Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!

Science > Abortion > Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are **profoundly** clueless!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 22

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
Date:	04 May 2006 03:15:32 AM
Object:	Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!

On Thu, 04 May 2006 03:13:41 GMT,
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

So do I. I'm a **Pro-Choice** pro-life person. Just like pretty
much every other Pro-Choicer. Pretty much everyone is pro-life,
with the exception of serial killers and hit men.

So you don't even know what you really believe then. In the same
sentence you call yourself pro-choice AND pro-life.

I really love it when Anti-Choicers so publicly show their ignorance
and their desperation to live in denial of their own dishonest. Since
just about ALL people *are* pro-life -- with the Pro-Choicers being
*sensibly* so (for the ONLY worthwhile human life -- that which has
been BORN; I.e., **people**), and the ANTI-choice louts desperately
trying to include utterly worthless -- when unwanted -- entities. The
latter is as stupid as it would be for oak tree defenders including
*acorns* in their so-called "defense" of the trees.

That's like saying that you're a republican democrat. What an
retarded little speck of dust you are.

Not in the least, dishonest little semantic-word-games-playing bigot.
But it's an APT description for *you* and your mindless and
control-freakish ilk.

Abortion is murder you lame brain.

LOL!!!!! Yeah. Right. In your **retarded** excuse for a brain,
maybe. Not even REMOTELY in reality. (But thanks for this latest
assistance in showing society how UTTERLY mindless ANTI-Choice is.)
<redundant BULLCRAP-flush>

Of course, most of society is well aware that the term, "pro-life,"
when employed by ANTI-Choicers, is the desperate attempt of such
losers to play dishonest semantic word-games to imply that PRO-
Choicers are not pro-life.

Pro-life, anti-abortionist, or anti-choice it makes NO difference to me
what some murderer calls me.

THANKS for that FURTHER proof of your ignorance.
[[[ READERS: Keep in mind that with PRO-Choicers, you will *always*
see FACTS. But NO such thing as a fact even EXISTS that supports
the inane and loathsome agenda of the Anti-Choicers. None, what-
soever. So all that you will EVER see emanating from the mouths
and keyboards of Anti-Choicers is lies, propaganda, whines, dis-
information, idiotic semantic-word-games designed to elicit sym-
pathy from the profoundly-ignorant, and sheer stupidity. But
NEVER any relevant FACTS that could even begin to support their
loathsome agenda that seeks to FORCE full gestation upon girls
and women against their will... a very real form of rape! ]]]

I am against abortion plain and simple!

You're being redundant again. We already know what a social RETARD
and sociopath you are.

I've not played any games,...

You've done so in this very post. Lying and playing inane games is
all that ANY person hateful and stupid enough to be an Anti-Choicer
can do.

You cannot be FOR abortion...

CLUE, ignorant loser: Pro-Choicers aren't even remotely "for
abortion." PRO-Choicers defend the right of all girls and women who
CHOOSE do to so, to have ready ACCESS to the remedy of abortion.
To put that into perspective, since you clearly are such a dimwit, that
is the EQUIVALENT of defending ANY remedy which might come under
attack by a collection of moronic losers. If such a group of jerks
sought to deny people the right to *choose* to ACCESS the remedy
of aspirin, then people just as *sensible* as today's Pro-Choicers with
respect to abortion would immediately oppose the losers who were
seeking to block access to aspirin.
(INTELLIGENT people will have NO problem understanding the above
paragraph. But I'm betting that you are too bone-STUPID to compre-
hend it, and that' you'll probably verify that for all of us.)

...and yet be FOR the unborn babies.

There's no such thing as an "unborn" baby, since ALL babies -- by
definition -- HAVE **been** born.
<redundant stupidity flushed. NO facts lost.>

Intelligent people in society know this, and it makes a JOKE of
the Anti-Choice louts. We who are PRO-Choice (and logically thus
want nothing to do with hateful and loathsome agendas that seek to
FORCE girls and women to gestate to term against their will -- a very
real, 9-month-long form of RAPE) sensibly are pro-life for all human life
that COUNTS. For PEOPLE. And *all* PEOPLE have been BORN.

Well, the only people I know of who joke about such things are those
who are too stupid to know the facts.

Then put on your clown suit. Since you've already proven that
you wouldn't know a relevant fact pertaining to this issue if you
tripped over it.

Anyone else thinks that the taking of a human life is a serious
business and shouldn't be done for convenience sake.

Not for ANY sake. It's immoral and illegal. Since the term, "a human
life" applies only to PEOPLE. And ALL people have been BORN.
<abject idiocy flushed>

(See SIG, to see how abjectly STUPID the Anti-Choicers truly are.)

Not stupid just not willing to believe the propaganda...

PRO-Choicers deal only in FACTS. Since ALL of the relevant
facts *support* our defense of this valuable and harmless remedy.
Propaganda is entirely in the domain of you doltish ANTI-Choicers.
It's ALL that you've got. Thus, you DEPEND upon it. (And the
abundance of relevant facts in my sig... NONE of which have EVER
been disproven by ANY Anti-Choicer -- make total dog meat of your
loathsome and hateful agenda against women. You have NOTHING
going for you.

...that the pro-abortion supporters...

There's no such thing. We defend girls' and women's right to
ACCESS the remedy of abortion against ignorant and hateful dolts.
(But DO please feel free to keep making such a public idiot of yourself
and your retarded cause. "Laughingstock Status" was the last stage
that segregation went through before THAT equally-putrid agenda
became extinct forever.

... are putting out as "fact" when everyone knows that it's
nonsense.

[[[ ROTFL!!!! READERS -- see what I mean? ]]]

LOL!!!!! So you're one of those total nitwits who thinks that
whether or not someone else happens to enjoy casual sex is ANY
of *his* business, whatsoever? ROTFL!!!! Dumber and dumber!!

No, actually you can have sex as many times as you want to and
it is none of my business.

LOL!! You ADMIT that -- but yet you WHINE about... LOL!!...
"promiscuity?"

Where it DOES become my business is when you start committing
murder to absolve yourself of the responsibilities that go along with
"casual sex".

Then you have NOTHING to worry about, since such a thing is totally
impossible.

LOL!!!, again! You are SO dumb, you don't know the OBVIOUS
difference between DEFENDING easy access to a hugely-valuable
REMEDY... and *promoting* it. I've never seen anyone (with the
exception, perhaps, of pharmaceutical companies) who *promotes*
ANY remedy, abortion included.

You have already said that you vote pro-abortion, ...

Wrong. I vote PRO-**CHOICE**, dolt!

that's promoting abortion whether you are man enough to admit it
or not.

Wrong again. I **DEFEND** the right of people to easily
**ACCESS** the remedy of abortion, whenever they so **CHOOSE**.
(Tell me -- how can Anti-Choicers be as dumb as you clearly are,
and live?)

Abortion is not a "remedy",...

Wrong again. ANYTHING that counters and/or reverses an UNWANTED
situation or medical condition, is a REMEDY for said unwanted situation or
medical condition. Abortion IA a remedy. It is 100% a remedy, whether
you like that or not. That's a FACT. It does what remedies **do**. It
corrects an unwanted medical condition, for all who CHOOSE it.

it's a dangerous surgical procedure...

Yeah? You've never heard of RU-486, then?
AND... if it is SO "dangerous," then WHY (as documented by the CDC)
is the mortality rate for *childbirth* TEN TIMES HIGHER than that for
those having abortions? (Again, you LOSE. But then, you *are* most
assuredly a loser, or you wouldn't want anything at all to do with the
onerous Anti-Choice agenda.)

... with physical, emotional, and spiritual implications far greater
than you will admit.

ROTFL!!! I've already debunked the stupidity of the "physical" aspect.
The sig of THIS post debunks your nonsensical whining about the
other supposed implications.
<BULLCRAP-flush>

But let some DOLT come along and try to deny access to ANY
remedy, and sensible people will ALWAYS call him on it. And very
rightfully so!

Sensible people? Is that what you think you are, sensible?

That is precise what ALL people are, who are fair-minded, intelligent,
and egalitarian enough to stand up firmly and staunchly for individual
liberties. We who PROUDLY are the diametric **opposite** of social
retards like you who so STUPIDLY seek to interfere in personal and private
affairs and decisions which are **absolutely NONE** you your business
whatsoever.

And quite frankly I couldn't care less about being "called on it" ....

Good!! Get USED to it, because -- just as happened to the segreg-
ationists, the majority of people will be doing so CONSTANTLY until
*your* equally-loathsome and idiotic agenda JOINS that of the segreg-
ationists in the permanent boneyard of extinction, where it belongs.

As I have said before, I know the truth...

LOL!!!! Not only are you delusional -- but you keep right on PROVING
that to everyone.

... so I see the propaganda for what it is, smoke and mirrors.

You certainly do. You're an EXPERT at employing it. It's ALL that
you've got.

Anyway, as I have also said before, my family and I have always
voted [Anti-Choice] and will continue to support [Anti-Choice] candidates
and [Anti-Choice] issues.

LOL!!!! Feel free, Loser! PRO-Choicers outnumber you by at least'
2-1, and it's fun to have laughingstocks like you around to chuckle at.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

= = = = =
"THE MYTH OF POST-ABORTION TRAUMA"
by Henry P David PhD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Induced abortion is one of the oldest forms of fertility
regulation. Perhaps no other elective procedure has evoked
as much public debate, generated such emotional and moral
controversy or received greater sustained attention from the
media. As has long been recognized, there is no psycholog-
ically painless way of coping with an unwanted pregnancy.
While an abortion may elicit feelings of regret, guilt or loss, an
alternative solution, such as a forced marriage, giving a baby
up for adoption or adding an unwanted child to an already
strained partner relationship, is also likely to be accompanied
by psychological problems for the woman, the child and
society.
Of all the complications of abortion, psychological responses
are the most difficult to assess and evaluate -- far more so than
mortality and morbidity statistics. Assuming that psychiatric or
psychological morbidity is a real and measurable phenomenon,
the explanation for the wide range of opinions expressed in the
literature may well lie in the inadequacy of much of the published
work. Included in the scientific deficiencies are an overemphasis
on clinical case histories that ignore the large majority of women
who terminate unwanted pregnancies and never seek post-
operative mental health consultation; the absence of standard-
ized follow-up procedures; failure to reach consensus on
diagnostic psychological criteria; or disagreement on psycholog-
ical variables related to the sociocultural context within which
the abortion decision occurs. Differing political, moral, ethical
and religious perspectives impinge on how abortion is perceived
by diverse observers.
Post-abortion trauma was initially described by Rue1 as a
variant of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Subsequently it
has been asserted that in 1987 the American Psychiatric
Association acknowledged in its newly revised manual of
diagnostic criteria, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders III-R (DSM-III-R) that abortion is a type of
'psychosocial stressor.' However, the American Psychiatric
Association never published a statement suggesting this.
Neither the1987 nor the 1994 revision of the APA Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual (DSM III-R and IV) mention abortion in
relation to post-traumatic stress disorder. Indeed, the only
mention of abortion in DSM IV is spontaneous abortion.
As defined by the APA, PTSD is a disabling condition
'following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving
direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or
threatened death or serious injury'. Likely stressors cited by
APA as examples of PTSD include military combat, violent
personal assault, terrorist attack, and being held hostage. It
is quite a stretch to claim abortion as a stressor likely to induce
PTSD.
Usdin2, one of the major developers of the concept of
post-traumaticstress disorder noted that one of the criteria for
PTSD is experiencing 'an event that is outside the range of
usual human experience and that would be markedly
distressing to almost anyone.' Considering that more than
30 million women in the USA and four million women in the
UK have experienced abortion since its legalisation it can
hardly be said that the abortion experience is outside the
range of usual human experience. There has been no
reported increase in public or private mental health services
for women attributing their current psychological problems
to abortion.
The rationale for post-abortion syndrome (PAS) was
developed by A C Speckhard in 1985 in an unpublished
thesis based on interviews with 30 women recruited for her
doctoral dissertation in sociology at the University of
Minnesota. The women had been recruited because they
deemed their abortion experience to have been 'highly
stressful'. The time between the retrospective account and
the most recent abortion varied from one to 25 years. Both
legal and clandestine abortions were included. 46 per cent
of the sample had second trimester abortions and four per
cent experienced third trimester terminations, both known to
be more psychologically stressful than first trimester proced-
ures. Whereas over 90 per cent of all women having
abortions in 1990 had them in the first trimester, only 50 per
cent of Speckhard's sample reported first trimester abortions.
More than nine out of 10 (92 per cent) of the women
recalled feelings of anger, hostility or rage toward individuals
(including partner, medical professionals and significant others)
who were perceived as having been coercive in the abortion
decision-making process. Moreover, 96 per cent of the
subjects 'regarded abortion as the taking of a life or as murder,
' an observation very likely to heighten feelings of guilt and
perceptions of stress. Speckhard later cautioned readers that
'the generalisability of the results is severely limited by the size
of the sample and the sampling methodology,' adding that 'the
results presented do not necessarily apply to all women who
have abortions, or even to that proportion of women who are
highly stressed following abortion.' It was indeed an atypical
sample.
Recognising the political, ethical and moral issues intertwined
with abortion and in response to questions raised in the United
States Congress about the medical and mental health effects of
abortion, the American Psychological Association, in 1989,
convened an expert panel to examine psychological factors.
The panel's mission was not to assess values but to consider
the best available evidence on psychological responses to
abortion. It focused on studies with the most rigorous research
designs, reporting findings on the psychological status of women
who had legal abortions under non-restrictive circumstances, that
is, on request in the first trimester and not solely on grounds of
physical or mental health.
The panel found that psychological distress is generally greatest
before the abortion when the woman has to decide how to resolve
an unwanted pregnancy. Responses after abortion reflect the
range of psychological experience and the resources a woman has
for coping with negative life events. While there may be temporary
sensations of regret, sadness or guilt the weight of the evidence
indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first
trimester does not pose a severe psychological hazard for the vast
majority of women. Indeed, most women report experiencing a
feeling of relief�pof anxiety lifted.
A longer-term study3 found that the wellbeing of 773 women,
interviewed annually in a national sample of 5,295 women, was
unrelated to their abortion experience eight years earlier. Women
who had had an abortion had a statistically significant higher global
self-esteem rating than women who had never had an abortion.
This difference was even greater when comparing aborting women
with those delivering unwanted pregnancies (who had the lowest
self-esteem). Women who had experienced repeat abortions did
not differ in self-esteem from women who had never had an
abortion. In all, the evidence confirmed earlier findings that factors
other than the abortion experience itself determine post abortion
emotional status, particularly how a woman perceives her preg-
nancy and how she believes it to be perceived in her immediate
social environment. Some women continually reconstruct and
reinterpret past events in the light of subsequent experience and
can be pressured into feeling guilt and shame long afterwards.
Denmark offers unique opportunities for research in reproduc-
tive health because it has a uniform national population registra-
tion system that provides access to national abortion, birth and
admission to psychiatric hospital registers. Linkage among these
registers makes it possible to compare the risks of psychiatric
hospital admission following abortion and childbirth. However,
because there may be a bias against hospitalising a new mother,
particularly if she is nursing, the relative psychological risk of
abortion compared with childbirth may be exaggerated by using
hospital admission as an operational indicator of psychiatric
illness.
Controlling for previous psychiatric history, first time psychiatric
hospital admissions were tracked three months post-abortion
and postpartum and for all other women experiencing no fertility
event under age 50 residing in Denmark. Data were obtained
on 27,234 women terminating pregnancy, 71,378 women
carrying to term and the total population of 1,169,819 women
15-49 years old.4
Among women who were married or living in a stable partner
relationship, the post-pregnancy risk of admission to a psychiatric
hospital was about the same for abortions or deliveries: approx-
imately 1.3 per 1,000 abortions and 1.2 per 1,000 deliveries.
While the difference between rates for abortions and deliveries
was not statistically significant, the rate for the total population
of women was considerably lower (0.7 per 1,000). Among a
smaller group of separated, divorced or widowed women, those
who had terminated pregnancies showed a substantially higher
psychiatric admission rate (6.4 per 1,000) than did separated,
divorced or widowed women carrying to term (1.7 per 1,000).
Women who are divorced, separated or widowed may be
relatively more likely to be terminating pregnancies that were
originally intended, placing them at higher risk for negative
post-abortion psychological reactions. However, in the
aggregate, there appeared to be little risk to psychological
well-being after either abortion or delivery in Denmark.
In a longer term (up to 11 years) prospective cohort study5
of 13,261women, organised jointly by the Royal Colleges of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and of General Practitioners
in the United Kingdom, there were four comparison groups:
6,151 women who did not request abortion, 6,410 who
obtained an abortion, 379 whose request for abortion was
denied, and 371 who requested an abortion and then
changed their minds.
Among the study's key findings were that (a) among
women with equivalent past psychiatric histories there were
no significant differences between the comparison groups in
overall rates of psychiatric illness; (b) women with a previous
history of psychosis were more likely to experience a psychotic
episode during the period of the study than those who had no
such history and that termination of pregnancy did not appear
to increase the risk; (c) women with a past history of non-
psychotic disorder or no history of psychiatric disorder who
had a termination were significantly less likely to have a
psychotic episode than those who did not request a termin-
ation; and (d) in women with no previous history of psychosis
the risk of psychosis after termination appeared to be lower
than after childbirth.
The authors note that many women were lost to follow-up
during the study and that at the end just 2,122 (34.4 per cent)
of the termination group and 3,000 (42.4 per cent) of those
who did not request a termination were still under observation
but that comparisons between the groups were still valid.
Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent.
Psychoses are very uncommon, being reported in only 0.3 to 1.2
per 1,000 legal abortions. Individual case studies and anecdotal
reports of severe stress or psychopathology following abortion
abound in some of the literature but there is no clear evidence of
causal linkage to abortion. While such responses can be emotion-
ally overwhelming for the woman concerned and for her family,
the number of such cases is very small, and has been characteri
zed by former US Surgeon General C Everett Koop as 'minuscule
from a public health perspective'. Women identified in the
research literature as being at some risk for negative psycholog-
ical reactions�pand in potential need of special counselling�pare
those who terminate a very much wanted pregnancy for medical
reasons; lack support from partners or parents for their decision;
were coerced into making a decision they subsequently regretted;
are conflicted about deeply held religious values; are uncertain of
their coping abilities beforehand; blame themselves for the
pregnancy; delay into the second trimester or had a previous
psychiatric episode.
For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a
mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This
holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward. Little
is known about very long term effects beyond 10 years. However,
the positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes
it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later. Severe
negative reactions are rare. The time of greatest stress is likely to
be before the abortion decision is made. In all, evidence from the
research literature suggests that, in the aggregate, legal abortion
of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a
psychological hazard for most women. They tend to cope success-
fully and go on with their lives. There is, as yet, no credible
evidence for the existence of post-abortion syndrome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -- Rue VM. Abortion and family relations, Testimony presented
before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, US Senate Judiciary
Committee, US Senate, 97th Congress, Washington DC 1981.
2 -- Usdin G. Psychiatry, letters, February 1990.
3 -- Russo NF, Zierk KL. Abortion, childbearing and women's
well-being, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
1992, 23: 269-280.
4 -- David HP. Post-abortion and postpartum psychiatric
hospitalisation in R Porter and M O'Connor (eds) Abortion: Medical
progress and social implications Ciba Symposium No 45 London,
Pitman 1985,150-161.
5 -- Gilchrist AC, Hannaford PC, Frank P, Kay CR. Termination of
pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity, British Journal of Psychiatry
1995, 167: 243-248.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared for presentation at the international conference on abortion,
Abortion Matters, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27-29 March 1996.
An expanded, fully referenced version of this paper is available from
Birth Control Trust.
.

User: "Ronald More-More Moshki"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	04 May 2006 07:22:33 PM

All the logic in the world the anti's sniff at.
Pro-Life is Pro-Death and when their daughters are brutually raped and
impregnated, what do they do?
You'd better believe it.
sector_four
.

User: "Boy Toy"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	04 May 2006 11:24:16 PM

On 4 May 2006 17:22:33 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
<sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<1146788553.479478.234740@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

All the logic in the world the anti's sniff at.

Pro-Life is Pro-Death and when their daughters are brutually raped and
impregnated, what do they do?

You'd better believe it.

sector_four

I know exactly what they'll do. They will force their daughters to
carry the fetus to term. They're more interested in fetuses than they
are in living people. Just like they're more interested in brain dead
vegetables than living people.
Do not underestimate the profound ignorance and evil of these people.
.

User: "Rich Travsky "
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers areprofoundly clueless!	04 May 2006 11:43:27 PM

Boy Toy wrote:

On 4 May 2006 17:22:33 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
<sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<1146788553.479478.234740@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

All the logic in the world the anti's sniff at.

Pro-Life is Pro-Death and when their daughters are brutually raped and
impregnated, what do they do?

You'd better believe it.

sector_four

"But here's an object more of dread
than aught the grave contains
A human form with reason fled
while wretched life remains" A. Lincoln

Do not underestimate the profound ignorance and evil of these people.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 11:51:18 AM

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences of
killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 11:57:29 AM

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn children
against the mother's will?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 02:48:13 PM

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn children
against the mother's will?

I know this may come as a surprise, but there are people right here on
earth who have not been involved in either of the activities you
mention. It would be for those who have been involved in killing
unborn children to determine how the law applies to them, not the
people who have not broken the law. The law is there for the
protection of people who break the law.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "--sexkitten--"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers areprofoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 05:09:13 PM

wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,

, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn children
against the mother's will?

Lay off the sauce before posting.
--
--sexkitten--
"I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen."
-W.H. Auden
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 08:16:51 PM

--sexkitten-- wrote:

rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn children
against the mother's will?

Lay off the sauce before posting.

The only sauce I use is tomato sauce.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 02:55:15 PM

In News 1146858492.851186.255360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn
children against the mother's will?

I know this may come as a surprise, but there are people right here on
earth who have not been involved in either of the activities you
mention.

Yadda, yadda, yadda... What did you mean by the rhetoric you posted?

It would be for those who have been involved in killing
unborn children to determine how the law applies to them, not the
people who have not broken the law. The law is there for the
protection of people who break the law.
Robert B. Winn

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 03:14:20 PM

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146858492.851186.255360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who do
not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the consequences
of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric mean
exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn
children against the mother's will?

I know this may come as a surprise, but there are people right here on
earth who have not been involved in either of the activities you
mention.

Yadda, yadda, yadda... What did you mean by the rhetoric you posted?

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate, then it seems to me that life could continue
to be more complicated for you than it needs to be. You seem to be
trying to communicate to me that it would be impossible for you to tell
whether or not killing a child is wrong. My own personal belief is
that all people can tell that killing children is something they should
not be doing.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 10:50:00 PM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 11:19:31 PM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	06 May 2006 12:01:23 AM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	06 May 2006 01:29:00 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	06 May 2006 08:31:03 AM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	06 May 2006 09:11:01 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me. You don't have anything I would want.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	07 May 2006 02:16:56 PM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	14 May 2006 06:03:07 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.

Now don't try to put your problems off on me, Ray. I am not involved
in immoral behavior.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	14 May 2006 11:54:10 AM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.

Now don't try to put your problems off on me, Ray.

Don't deny your crimes.

I am not involved
in immoral behavior.

Yes you are. You're a liar and you covet the suffering of women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	15 May 2006 12:20:40 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.

Now don't try to put your problems off on me, Ray.

Don't deny your crimes.

I am not involved
in immoral behavior.

Yes you are. You're a liar and you covet the suffering of women.

You are mistaken, Ray. I have never been involved in abortion.
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	15 May 2006 09:38:54 PM

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.

Now don't try to put your problems off on me, Ray.

Don't deny your crimes.

I am not involved
in immoral behavior.

Yes you are. You're a liar and you covet the suffering of women.

You are mistaken, Ray.

No I am not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	16 May 2006 09:20:57 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Andrealphus wrote:

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a point,
or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which you
would wish to participate,

You first, pervert.

Ex 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 20:17 Thou shalt not covet.

That's ANOTHER one of the 10 commandments you violate.

Not me.

You covet the obedience and suffering of women.

Now don't try to put your problems off on me, Ray.

Don't deny your crimes.

I am not involved
in immoral behavior.

Yes you are. You're a liar and you covet the suffering of women.

You are mistaken, Ray.

No I am not.

Have you been reading Jean Paul Sarte?
Robert B. Winn
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 03:17:23 PM

In News 1146860060.883779.29230@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146858492.851186.255360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News 1146847878.581807.309030@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com,,
rbwinn3@juno.com at rbwinn3@juno.com, typed this:

Laws are for the protection of people who break laws. People who
do not kill unborn children do not need to worry about the
consequences of killing unborn children.
Robert B. Winn

I know I'm going to regret this, but what does all that rhetoric
mean exactly? Are you talking about abortion, or murdering unborn
children against the mother's will?

I know this may come as a surprise, but there are people right here
on earth who have not been involved in either of the activities you
mention.

Yadda, yadda, yadda... What did you mean by the rhetoric you
posted?

That's still undecipherable rhetoric to me. Do you actually have a
point, or what?

Well, if refraining from killing children is not something in which
you would wish to participate,

GIve me the names of all those who are killing children and I will report
them. Shame on you for not reporting them youself!

then it seems to me that life could
continue to be more complicated for you than it needs to be. You
seem to be trying to communicate to me that it would be impossible
for you to tell whether or not killing a child is wrong.

Of course, killing a child is wrong! Are you nuts? Are you killing
children Robert?

My own
personal belief is that all people can tell that killing children is
something they should not be doing.

Are you doing it? Are you killing children Robert? And what does any of
that have to do with the rhetoric you posted before?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Just as the segregationists were... today's ANTI-Choicers are profoundly clueless!	05 May 2006 04:23:40 PM