clinton argued that abortion should be
'legal, safe, and rare', but for many of the world's most vulnerable
women it remains illegal, unsafe, and common. Making abortion illegal,
starving development agencies of funds to promote all forms of
contraception, or suppressing discussion by fear will not cause the
problem of abortion to disappear. Instead, it is time to remove the
gag and ensure that all women have access to safe, which means legal,
abortion."
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
04 Aug 2007 09:34:24 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist at www.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
....
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it? There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
05 Aug 2007 10:16:13 PM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
06 Aug 2007 05:25:51 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186370173.756940.75680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
Stop killing infants. That's our message.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
07 Aug 2007 05:36:27 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 5:25 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186370173.756940.75680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
Stop killing infants. That's our message.
Apart from God, who, exactly, is killing two year olds?
"Infant" refers to a child up to two years of age (it's from the
Latin), so when you can actually manage to get your hands on a clue,
do be sure to let us know. We won't hold out breath
Meanwhile all you're demonstrating here is three things:
1. You're a Class A1 Moron (but we knew that).
2. You hypocritically and ignorantly can't even define the issue, yet
you feel quite qualified to blindly and moronically pontificate upon
it.
3. Not one of you so-called "pro-life" HYPOCRITES can find even the
pretense of guts to actually tackle the topic of this series.
Instead, you take the predictable, cowardly and moronic tack of
chanting your irrelevant knee-jerk mantra.
Why is *NONE* of this a surprise?
BAM! You're knocked flat on your dumb *****. Next please, right this
way...
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
13 Aug 2007 08:26:10 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186526187.904229.277500@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 5:25 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186370173.756940.75680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal,
Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
Stop killing infants. That's our message.
Apart from God, who, exactly, is killing two year olds?
"Infant" refers to a child up to two years of age (it's from the
Latin), so when you can actually manage to get your hands on a clue,
do be sure to let us know. We won't hold out breath
Meanwhile all you're demonstrating here is three things:
1. You're a Class A1 Moron (but we knew that).
2. You hypocritically and ignorantly can't even define the issue, yet
you feel quite qualified to blindly and moronically pontificate upon
it.
3. Not one of you so-called "pro-life" HYPOCRITES can find even the
pretense of guts to actually tackle the topic of this series.
Instead, you take the predictable, cowardly and moronic tack of
chanting your irrelevant knee-jerk mantra.
Why is *NONE* of this a surprise?
BAM! You're knocked flat on your dumb *****. Next please, right this
way...
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like "foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
13 Aug 2007 09:13:39 PM |
|
|
BAM wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus" or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
An if you are a christian you can use terms like "other sect", "not white",
"not christian"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
13 Aug 2007 11:51:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:13:39 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
BAM wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus" or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
An if you are a christian you can use terms like "other sect", "not white",
"not christian"
"Untermenschen" is a favorite of theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
13 Aug 2007 08:36:46 PM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 9:26 pm, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186526187.904229.277500@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 5:25 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186370173.756940.75680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal,
Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
Stop killing infants. That's our message.
Apart from God, who, exactly, is killing two year olds?
"Infant" refers to a child up to two years of age (it's from the
Latin), so when you can actually manage to get your hands on a clue,
do be sure to let us know. We won't hold out breath
Meanwhile all you're demonstrating here is three things:
1. You're a Class A1 Moron (but we knew that).
2. You hypocritically and ignorantly can't even define the issue, yet
you feel quite qualified to blindly and moronically pontificate upon
it.
3. Not one of you so-called "pro-life" HYPOCRITES can find even the
pretense of guts to actually tackle the topic of this series.
Instead, you take the predictable, cowardly and moronic tack of
chanting your irrelevant knee-jerk mantra.
Why is *NONE* of this a surprise?
BAM! You're knocked flat on your dumb *****. Next please, right this
way...
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like "foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
BAM- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
When you come out of that front naughty thing (the one which Elvis
hated) you have a name but not until then.
Also, you Anti's do not consider your opponents to be "human"
so whom is kidding who?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
13 Aug 2007 11:50:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like "foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
14 Aug 2007 07:00:38 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k0d2c3do7l37qe7kf2fpv744rdagm1c77b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockinghorse Winner" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
14 Aug 2007 11:32:04 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Steve O had the audacity to say that:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k0d2c3do7l37qe7kf2fpv744rdagm1c77b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
A cancer cell is not a human being in it's early stages, so the suggestion
is ludicrous.
*R* *H*
--
If only one of Charles Chaplin's films could be preserved, ``City
Lights'' (1931) would come the closest to representing all the
different notes of his genius. -Roger Ebert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
15 Aug 2007 01:29:45 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2007 04:32:04 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner
<rockinghorse@deadtime.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Steve O had the audacity to say that:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k0d2c3do7l37qe7kf2fpv744rdagm1c77b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
A cancer cell is not a human being in it's early stages, so the suggestion
is ludicrous.
But an acorn is an oak tree in its early stages, so how come squirrels
don't eat oak trees and live in acorns?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
15 Aug 2007 11:20:56 AM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2007 04:32:04 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner
<rockinghorse@deadtime.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Steve O had the audacity to say that:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k0d2c3do7l37qe7kf2fpv744rdagm1c77b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
A cancer cell is not a human being in it's early stages, so the suggestion
is ludicrous.
Not nearly as ludicrous as the idea some people seem to have that
other peoples' personal choiced are somehow their business.
*R* *H*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
15 Aug 2007 03:04:43 AM |
|
|
Rockinghorse Winner <rockinghorse@deadtime.com> wrote:
Steve O had the audacity to say that:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
A cancer cell is not a human being in it's early stages, so the suggestion
is ludicrous.
But an egg cell is. So are sperm cells.
Does that make you a murderer?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
14 Aug 2007 08:37:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:00:38 +0100, "Steve O" <spamhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k0d2c3do7l37qe7kf2fpv744rdagm1c77b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:26:10 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
Right - it's easy enough to kill. Just give the person a name like
"foetus"
or "blobby cell" - then you can kill him.
Person also has a specific meaning (a legal one, actually), as does
fetus. Fetuses aren't persons, any more than monkeys are apes.
Calling a monkey an ape doesn't make it one.
I'm waiting for these crazy people to decide that cancer cells constitute
life and should be allowed to grow and develop.
Hey, mine are. The surgeon said it was the largest mass of hairless
skin cancer he had ever seen, and wanted my permission to keep it
alive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: "BAM" Demonstrates What a Complete Moron He Truly Is |
14 Aug 2007 07:19:37 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 6:36 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:25 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1186370173.756940.75680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Budikka
Stop killing infants. That's our message.
Apart from God, who, exactly, is killing two year olds?
"Infant" refers to a child up to two years of age (it's from the
Latin), so when you can actually manage to get your hands on a clue,
do be sure to let us know. We won't hold out breath
Meanwhile all you're demonstrating here is three things:
1. You're a Class A1 Moron (but we knew that).
2. You hypocritically and ignorantly can't even define the issue, yet
you feel quite qualified to blindly and moronically pontificate upon
it.
3. Not one of you so-called "pro-life" HYPOCRITES can find even the
pretense of guts to actually tackle the topic of this series.
Instead, you take the predictable, cowardly and moronic tack of
chanting your irrelevant knee-jerk mantra.
Why is *NONE* of this a surprise?
BAM! You're knocked flat on your dumb *****. Next please, right this
way...
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you didn't need to explain that to me. BAM is one of the elite
few where everything that they post demonstrates what a moron they
are.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
13 Aug 2007 09:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 11:16 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
The purportedly pro-life theist crowd (coward is an anagram of "a
crowd") once again have shown their true colors and avoided even the
pretense that they can rebut even ten supported accusations that the
pro-life theists are hypocrites.
So let's nudge this a little further into their territory, shall we?
Mike the Mad Biologist atwww.scienceblogs.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2xg9gr
has a very interesting piece titled: "The Lancet Supports Legal, Safe,
and Rare Abortion" where he quotes from July 28th edition of British
medical journal _The Lancet_:
...
Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent it, even in heavily
Catholicised countries. It simply makes it more deadly.
But that's the point, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
If your beliefs say that premarital sex is wrong, then you're going to
oppose something which you see as promoting premarital sex regardless
of what effect it has on abortion. There is no hypocrisy there.
That's just common sense.
So what we see is that these religious hypocrites care more about
making sure that sex is punished than they care about preventing
abortion. In fact, they would rather see people die than be allowed
free and happy sex lives.
You have no argument from me there!
What we see is you SAYING that these religious people care more about
making sure sex is punished than in preventing abortion. You two , as
avowed opponents of these people, are hardly credible sources for
accurate information about what they care about.
The Pro-Life position is fundamentally and intrinsically a lie.
Yup!
Nope. There is no "The Pro-Life position".
Try www.godlessprolifers.org
Sorry, but not all pro lifers fit into your categorizations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
14 Aug 2007 01:13:56 AM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:16 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
There are ways of making abortion
rare but most of them are strongly opposed by abortion opponents, and
the usual argument is that such methods encourage sex.
This is yet *another* reason why the anti-choice crowd are hypocrites!
If your beliefs say that premarital sex is wrong, then you're going to
oppose something which you see as promoting premarital sex regardless
of what effect it has on abortion.
If you hate liberty and have only contempt for other people then you
believe that you have the right and the duty to force everybody to do
as you say.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
14 Aug 2007 11:52:55 AM |
|
|
In article <1187059202.794627.226640
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, said...
If your beliefs say that premarital sex is wrong, then you're going to
oppose something which you see as promoting premarital sex regardless
of what effect it has on abortion. There is no hypocrisy there.
Here's the problem:
a) You oppose abortion.
b) You oppose birth control, because you
think it encourages non-marital sex.
c) Opposition to birth control leads to
increased pregnancy, which leads to
increased abortion.
Thus, (b) in its effects contradicts (a), and in
promoting (b) you of necessity impede (a). So it
is hardly possible to avoid a certain level of
hypocrisy in simultaneously denouncing both birth
control and abortion.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "CE" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
14 Aug 2007 01:18:04 PM |
|
|
On 14 ao=FBt, 13:52, Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <1187059202.794627.226640
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, said...
If your beliefs say that premarital sex is wrong, then you're going to
oppose something which you see as promoting premarital sex regardless
of what effect it has on abortion. There is no hypocrisy there.
Here's the problem:
a) You oppose abortion.
b) You oppose birth control, because you
think it encourages non-marital sex.
c) Opposition to birth control leads to
increased pregnancy, which leads to
increased abortion.
Not if: a) Men and women lead chaste lives, keeping sex as something
special between a man and his wife, or; b) These women have their
babies instead of having them butchered by abortionists.
Incidentally, there are other reasons why the Catholic church is
opposed to birth control, including the fact that it interferes with
the intimacy between a husband and his wife.
Thus, (b) in its effects contradicts (a), and in
promoting (b) you of necessity impede (a). So it
is hardly possible to avoid a certain level of
hypocrisy in simultaneously denouncing both birth
control and abortion.
There is no hypocrisy. You just haven't thought through all the
possibilities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid #10 |
15 Aug 2007 03:06:51 AM |
|
|
CE <jlrisdon@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
Here's the problem:
a) You oppose abortion.
b) You oppose birth control, because you
think it encourages non-marital sex.
c) Opposition to birth control leads to
increased pregnancy, which leads to
increased abortion.
Not if: a) Men and women lead chaste lives, keeping sex as something
You're just an anti-sex pervert who want everybody to be as twisted as you.
Sex is a gift from God. Why do you hate God?
Incidentally, there are other reasons why the Catholic church is
opposed to birth control,
They need something to use to make people feel guilty.
including the fact that it interferes with
the intimacy between a husband and his wife.
According to a bunch of celibate men who have never had sex and never
been married and haven't the first clue about marital intimacy.
Are you really this stupid?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
