Science > Abortion > MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 10:32:22 AM |
| Object: |
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
(And then the Anti-Choicers wonder *why* most
of society regards them to be dumber than a sack of
hammers. And recognizer that RRR Cultists comprise
America's National Laughingstock.)
LOL!! RRR cultists... What a collection of nitwits!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
30 Apr 2006 12:47:39 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dysperdis" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
02 May 2006 02:22:27 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8I65g.24040$iB2.4541@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
02 May 2006 07:44:11 AM |
|
|
"Dysperdis" <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:TMD5g.105275$P01.51799@pd7tw3no...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8I65g.24040$iB2.4541@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
His second statement does not logically follow from his first statement.
I do not side with you liars.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
02 May 2006 12:03:47 PM |
|
|
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 01:13:14 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and well-being
is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again begging the
question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women out there. Doctors
will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will you STOP IT! Stop
begging the question time and time again. We tire of your fallacious
accusations.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 11:05:54 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and well-being
is being sacrificed through pregnancy.
You assume your conclusion that abortion could ever be murder.
The truth is that childbirth does cause serious injury, does involve
major expense, and forced childbirth most certainly does affect her
well being.
There are perfectly healthy pregnant women out there.
"Healthy" considering that they're pregnant.
There are perfectly dead pregnant women as well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 02:47:20 PM |
|
|
On 3 May 2006 11:13:14 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest
fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
And YOU fail to allow for those cases.
TYPICAL Anti-Choice/RRR cultish **doltishness* and dishonesty.
* Of course, since abortion is nothing more than a harmless,
and highly-beneficial REMEDY for all who choose to access
it -- the notion that *any* person would seek to deny it to
*any* girl or woman is the EPITOME of hatefulness & stupidity.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 06:52:59 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!! wrote:
On 3 May 2006 11:13:14 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest
fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born. He does so only
because the law states that it is OK to kill the baby as long as mom
says it is and a doctor does it. How does a legally protected human
being become a non-human being by being unwanted by its mother? How
does the ontological status of the unborn child change at the whim of
one of the parents?
And YOU fail to allow for those cases.
You have failed to allow for the most important case of all...that of
killing a child simply because it can't defend itself and is in the
way.
TYPICAL Anti-Choice/RRR cultish **doltishness* and dishonesty.
* Of course, since abortion is nothing more than a harmless,
How is it harmless to the developing child?
and highly-beneficial REMEDY for all who choose to access
Pregnancy is not listed as a disease in any medical book I know of. You
are speaking outside the scope of the field of scince(i.e. your
statement is unscientific).
Again, you beg the question by assuming the conclusion you hope to
prove and that is that only the rights of the woman who carries the
child are to be considered. I am constantly inundated by your types
with falacy after falacy of this nature. If that is all the ammunition
you have......your argument is dead. All you can do is shower us with
question begging rants and falicious accusations along with adhominem
attacks. This is all a sure sign your side is losing the argument.
it -- the notion that *any* person would seek to deny it to
*any* girl or woman is the EPITOME of hatefulness & stupidity.
Is denial of life, by killing her, to a developing child that very
same EPITOME of hatefulness & stupidity?
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 11:06:30 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!! wrote:
On 3 May 2006 11:13:14 -0700,
"Yarrido" < > wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest
fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born.
Because that isn't reality. It is a perverted pro-liar fantasy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 11:25:28 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!! wrote:
On 3 May 2006 11:13:14 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest
fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born.
Because that isn't reality. It is a perverted pro-liar fantasy.
That is reality. Nearly two dozen states have "double homicide" laws
that allow prosecutors to seek two murder convictions when a pregnant
woman is killed. But those states differ on how old the fetus must be
at the time of death for that second murder charge to apply.
Here is the "no fantasy" link that you can check out for yourself:
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2194083/detail.html
Now everyone can see who is engaging in "liar fantasy." If you don't
know, look in the mirror.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 10:49:29 AM |
|
|
In News 1146700379.539368.233700@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,,
yarrido@aol.com at yarrido@aol.com, typed this:
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected
under the law against being murdered prior to being born. He does so
only because the law states that it is OK to kill the baby as long as
mom says it is and a doctor does it. How does a legally protected
human being become a non-human being by being unwanted by its mother?
How does the ontological status of the unborn child change at the
whim of one of the parents?
That very same law you are citing EXCLUDES voluntary abortion from being
murder within its text, and since abortion is at the whim of the mother, the
fetus is not protected from abortion.
--
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: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 09:37:53 PM |
|
|
On 3 May 2006 16:52:59 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a
rape/incest fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born.
There's no such thing as a baby PRIOR to birth, and thus, abortion and
murder are mutually-exclusive.
DAMN, but you are a moron! Just like **every** other person idiotic
and busybodyish enough to BE an ANTI-Choicer. (LOL!!!)
<stupidity-flush>
* Of course, since abortion is nothing more than a harmless,
and highly-beneficial REMEDY for all who choose to access
it --
Pregnancy is not listed as a disease in any medical book I know of.
The word, "remedy," is applicable to ANY **undesirable** situation.
But thanks for this further proof of your desperation and stupidity.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 11:06:13 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!! wrote:
On 3 May 2006 16:52:59 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a
rape/incest fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born.
There's no such thing as a baby PRIOR to birth, and thus, abortion and
murder are mutually-exclusive.
DAMN, but you are a moron! Just like **every** other person idiotic
and busybodyish enough to BE an ANTI-Choicer. (LOL!!!)
<stupidity-flush>
* Of course, since abortion is nothing more than a harmless,
and highly-beneficial REMEDY for all who choose to access
it --
Pregnancy is not listed as a disease in any medical book I know of.
The word, "remedy," is applicable to ANY **undesirable** situation.
That is true enough. However, we are discussing pregnancy and that
falls within the context of medicine and "medically undesirable
situations" are reffered to as disease. Switching contexts to pretend
you proved a point is dishonest.
But thanks for this further proof of your desperation and stupidity.
One who resorts to dishonest tactics is the one who is desperate and
the one who resorts to adhominem attacks is the one who lacks
intelligence. It seems you fall into both categories as evidenced by
your dishonest tactics that are obvious even if I did not point them
out. You can keep pretending that you have pointed out some kind of
proof, but none is evident except in your own brainwashed mind.
BTW-Can we assume that all of your analysis is as accurate as your
assessment of my being RRR?
Are socialists generally considered RRR? Well, I am a socialist. So,
everyone can contemplate that one for a while. And while you do, you
might take a look at this link as well http://godlessprolifers.org/
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 06:24:59 PM |
|
|
On 4 May 2006 09:06:13 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
Bigoted Dimwit, John Wentzky, wrote:
"Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a
rape/incest fetus is murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and
well-being is being sacrificed through pregnancy. You are yet again
begging the question. There are perfectly healthy pregnant women
out there. Doctors will attest to that if you bother to ask them. Will
you STOP IT! Stop begging the question time and time again. We tire
of your fallacious accusations.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for this demonstration of your ignorance. Ray clearly is
allowing for the presence of women -- WITHIN the total group of
all pregnant women -- who ARE in frail health, and thus should NEVER
be forced against their will to gestate-to-term.*
He is not allowing for the presence of the baby that is protected under
the law against being murdered prior to being born.
There's no such thing as a baby PRIOR to birth, and thus, abortion and
murder are mutually-exclusive.
DAMN, but you are a moron! Just like **every** other person idiotic
and busybodyish enough to BE an ANTI-Choicer. (LOL!!!)
* Of course, since abortion is nothing more than a harmless,
and highly-beneficial REMEDY for all who choose to access
it --
Pregnancy is not listed as a disease in any medical book I know of.
The word, "remedy," is applicable to ANY **undesirable** situation.
That is true enough. However, we are discussing pregnancy and that
falls within the context of medicine and "medically undesirable
situations" are reffered to as disease.
REALLY?!? Then a broken arm is a disease? Who knew?
Switching contexts to pretend you proved a point is dishonest.
Since ALL of the relevant facts support the PRO-Choice stance, we
Pro-Choicers NEVER need to resort to dishonesty.
But thanks for this further proof of your desperation and stupidity.
One who resorts to dishonest tactics is the one who is desperate and
ans the one who resorts to adhominem attacks is the one who lacks
intelligence.
Wrong. That which you seem to think are "ad hominem attacks" are
nothing more than ACCURATE DESCRIPTORS which *first* have been
publicly *earned* by their recipients.
I never employ dishonest tactics. Those are entirely in the domain of
the ANTI-Choicers. Having NO relevant facts on their side, dishonest
tactics are ALL that they have to work with.
[[[ READERS: In more than 45 years of activism in behalf of women
**never** having to be FORCED to gestate to term, I have YET
to see so much as even **one** relevant FACT that could be
brought to bear in support of such hateful lunacy. And I have
OFTEN challenged the Anti-Choicers to present one. It's never
happened. Want to see relevant FACTS in a post dealing with
abortion? They will ALWAYS be presented by the PRO-Choicers. ]]]
It seems you fall into both categories as evidenced by
your dishonest tactics that are obvious even if I did not point them
out. You can keep pretending that you have pointed out some kind of
proof, but none is evident except in your own brainwashed mind.
"Brainwashed!" LOL!!!! **You** should talk! See the SIG of this
post, and then see if you can be the FIRST Anti-Choicer to *disprove*
ANY of the many FACTS that it contains. OR -- have the guts to admit
that *you* are either clueless, brainwashed, or bone-ignorant.
BTW-Can we assume that all of your analysis is as accurate as your
assessment of my being RRR?
An RRR cultist needs ONLY to have the following characteristics to fit
that definition:
-- Be a BUSYBODY
-- Actively/publicly seek to interfere with the legal personal
and private liberties of other people.
-- Support a loathsome agenda that seeks to FORCE unwanted
full gestation upon ANY girl or woman against her will.
-- USUALLY an RRR cultist very stupidly opposed totally-
harmless same-sex marriage.
-- USUALLY pretends to be a Christian in the course of the
above. Which means that he's either a PSEUDO-Christian,
or a very deluded actual one.
Are socialists generally considered RRR?
Socialism is a political philosophy, and has nothing to do with any
of this. Is this your "rabbit paths/red herrings R Us" ploy?
Well, I am a socialist.
Good for you. Or not. Whatever. OFF-topic.
So, everyone can contemplate that one for a while. And while
you do, you might take a look at this link as well:
http://godlessprolifers.org/
As I pointed out above, with the word, "usually" -- one does not
have to pretend to be Christian, or even be a DELUDED Christian,
to be an RRR cultist.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
* (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
listed attributes still apply.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, BIRTHrights. and first-BORNS.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 05:08:38 PM |
|
|
On 3 May 2006 11:13:14 -0700, "yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com>
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Dysperdis <dysperdis@gmail.com> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:35m952hd2a5qnnb7jheqtmp7m6pqg0svus@4ax.com...
MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape
and incest victims.
Therefore, they ADMIT that reproductive-process
entities are NOT people!
Non-sequitur.
No, actually. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a rape/incest fetus is
murder.
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and
well-being for the benefit of another.
You assume your conclusion again that the woman's health and well-being
is being sacrificed through pregnancy.....
There is a field of medicine dedicated to preserving the woman's
health and life during pregnancy. Without modern medicine, a full
term pregnany and childbirth carries about a one in ten risk of death.
Every full term pregnancy and childbirth scars damages and scars the
woman. That the woman's health and well-being is being sacrificed
through pregnancy is a medical fact, not Ray's conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 10:54:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 22:08:38 GMT,
(Paul Anderson) spake thusly:
There is a field of medicine dedicated to preserving the woman's
health and life during pregnancy. Without modern medicine, a full
term pregnany and childbirth carries about a one in ten risk of death.
Every full term pregnancy and childbirth scars damages and scars the
woman. That the woman's health and well-being is being sacrificed
through pregnancy is a medical fact, not Ray's conclusion.
So does a lot of things. Should we murder a baby
every time something may leave a scar?
Goodbye.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
The Last Days were in the first century:
"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 12:47:03 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net
(Paul Anderson) spake thusly:
There is a field of medicine dedicated to preserving the woman's
health and life during pregnancy. Without modern medicine, a full
term pregnany and childbirth carries about a one in ten risk of death.
Every full term pregnancy and childbirth scars damages and scars the
woman. That the woman's health and well-being is being sacrificed
through pregnancy is a medical fact, not Ray's conclusion.
So does a lot of things. Should we murder a baby
every time something may leave a scar?
Should you be allowed to "murder" children in order to pay for your
selfish lifestyle?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 04:59:44 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 22:08:38 GMT,
(Paul Anderson) spake thusly:
There is a field of medicine dedicated to preserving the woman's
health and life during pregnancy. Without modern medicine, a full
term pregnany and childbirth carries about a one in ten risk of death.
Every full term pregnancy and childbirth scars damages and scars the
woman. That the woman's health and well-being is being sacrificed
through pregnancy is a medical fact, not Ray's conclusion.
So does a lot of things. Should we murder a baby
every time something may leave a scar?
Not even remotely close to the topic being discussed.
Goodbye.
Good riddance.
--
--sexkitten--
Defer not till tomorrow to be wise, tomorrow's sun to thee may never rise.
-William Congreve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
03 May 2006 02:58:30 PM |
|
|
So from this "genius" pro-abortionist, we now know that no woman can get
pregnant and give birth without sacrificing her health and well-being. I
know LOTS of woman with kids and they are ALL healthy and happy. Not one of
them sacrificed their health or well-being when they were pregnant nor gave
birth.
So Ray Fischer, when were you pregnant and sacrificed your health and well
being? Or could it be that you got an abortion??? Inquiring minds want to
know...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445790f3$0$65458$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and well-being for the
benefit of another.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 01:09:43 AM |
|
|
G-Net wrote:
So from this "genius" pro-abortionist, we now know that no woman can get
pregnant and give birth without sacrificing her health and well-being. I
know LOTS of woman with kids and they are ALL healthy and happy.
You lie. All pregnancies do physical damage. ALL of them.
Not one of
them sacrificed their health or well-being when they were pregnant nor gave
birth.
So Ray Fischer, when were you pregnant and sacrificed your health and well
being?
He heard it from actual women, not the voices in your head.
Or could it be that you got an abortion??? Inquiring minds want to
know...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445790f3$0$65458$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
It is not murder to refuse to sacrifice your health and well-being for the
benefit of another.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
--
--sexkitten--
I have nothing but contempt for the kind of governor who is afraid, for
whatever reason, to follow the course that he knows is best for the
State; and as for the man who sets private friendship above the public
welfare - I have no use for him either.
-Sophocles
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
04 May 2006 10:01:35 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x-SdnXsr9r9BB8TZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
You lie. All pregnancies do physical damage. ALL of them.
Um, no I didn't lie but you are. Most of the people I know have kids and
there are doing well. If you have a fear of pregnancy that's one thing but
it's not relevant to the discussion. Abortion is murder always has been,
always will be.
He heard it from actual women, not the voices in your head.
Actually I don't hear voices at all. I do know lots of women, most of them
with kids though and that's where I'm getting my information from.
Incidentally, they are against abortion too. But I would guess that you
don't really care what they think unless they agree with your point of view
huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 12:12:29 AM |
|
|
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x-SdnXsr9r9BB8TZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
You lie. All pregnancies do physical damage. ALL of them.
Um, no I didn't lie but you are. Most of the people I know have kids and
there are doing well. If you have a fear of pregnancy that's one thing but
it's not relevant to the discussion. Abortion is murder always has been,
always will be.
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been murder -
as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the legal
reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
He heard it from actual women, not the voices in your head.
Actually I don't hear voices at all. I do know lots of women, most of them
with kids though and that's where I'm getting my information from.
Incidentally, they are against abortion too. But I would guess that you
don't really care what they think unless they agree with your point of view
huh?
You're great at making guesses, and less than great at actually getting them
within the same area code as reality.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 4 (May 4)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, May 6 at Milwaukee, 7:05 (Game 2)
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 08:41:49 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac9xvyv6.fsf@fnord.io.com...
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been
murder -
as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the
legal
reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
Legality does not have anything to do with moral right and wrong. There are
many things that are legal as far as the law is concerned but that doesn't
make them morally right.
You're great at making guesses, and less than great at actually getting
them within the same area code as reality.
Considering your liberal bias, proclivity for vulgarity, willingness to use
intimidation or any mean necessary to force your opinion on others I think
my guesses have been VERY good and very accurate. I was able to size you and
a few of your friends up very quickly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 10:11:16 AM |
|
|
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac9xvyv6.fsf@fnord.io.com...
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been murder
- as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the
legal reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
Legality does not have anything to do with moral right and wrong. There are
many things that are legal as far as the law is concerned but that doesn't
make them morally right.
*Whose* "morally right"? Yours takes the position of being a presumptuous
twit who assumes he knows what's best women better than they do. When you're
able to get pregnant, you may have a say in this. Until then, you're wasting
your time. The wife and I stand for allowing the woman to make her own
choices, without interference from cranks like you.
You're great at making guesses, and less than great at actually getting
them within the same area code as reality.
Considering your liberal bias, proclivity for vulgarity, willingness to use
intimidation or any mean necessary to force your opinion on others I think
my guesses have been VERY good and very accurate. I was able to size you and
a few of your friends up very quickly.
....and not surprisingly, you managed to get it almost within the same planet.
I never have been liberal. I don't need an intrusive government. (I'm so
liberal I've voted for 1 (one) Democrat in my life, and that was my first
Presidential election: Carter. I vote Libertarian, because I still think the
Constitution is the best thing we have going in this country - if we can force
the bastards in DC to actually obey it. We had to throw out one Tyrant George
to establish it in the first place, and we may have to get rid of another one
to put it back in force.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 4 (May 4)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, May 6 at Milwaukee, 7:05 (Game 2)
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 10:32:19 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac9xvyv6.fsf@fnord.io.com...
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been murder
- as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the
legal reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
Legality does not have anything to do with moral right and wrong. There are
many things that are legal as far as the law is concerned but that doesn't
make them morally right.
*Whose* "morally right"? Yours takes the position of being a presumptuous
twit who assumes he knows what's best women better than they do. When you're
able to get pregnant, you may have a say in this. Until then, you're wasting
your time. The wife and I stand for allowing the woman to make her own
choices, without interference from cranks like you.
You're great at making guesses, and less than great at actually getting
them within the same area code as reality.
Considering your liberal bias, proclivity for vulgarity, willingness to use
intimidation or any mean necessary to force your opinion on others I think
my guesses have been VERY good and very accurate. I was able to size you and
a few of your friends up very quickly.
...and not surprisingly, you managed to get it almost within the same planet.
I never have been liberal. I don't need an intrusive government. (I'm so
liberal I've voted for 1 (one) Democrat in my life, and that was my first
Presidential election: Carter. I vote Libertarian, because I still think the
Constitution is the best thing we have going in this country - if we can force
the bastards in DC to actually obey it. We had to throw out one Tyrant George
to establish it in the first place, and we may have to get rid of another one
to put it back in force.
I really love how you try to go and pretend to be some intellectual and
correct grammar and/or spelling of other peoples posts. Yet, in this
post and several others you have made, I am spotting several grammar
errors. Can you point them out???
Hmmmm????
Mr. Scholar!!!
Or do you wish to go off in some other direction and have another one
of your spells?
By the way, with what you are actually saying. I happen to agree with
some of it. Not that it matters to you, but I too, think it's
important that we obey our constitution.
Just remember, if you are trying to talk about impeachment procedures.
Impeachments (throwing out), is disruptive sometimes to society. Which
is why many didn't support Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings.
While Republicans, who are in no position to judge other people's moral
behaviors, were indeed on a witch hunt, impeaching Bill Clinton would
have been disruptive and possibly causing irreversible damage to our
country. Don't get me wrong, I despise Bill Clinton on how he handled
himself in the situation he put himself into. None the less, I
ridicule Republicans as well for making it obvious that their motives
were more personal than just trying to do the right thing.
I have a better suggestion.
How about forcing the bastards in D.C. to actually come together and do
whats right for this country?
Politicians remind me of children.
You have the Democrats (little brother) and you have the Republicans
(older brother). Can be sisters or one brother and one sister..doesn't
matter. Just picture two kids.
During the week, the kids pick on each other.
"he touched me"
"no I didn't""
"Yes, you did"
"Moooom!!!!!!!"
Mom gets all upset...
"children, just please behave, you are driving me crazy"
Suddenly, mom has an idea..
"Kids, if you can behave for the rest of this week, mommy will take you
out to get an icecream"
Kids are happy..
So for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and part of Thursday...they drive
mom nuts. They kick, scream, holler, tease..you get the picture.
Suddenly they realize, they might get something and they behave for the
remainder of the week. Meanwhile, come next week they are right back
to fighting again.
This is what the Republicans and Democrats remind me of. They get
elected and for the first three years or five years..what ever their
position might happen to be, they do nothing but sit back and blame
each other. "Well, the Democrats are doing this"..or.."The Republicans
are doing that".
But!!!!
Come election year, their tune changes. Suddenly they want to get
something done.
So instead of just tossing the bastards out, we should be trying to get
them to do something. If more people voted and sent a strong message,
that would be a great start. Vote the bastards out if they are not
doing their job. Send a message to the one who fills his or her seat.
That message being, "if you are not going to do something, you too can
leave come next election".
Other than your hypocrisy Patrick, your message is on the money and I
agree with much of what you said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 12:47:36 PM |
|
|
G-Net <netnerve@verizon.net> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been
murder -
as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the
legal
reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
Legality does not have anything to do with moral right and wrong.
Neither do your hateful screeds have anything to do with moral right
and wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 01:10:20 PM |
|
|
Whether the pond scum that is pushing this abortion thing like it or not,
there is absolute truth. There is moral right and wrong and there is good
and bad. Aborting a baby because it's an "unwanted" pregnancy is wrong and
it puts the baby to death. You can argue the point until donkeys fly, you
can call me whatever you wish, you can get as mad as you want and you can
use whatever profanity your sick mind can concoct. It doesn't change the
absolute truth and it doesn't change what is right and wrong.
As I said before just because something isn't against the law at this point
in time doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that it is morally right. We
have enacted many laws in recent years to outlaw things that were "wrong",
internet pornography laws being one of the hot topic issues. The laws are
being enacted because they are banning something that is wrong. It has
nothing to do with an issue of "control" but an issue of what do we want
this country to be and represent to the world.
We have child labor laws because it's not "right" to work children as
adults. Why? Because it is morally wrong. At some point in time America will
realize that we have let a few godless people do to a whole generation and
abortion will again be illegal. Until that time, I will continue to fight
against abortion and to fight for truthful information instead of the
half-truths and misinformation that the pro-abortion movement has
perpetuated.
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445b8fb8$0$65434$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
G-Net <netnerve@verizon.net> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
What planet are you on? (On this one, abortion has not always been
murder -
as a matter of fact, it's been legal for the majority of this country's
history. That's aside from your cognitive dissonance in the face of the
legal
reality that murder isn't legal, but abortion is.)
Legality does not have anything to do with moral right and wrong.
Neither do your hateful screeds have anything to do with moral right
and wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
05 May 2006 11:45:47 PM |
|
|
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
Whether the pond scum that is pushing this abortion thing like it or not,
there is absolute truth. There is moral right and wrong and there is good
and bad.
Spare me the circus...how many people have died because of that patent
*****? There is -no- absolute truth, beyond the fact that we're all born,
and we all die. The rest of it is attempts to control people, for whatever
reason the attempters are using as their justification.
Aborting a baby because it's an "unwanted" pregnancy is wrong and
it puts the baby to death. You can argue the point until donkeys fly, you
can call me whatever you wish, you can get as mad as you want and you can
use whatever profanity your sick mind can concoct. It doesn't change the
absolute truth and it doesn't change what is right and wrong.
It doesn't affect the absolute truth that there's no absolute truth, either.
As I said before just because something isn't against the law at this point
in time doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that it is morally right. We
have enacted many laws in recent years to outlaw things that were "wrong",
internet pornography laws being one of the hot topic issues. The laws are
being enacted because they are banning something that is wrong. It has
nothing to do with an issue of "control" but an issue of what do we want
this country to be and represent to the world.
Don't be surprised when some of us that you claim to speak for don't
appreciate your presumptions that you have our permission to speak for anyone
but yourself.
We have child labor laws because it's not "right" to work children as
adults. Why? Because it is morally wrong. At some point in time America will
realize that we have let a few godless people do to a whole generation and
abortion will again be illegal. Until that time, I will continue to fight
against abortion and to fight for truthful information instead of the
half-truths and misinformation that the pro-abortion movement has
perpetuated.
In other words, you're a masochist, just like that Jesus critter...who didn't
see that coming?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 4 (May 4)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, May 6 at Milwaukee, 7:05 (Game 2)
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
06 May 2006 09:06:29 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szku0837ock.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
Whether the pond scum that is pushing this abortion thing like it or not,
there is absolute truth. There is moral right and wrong and there is good
and bad.
Spare me the circus...how many people have died because of that patent
*****? There is -no- absolute truth, beyond the fact that we're all
born,
and we all die. The rest of it is attempts to control people, for
whatever
reason the attempters are using as their justification.
If you see manure, it's because you are looking at yourself in the mirror.
How many babies have dies because of your pro-abortion stance?
Aborting a baby because it's an "unwanted" pregnancy is wrong and
it puts the baby to death. You can argue the point until donkeys fly, you
can call me whatever you wish, you can get as mad as you want and you can
use whatever profanity your sick mind can concoct. It doesn't change the
absolute truth and it doesn't change what is right and wrong.
It doesn't affect the absolute truth that there's no absolute truth,
either.
There is absolute truth. The absolute truth is that babies are dieing
because of the apathy, selfishness, and promiscuity. The absolute truth is
that pond scum like you are promoting and perpetuating this atrocity under
the guise of kindness and compassion. The absolute truth is that abortion
merely promotes promiscuity and a disregard for human life. The absolute
truth is that you are a cold, lying, selfish, little man with few if any
redeeming qualities.
As I said before just because something isn't against the law at this
point
in time doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that it is morally right.
We
have enacted many laws in recent years to outlaw things that were "wrong",
internet pornography laws being one of the hot topic issues. The laws are
being enacted because they are banning something that is wrong. It has
nothing to do with an issue of "control" but an issue of what do we want
this country to be and represent to the world.
Don't be surprised when some of us that you claim to speak for don't
appreciate your presumptions that you have our permission to speak for
anyone
but yourself.
Um, I wasn't speaking for you or anyone else who is pro-abortion. I wouldn't
want to be associated with someone who promotes the killing of unborn
children, I sure wouldn't try to speak for them.
We have child labor laws because it's not "right" to work children as
adults. Why? Because it is morally wrong. At some point in time America
will
realize that we have let a few godless people do to a whole generation and
abortion will again be illegal. Until that time, I will continue to fight
against abortion and to fight for truthful information instead of the
half-truths and misinformation that the pro-abortion movement has
perpetuated.
In other words, you're a masochist, just like that Jesus critter...who
didn't
see that coming?
So you are comparing me with Jesus? THANKS! I compare you with Satan....
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: MOST Anti-Choicers support exceptions for rape and incest victims. |
06 May 2006 12:23:27 PM |
|
|
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szku0837ock.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> writes:
Whether the pond scum that is pushing this abortion thing like it or not,
there is absolute truth. There is moral right and wrong and there is good
and bad.
Spare me the circus...how many people have died because of that patent
*****? There is -no- absolute truth, beyond the fact that we're all
born, and we all die. The rest of it is attempts to control people, for
whatever reason the attempters are using as their justification.
If you see manure, it's because you are looking at yourself in the mirror.
So, when are you graduating from third grade?
How many babies have dies because of your pro-abortion stance?
Nichevo. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nichts. (I'm pro-choice, little dissembling
dolt in lowland Ohio. Is English your first language?)
Aborting a baby because it's an "unwanted" pregnancy is wrong and
it puts the baby to death. You can argue the point until donkeys fly, you
can call me whatever you wish, you can get as mad as you want and you can
use whatever profanity your sick mind can concoct. It doesn't change the
absolute truth and it doesn't change what is right and wrong.
It doesn't affect the absolute truth that there's no absolute truth,
either.
There is absolute truth. The absolute truth is that babies are dieing
because of the apathy, selfishness, and promiscuity. The absolute truth is
that pond scum like you are promoting and perpetuating this atrocity under
the guise of kindness and compassion. The absolute truth is that abortion
merely promotes promiscuity and a disregard for human life. The absolute
truth is that you are a cold, lying, selfish, little man with few if any
redeeming qualities.
You waste about 450 bytes to whine at me, when you had but to type "Because I
say so!". At least your village isn't being deprived.
As I said before just because something isn't against the law at this point
in time doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that it is morally right.
We have enacted many laws in recent years to outlaw things that were
"wrong", internet pornography laws being one of the hot topic issues. The
laws are being enacted because they are banning something that is wrong. It
has nothing to do with an issue of "control" but an issue of what do we
want this country to be and represent to the world.
Don't be surprised when some of us that you claim to speak for don't
appreciate your presumptions that you have our permission to speak for
anyone but yourself.
Um, I wasn't speaking for you or anyone else who is pro-abortion. I wouldn't
want to be associated with someone who promotes the killing of unborn
children, I sure wouldn't try to speak for them.
Of course not - you'd do as your Christian Taliban orders you and just make
sure you outlaw anyone who might dissent from your delusions. That's
precisely the approach you're sounding like with your rants.
We have child labor laws because it's not "right" to work children as
adults. Why? Because it is morally wrong. At some point in time America
will realize that we have let a few godless people do to a whole generation
and abortion will again be illegal. Until that time, I will continue to
fight against abortion and to fight for truthful information instead of the
half-truths and misinformation that the pro-abortion movement has
perpetuated.
In other words, you're a masochist, just like that Jesus critter...who
didn't see that coming?
So you are comparing me with Jesus? THANKS! I compare you with Satan....
Satan at least can skate...and he's got a pretty decent slapshot. (Too bad
the Islanders got nowhere near Lord Stanley's chase this season...;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 4 (May 4)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, May 6 at Milwaukee, 7:05 (Game 2)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
