Science > Abortion > Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2006 08:03:16 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709046/posts
Mother of Seven Arrested Without Warning for Showing Abortion Image
LifeSiteNews ^ | 27 September 2006
Posted on 09/26/2006 10:54:14 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, Sept. 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A
pro-life woman was arrested Tuesday for holding an image of an aborted
child outside an abortion facility in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Suzie Ryan, mother of seven, was silently holding the image outside the
Morgentaler centre as abortions were being performed inside. Mrs. Ryan
was charged with violating s.163 of the Criminal Code. S.163 is about
the display of obscene material. She was released after being held in a
jail cell for several hours. She must face the charges in court in
November.
Prior to her arrest Mrs. Ryan was not warned in any way that she was
committing an illegal act. Six to eight police officers arrived and
forcibly put her in a paddy wagon, while confiscating her sign and
umbrella.
Police Staff Sergeant Kelly later explained to Mrs. Ryan's husband,
Campaign Life Coalition New Brunswick (CLCNB) president Peter Ryan,
that the police were acting following instructions from the Crown
Prosecutor office and some 35 complaints about the display of abortion
images. Mr. Ryan believes the abortuary staff must have put in one or
more complaints this morning.
CLCNB is not aware of any other case in Canada where a pro-life citizen
was arrested without prior warning for simply displaying an abortion
image in a public place. Such images have been repeatedly displayed by
such groups as Show the Truth which has won precedent-setting cases in
which it also was charged for showing graphic abortion pictures. That
group visited Fredericton twice this past summer. At the time
Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside expressed displeasure with the group's
tactics, but said there was nothing the city could legally do to
prevent such displays.
The Morgentaler abortion facility has no legal restrictions against
protest in the surrounding public area. Pro-life supporters regularly
are present on Tuesday mornings when abortions usually take place.
Mrs. Ryan says she is quite shaken by the incident.
Peter Ryan says it is incredible when someone can be accused of a crime
for peacefully protesting the murder of innocent children. "Here's the
analogy," he said. "The Nazi death camps are exterminating Jews.
Outside someone protests with an image of the Holocaust. The camp staff
complains to police. The person is arrested as a criminal. The
slaughter goes on. That's where we now are in this country.
.
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
12 Oct 2006 07:47:14 AM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:T2WWg.3626$cz.52041@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion?
I don't consider it, I know it.
What evidence do you have to back up that assertion?
That is the same
as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their own
bodies. How can you justify that?
I don't have to justify that because it is not true. It is not the same.
Women do have sovereignty over their own bodies. They can choose to
copulate or not. When they choose to copulate and conceive they, and the
father, now have responsibility for another life. It is no longer just
the woman's body.
Nobody can choose to conceive. I've told you before: everything to do with
conception, pregnancy and the onset of labour is initiated firstly by the
ovum, and then by the zygote, embryo and foetus. All that a woman can do is
supply the opportunity. Men can have sex without any painful penalties and
women demand the same.
Women didn't choose to be women.
Nor did men choose to be men.
No, but they all would have done if there had been a choice.
Bear
in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce; women do the same, the only difference being that
we can discuss it.
I am well aware that abortion is natural in the animal world. It is not
natural in the human world.
How can you claim that when so many women abort? Not all women want to be
mothers, and I'm sure not all men want to be fathers. Is that unnatural?
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain
of childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.
Please, tell me you are kidding.
I am absolutely not kidding.
Then it is useless for me to waste my time discussing this issue with you.
Why? Because you can't justify forcing women to go through hellish pain
against their will?
No, because anyone who thinks the pain of childbirth is good
reason to demand an abortion doesn't deserve any attention.
Bye.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 10:00:58 AM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:mPqXg.4319$cz.61576@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:T2WWg.3626$cz.52041@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion?
I don't consider it, I know it.
What evidence do you have to back up that assertion?
That is the same
as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their
own bodies. How can you justify that?
I don't have to justify that because it is not true. It is not the
same. Women do have sovereignty over their own bodies. They can choose
to copulate or not. When they choose to copulate and conceive they, and
the father, now have responsibility for another life. It is no longer
just the woman's body.
Nobody can choose to conceive. I've told you before: everything to do
with conception, pregnancy and the onset of labour is initiated firstly
by the ovum, and then by the zygote, embryo and foetus. All that a woman
can do is supply the opportunity. Men can have sex without any painful
penalties and women demand the same.
Women didn't choose to be women.
Nor did men choose to be men.
No, but they all would have done if there had been a choice.
Bear
in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce; women do the same, the only difference being that
we can discuss it.
I am well aware that abortion is natural in the animal world. It is not
natural in the human world.
How can you claim that when so many women abort? Not all women want to
be mothers, and I'm sure not all men want to be fathers. Is that
unnatural?
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain
of childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.
Please, tell me you are kidding.
I am absolutely not kidding.
Then it is useless for me to waste my time discussing this issue with
you.
Why? Because you can't justify forcing women to go through hellish pain
against their will?
No, because anyone who thinks the pain of childbirth is good reason to
demand an abortion doesn't deserve any attention.
.... says a guy who is in no danger of ever having to go through it. You
clearly can't justify forcing women to endure it against their will, and
can't answer the other questions I asked above.
Bye.
Carter
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 10:37:37 AM |
|
|
In article <vM2dnTt_eY8yxbPYRVnytQ@bt.com>, junegill
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:mPqXg.4319$cz.61576@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:T2WWg.3626$cz.52041@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion?
I don't consider it, I know it.
What evidence do you have to back up that assertion?
That is the same
as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their
own bodies. How can you justify that?
I don't have to justify that because it is not true. It is not the
same. Women do have sovereignty over their own bodies. They can choose
to copulate or not. When they choose to copulate and conceive they, and
the father, now have responsibility for another life. It is no longer
just the woman's body.
Nobody can choose to conceive. I've told you before: everything to do
with conception, pregnancy and the onset of labour is initiated firstly
by the ovum, and then by the zygote, embryo and foetus. All that a woman
can do is supply the opportunity. Men can have sex without any painful
penalties and women demand the same.
Women didn't choose to be women.
Nor did men choose to be men.
No, but they all would have done if there had been a choice.
Bear
in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce; women do the same, the only difference being that
we can discuss it.
I am well aware that abortion is natural in the animal world. It is not
natural in the human world.
How can you claim that when so many women abort? Not all women want to
be mothers, and I'm sure not all men want to be fathers. Is that
unnatural?
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain
of childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.
Please, tell me you are kidding.
I am absolutely not kidding.
Then it is useless for me to waste my time discussing this issue with
you.
Why? Because you can't justify forcing women to go through hellish pain
against their will?
No, because anyone who thinks the pain of childbirth is good reason to
demand an abortion doesn't deserve any attention.
... says a guy who is in no danger of ever having to go through it. You
clearly can't justify forcing women to endure it against their will, and
can't answer the other questions I asked above.
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
12 Oct 2006 12:11:10 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians. If the question were put to a
referendum I have no doubt that would be evident. That would
mean, of course, that our legislators would have to earn their
keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that reflects
the will of the people.
No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
12 Oct 2006 10:55:18 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
You don't have any morals or values. You're just a control freak.
If the question were put to a
referendum I have no doubt that would be evident.
You would lose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 12:27:00 AM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals of the
majority of Canadians.
Maybe you ought to go out into the real world and ask some of your fellow
Canadians, in that case. (I wouldn't expect you to be truthful about the
responses you got.)
If the question were put to a referendum I have no
doubt that would be evident. That would mean, of course, that our legislators
would have to earn their keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that
reflects the will of the people.
No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
In other words, you're just confirming David's opinion of you is more accurate
than you want it to be.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TopPoster ." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 01:10:37 PM |
|
|
I believe all silly old men believe as you do
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians. If the question were put to a
referendum I have no doubt that would be evident. That would
mean, of course, that our legislators would have to earn their
keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that reflects
the will of the people.
No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 01:56:58 PM |
|
|
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
: of the majority of Canadians. If the question were put to a
: referendum I have no doubt that would be evident. That would
: mean, of course, that our legislators would have to earn their
: keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that reflects
: the will of the people.
:
: No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
Other people have, though.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Opinion_polls>
: Some polls on abortion show that Canadians are pro-Choice while other polls
: show that Canadians are divided on abortion.
: € In a Lger poll taken September 2001, 46.6% of respondents say they are
: personally "for" abortion, while 37.6% say they are personally "against"
: abortion. In the same poll, 54.5% of respondents agreed with the idea that
: "only women should have the right to decide to have an abortion," while
: 38.5% disagreed.
: € A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think
: abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under
: certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what
: circumstances?" The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed abortion
: should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52% believed
: abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14% thought
: abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).
: € In a Lger poll taken January 2002, 47% of respondents said abortion was
: "not immoral," while 41.8% said it was.
: € In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of
: respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete
: freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".
: € A poll in October 2003 conducted by Leger asked about prenatal legal
: protection, and several abortion-related topics, 63% said they favoured
: legal protection for human life before birth and 69% favour informed
: consent legislation on abortion.
: € In a Gallup Canada poll taken September 2004, 54% of respondents said
: they personally thought abortion was "morally acceptable."
: € In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they
: would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they
: would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the
: laws to be "more strict."
: € In an October 2005 Environics poll, commissioned by Life Canada, when
: asked "at what point in human development should the law protect human
: life," 30% of respondents said "From conception on," 19% said "After three
: months of pregancy," 11% said "After six months of pregancy," and 33% said
: "From the point of birth."
: € In an April 2006 Leger poll, 34% of respondents said they found abortion
: "immoral."[2]
: Among provinces, British Columbia and Quebec have the highest percentage who
: are pro-choice, and the Prairies have the highest percentage who are
: pro-life.
So there you have it. There certainly isn't any sort of majority in Canada who
are morally opposed to the whole idea of abortion. There also isn't a clear
majority for even restricting abortion.
So, long story short, the majority disagrees with you. I guess it's tough beans
for you.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 03:54:29 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
So there you have it. There certainly isn't any sort of majority in Canada
who
are morally opposed to the whole idea of abortion.
How disingenuous of you, Tony. Form your own quoted sources:
: ? A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think
: abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under
: certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what
: circumstances?" The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed
abortion
: should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52%
believed
: abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14%
thought
: abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).
The majority (52%) did not believe in or support unrestricted access to
abortion without control and/or aboirtionon demand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TopPoster ." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 04:23:40 PM |
|
|
But the poll was restricted to silly old men
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:4YxXg.86055$Ri3.2410@newsfe14.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
So there you have it. There certainly isn't any sort of majority in
Canada
who
are morally opposed to the whole idea of abortion.
How disingenuous of you, Tony. Form your own quoted sources:
: ? A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think
: abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under
: certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what
: circumstances?" The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed
abortion
: should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52%
believed
: abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14%
thought
: abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from
2000).
The majority (52%) did not believe in or support unrestricted access to
abortion without control and/or aboirtionon demand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TopPoster ." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 02:14:59 PM |
|
|
Only if you took a poll of silly old men would you get the results you want
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote in message
news:nicoya-56EEBD.13565612102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
: of the majority of Canadians. If the question were put to a
: referendum I have no doubt that would be evident. That would
: mean, of course, that our legislators would have to earn their
: keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that reflects
: the will of the people.
:
: No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
Other people have, though.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Opinion_polls>
: Some polls on abortion show that Canadians are pro-Choice while other
polls
: show that Canadians are divided on abortion.
: ? In a Lger poll taken September 2001, 46.6% of respondents say they
are
: personally "for" abortion, while 37.6% say they are personally
"against"
: abortion. In the same poll, 54.5% of respondents agreed with the idea
that
: "only women should have the right to decide to have an abortion,"
while
: 38.5% disagreed.
: ? A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think
: abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under
: certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what
: circumstances?" The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed
abortion
: should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52%
believed
: abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14%
thought
: abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).
: ? In a Lger poll taken January 2002, 47% of respondents said abortion
was
: "not immoral," while 41.8% said it was.
: ? In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of
: respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have
complete
: freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".
: ? A poll in October 2003 conducted by Leger asked about prenatal
legal
: protection, and several abortion-related topics, 63% said they
favoured
: legal protection for human life before birth and 69% favour informed
: consent legislation on abortion.
: ? In a Gallup Canada poll taken September 2004, 54% of respondents
said
: they personally thought abortion was "morally acceptable."
: ? In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say
they
: would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say
they
: would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would
like the
: laws to be "more strict."
: ? In an October 2005 Environics poll, commissioned by Life Canada,
when
: asked "at what point in human development should the law protect
human
: life," 30% of respondents said "From conception on," 19% said "After
three
: months of pregancy," 11% said "After six months of pregancy," and 33%
said
: "From the point of birth."
: ? In an April 2006 Leger poll, 34% of respondents said they found
abortion
: "immoral."[2]
: Among provinces, British Columbia and Quebec have the highest percentage
who
: are pro-choice, and the Prairies have the highest percentage who are
: pro-life.
So there you have it. There certainly isn't any sort of majority in Canada
who
are morally opposed to the whole idea of abortion. There also isn't a
clear
majority for even restricting abortion.
So, long story short, the majority disagrees with you. I guess it's tough
beans
for you.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 09:21:41 PM |
|
|
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
If the question were put to a
referendum I have no doubt that would be evident.
Do you have a reason, or is this just wishful thinking?
That would
mean, of course, that our legislators would have to earn their
keep and tackle the job of producing legislation that reflects
the will of the people.
Vote
No, I didn't do a poll, neither did the government.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 12:18:42 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 07:22:24 AM |
|
|
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
: abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that makes
: it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
: justifiable medical/health reasons.
While I wouldn't promote such a law, I doubt I would find too much reason to
object to it if it were in place.
I don't expect it's possible to make such a law with the current legal framework
in Canada, though.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 09:35:23 AM |
|
|
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 10:51:59 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Peter D wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Carter wrote
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless
of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
That not being able to create a law doesn't prove that the desired law is
without merit or unrepresentative of the wishes of the people. (DuH!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 08:05:29 PM |
|
|
In article <eAOXg.404$Lk7.256@newsfe23.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Peter D wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Carter wrote
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless
of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
That not being able to create a law doesn't prove that the desired law is
without merit or unrepresentative of the wishes of the people. (DuH!)
I guess you know what they want, what, "magically?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 09:32:37 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:131020061805290510%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <eAOXg.404$Lk7.256@newsfe23.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Peter D wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Carter wrote
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote
or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral
regardless
of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
That not being able to create a law doesn't prove that the desired law is
without merit or unrepresentative of the wishes of the people. (DuH!)
I guess you know what they want, what, "magically?"
Nope.
The smell of smoke in your nostrils is your straw man going up in flames.
HAND :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 10:36:55 PM |
|
|
In article <O3YXg.97957$Ri3.86053@newsfe14.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:131020061805290510%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <eAOXg.404$Lk7.256@newsfe23.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Peter D wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Carter wrote
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote
or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral
regardless
of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
That not being able to create a law doesn't prove that the desired law is
without merit or unrepresentative of the wishes of the people. (DuH!)
I guess you know what they want, what, "magically?"
Nope.
The smell of smoke in your nostrils is your straw man going up in flames.
Well, you just keep claiming it. I'm sure you believe that proves it
is so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
13 Oct 2006 01:48:03 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 07:56:10 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless
of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
....and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most Canadians"?
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 08:06:28 PM |
|
|
In article <szkpscv1zrp.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless
of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that
makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
...and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most Canadians"?
God.
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
He "knows them," and knows they approve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 08:39:11 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szkpscv1zrp.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature
won't vote or create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is
immoral regardless of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's
represenatives don't represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good
thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and
unaccountable abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law
written that makes it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third
trimester without sound and justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
...and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most
Canadians"?
God.
Which one(s)? There are so bloody many of them.
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
He "knows them," and knows they approve.
....about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew they'd
leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not too many
others thought that committing suicide was all that great an idea, and the
Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for a few eons to
come.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 10:36:55 PM |
|
|
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szkpscv1zrp.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature
won't vote or create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is
immoral regardless of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's
represenatives don't represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good
thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and
unaccountable abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law
written that makes it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third
trimester without sound and justifiable medical/health reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
...and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most
Canadians"?
God.
Which one(s)? There are so bloody many of them.
Well, if God spoke with you, how would you know which one? Caller ID?
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
He "knows them," and knows they approve.
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew they'd
leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not too many
others thought that committing suicide was all that great an idea, and the
Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for a few eons to
come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:46:18 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szkpscv1zrp.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should
be the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature
won't vote or create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is
immoral regardless of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's
represenatives don't represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good
thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and
unaccountable abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a
law written that makes it illegal to perform an aboriton in the
third trimester without sound and justifiable medical/health
reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
...and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most
Canadians"?
God.
Which one(s)? There are so bloody many of them.
Well, if God spoke with you, how would you know which one? Caller ID?
If it was speaking Arabic, that'd give him away...likewise if s/he/it/them
were speaking Hebrew, or promising me Slack![tm], or promising me 72 virgins.
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
He "knows them," and knows they approve.
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew they'd
leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not too many
others thought that committing suicide was all that great an idea, and the
Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for a few eons to
come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
....which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:54:49 AM |
|
|
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szkpscv1zrp.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should
be the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.
No stupid, I never stated that.
I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.
But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.
FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for
certain crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature
won't vote or create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is
immoral regardless of whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's
represenatives don't represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good
thing. Sometimes not.
Then what are you getting at?
I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and
unaccountable abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a
law written that makes it illegal to perform an aboriton in the
third trimester without sound and justifiable medical/health
reasons.
Why is that?
Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.
...and who appointed you to define "the values and morals of most
Canadians"?
God.
Which one(s)? There are so bloody many of them.
Well, if God spoke with you, how would you know which one? Caller ID?
If it was speaking Arabic, that'd give him away...likewise if s/he/it/them
were speaking Hebrew, or promising me Slack![tm], or promising me 72 virgins.
Your 30 million neighbors up there might not appreciate your speaking for
them.
He "knows them," and knows they approve.
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew they'd
leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not too many
others thought that committing suicide was all that great an idea, and the
Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for a few eons to
come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
Can you find any medical experts to support your position?
--
Patrick "The Chief Idiot" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 02:33:56 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
[...]
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not
too many others thought that committing suicide was all that great an
idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for
a few eons to come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
Can you find any medical experts to support your position?
What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 03:07:54 AM |
|
|
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
[...]
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason, not
too many others thought that committing suicide was all that great an
idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth for
a few eons to come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
Can you find any medical experts to support your position?
What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?
So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.
Until next time.
--
Patrick "The Chief Idiot" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 1 (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 14 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 01:50:14 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
[...]
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason,
not too many others thought that committing suicide was all that
great an idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in
the earth for a few eons to come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
Can you find any medical experts to support your position?
What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?
So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.
That's what I'd expect from you - declare victory, but you can't seem to
figure out how to run away after doing so.
Until next time.
....at which time you'll run the same defective program. At least you're
consistent in that.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (October 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, October 15 at San Antonio, 5:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 10:52:17 AM |
|
|
In article <szky7ri3wex.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:
In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
[...]
...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason,
not too many others thought that committing suicide was all that
great an idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in
the earth for a few eons to come.)
That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."
...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.
Can you find any medical experts to support your position?
What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?
So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.
That's what I'd expect from you - declare victory, but you can't seem to
figure out how to run away after doing so.
Par for the course.
Until next time.
...at which time you'll run the same defective program. At least you're
consistent in that.
Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php ) only has
three programs.
(1) Try to divert the issue by asking some stupid question (He calls
this "Challenging You").
(2) Say something stupid, run away, and declare victory,
(3) Simply lie.
Maybe he is working on a new, hybrid, with you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
