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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
13 Oct 2006 09:45:20 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one should not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose this one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question..."Is it your belief that one
should not impose one's beliefs on others? " honestly, then we can go
on from there.
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try. Try again. You make statements that are commonly accepted as
an imposition of a belief and in the same breath denouce others who do
the same thing . Never mind all this for now...just answer the one
question...Is it your belief that one should not impose his beliefs on
others? That is all (anything else is evasion)I need to proceed. Can
you manage that without beating around the bush to avoid the subject?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 08:24:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one should not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose this one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about, there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement fo
fact refuting your diversion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:12:52 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one should not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose this one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about, there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion. Answer my question. Is it your belief
that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs on others? The belif in the
question is the one I was speaking of....now answer the question and
stop diversionary tactics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:28:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on others
who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the
rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one should
not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose this
one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about, there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the
question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the diversion was
and continues to be yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:52:22 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on others
who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the
rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one should
not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose this
one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about, there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the
question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the diversion was
and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question. Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 06:59:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except
when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on
others
who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the
rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one
should
not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to impose
this
one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's
beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why did
you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about, there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly when
you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the
question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your
initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the diversion was
and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question. Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged, tried to
divert, and lied. why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 09:09:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except
when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your beliefs on
others
who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue
the
rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that one
should
not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to
impose
this
one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose one's
beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief of
many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not
your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others, why
did
you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that "one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements about
it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about,
there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who doesn't
know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway, particularly
when
you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from the
question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding your
initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a statement
fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the diversion was
and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question. Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged, tried to
divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then lied
and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 01:28:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1160935098.058747.172940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion,
except
when
medically necessary, should not be legally
available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to impose your
beliefs on
others
who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who
argue
the
rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel
Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
It is the belief of many who respond in this way that
one
should
not
impose his beliefs on others..yet, they feel free to
impose
this
one
belief of theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the foundation on which
your
diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one shouldn't impose
one's
beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It is the belief
of
many
who respond in this way". What puzzles me now is if it is not
your
belief that one should not impose one's beliefs on others,
why
did
you
bother to mention it? If you don't believe that, it can't be
so
important to you that it is worthy of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief." you have twice
refused to explain that "one belief." had you explained that
"one
belief," i would have asked you to support your statements
about
it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were talking about,
there
is probably no need to take things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with somone who
doesn't
know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself anyway,
particularly
when
you
admit you don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you ran away from
the
question.
I don't think I was ever near the question
you should have read the sentence immediately preceding
your
initial
comment. that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is
commonly
accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try, it was a
statement
fo
fact refuting your diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the diversion was
and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question. Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged, tried to
divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then lied
and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
Am I lying when
i see you ran away from the questions again.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then lied
and misrepresented. for the 3rd time, i ask you why?
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 02:32:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1160940476.977466.125910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160935098.058747.172940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.co
m>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have
an abortion, except when medically
necessary, should not be legally
available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to
impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion
that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a
container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.
com>
It is the belief of many who respond
in this way that one should not impose
his beliefs on others..yet, they feel
free to impose this one belief of
theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the
foundation on which your diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one
shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It
is the belief of many who respond in this
way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's
beliefs on others, why did you bother to
mention it? If you don't believe that, it
can't be so important to you that it is worthy
of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief."
you have twice refused to explain that "one
belief." had you explained that "one belief," i
would have asked you to support your statements
about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were
talking about, there is probably no need to take
things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with
somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself
anyway, particularly when you admit you
don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run
away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you
ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the
question
you should have read the sentence
immediately preceding your initial comment.
that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is
commonly accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try,
it was a statement fo fact refuting your
diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the
diversion was and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question.
Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged,
tried to divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very
thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and
then lied and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
Am I lying when
i see you ran away from the questions again.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then
lied and misrepresented. for the 3rd time, i ask you why?
State your question clearly and concisely and I will respond.
the question is contained above and has been included in every
response i have made to you.
that would be more than a half-dozen repetitions.
i conclude your dishonesty continues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 03:03:48 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160940476.977466.125910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160935098.058747.172940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"yarrido@aol.com" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.co
m>,
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have
an abortion, except when medically
necessary, should not be legally
available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to
impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion
that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a
container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.
com>
It is the belief of many who respond
in this way that one should not impose
his beliefs on others..yet, they feel
free to impose this one belief of
theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the
foundation on which your diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one
shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It
is the belief of many who respond in this
way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's
beliefs on others, why did you bother to
mention it? If you don't believe that, it
can't be so important to you that it is worthy
of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief."
you have twice refused to explain that "one
belief." had you explained that "one belief," i
would have asked you to support your statements
about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were
talking about, there is probably no need to take
things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with
somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself
anyway, particularly when you admit you
don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run
away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you
ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the
question
you should have read the sentence
immediately preceding your initial comment.
that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is
commonly accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try,
it was a statement fo fact refuting your
diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the
diversion was and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question.
Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged,
tried to divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very
thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and
then lied and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
Am I lying when
i see you ran away from the questions again.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then
lied and misrepresented. for the 3rd time, i ask you why?
State your question clearly and concisely and I will respond.
the question is contained above and has been included in every
response i have made to you.
that would be more than a half-dozen repetitions.
i conclude your dishonesty continues.
Ok...your question is "Why?" My question is...why what? Why didn't I
answer your question? What was the question I didn't answer? Why is the
sky blue? What the heck is your question? When you present a question I
can respond with an answer other than "Because", I will answer your
question. Now, if you can, get to the point.,
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 04:41:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1160942628.717201.241520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160940476.977466.125910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160935098.058747.172940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroup
s.co
m>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have
an abortion, except when medically
necessary, should not be legally
available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to
impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion
that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a
container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.
com>
It is the belief of many who respond
in this way that one should not impose
his beliefs on others..yet, they feel
free to impose this one belief of
theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the
foundation on which your diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one
shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It
is the belief of many who respond in this
way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's
beliefs on others, why did you bother to
mention it? If you don't believe that, it
can't be so important to you that it is worthy
of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief."
you have twice refused to explain that "one
belief." had you explained that "one belief," i
would have asked you to support your statements
about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were
talking about, there is probably no need to take
things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with
somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself
anyway, particularly when you admit you
don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run
away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you
ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the
question
you should have read the sentence
immediately preceding your initial comment.
that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is
commonly accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try,
it was a statement fo fact refuting your
diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the
diversion was and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question.
Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged,
tried to divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very
thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and
then lied and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
Am I lying when
i see you ran away from the questions again.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then
lied and misrepresented. for the 3rd time, i ask you why?
State your question clearly and concisely and I will respond.
the question is contained above and has been included in every
response i have made to you.
that would be more than a half-dozen repetitions.
i conclude your dishonesty continues.
Ok...your question is "Why?"
you're lying again.
the question is still included above and has been reposted more than
a half-dozen times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
16 Oct 2006 02:30:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1161012835.557547.243100@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160942628.717201.241520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160940476.977466.125910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1160935098.058747.172940@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160884097.810587.223710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160851941.970926.120330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160849572.746624.127890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160793920.239678.294480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.c
om>,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160778100.288653.10760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups
.com
,
" " <> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<1160757774.070394.38690@f16g2000cwb.googlegro
up
s.co
m>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article
<BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
I believe that the choice to have
an abortion, except when medically
necessary, should not be legally
available.
you wouldn't be so selfish as to
impose your beliefs on others who
believed otherwise, would you?
"You have confirmed my suspicion
that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a
container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.
com>
It is the belief of many who respond
in this way that one should not impose
his beliefs on others..yet, they feel
free to impose this one belief of
theirs on others with the greatest of
generousity.
which "one belief" are you referring to?
I didn't think you'd know.
how would i? you don't, and it was the
foundation on which your diversion rested.
I guess it is not your belief that one
shouldn't impose one's beliefs
on others. That is why I originally stated "It
is the belief of many who respond in this
way". What puzzles me now is if it is not your
belief that one should not impose one's
beliefs on others, why did you bother to
mention it? If you don't believe that, it
can't be so important to you that it is worthy
of mention.
you can guess anything you wish.
you made a statement referring to "one belief."
you have twice refused to explain that "one
belief." had you explained that "one belief," i
would have asked you to support your statements
about it.
but since you clearly had no idea what you were
talking about, there is probably no need to take
things further.
It is not possible to have a debate with
somone who doesn't know.
you shouldn't be debating with yourself
anyway, particularly when you admit you
don't know what you are debating.
Well, when you answer the question [...]
why would i answer your questions when you run
away from mine?
it appears, from your comments, that you
ran away from the question.
I don't think I was ever near the
question
you should have read the sentence
immediately preceding your initial comment.
that sentence ended with a ? symbol which is
commonly accepted to indicate a question
Nice try.
now you are being dishonest. it was not a try,
it was a statement fo fact refuting your
diversion.
You are just using the diversion.
now you're being irrational, or dishonest again. the
diversion was and continues to be yours.
You can't answer a simple straight forward question.
Why?
the question was asked of you, not of me. you dodged,
tried to divert, and lied. why?
Not at all.
you have already refuted that limp denial in this very
thread.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and
then lied and misrepresented. again, i ask you why?
Am I lying when
i see you ran away from the questions again.
you were asked a question, you dodged, tried to divert, and then
lied and misrepresented. for the 3rd time, i ask you why?
State your question clearly and concisely and I will respond.
the question is contained above and has been included in every
response i have made to you.
that would be more than a half-dozen repetitions.
i conclude your dishonesty continues.
Ok...your question is "Why?"
you're lying again.
the question is still included above and has been reposted more than
a half-dozen times.
Allright...you want to be unreasonable about it
would you have preferred a dozen repetitions?
here's my answer:
"Because!"(and you can quote me on that)
*smirk*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 10:38:50 AM |
|
|
In article <BzNVg.1617$cz.24282@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <tpdVg.851$cz.11808@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Perhaps I do. It is a fairly simple concept. I don't know how
to state it more clearly.
OK - Well, I don't "support abortion."
Ahh...progress.
I don't think so.
Do you mean, "Do I support the
right of a woman to obtain a legal abortion?" Sure. Absolutely.
No I don't mean that.
Then explain it or I will assume you don't claim it.
I didn't claim anything and I'm not about to play word games.
I'm fairly sure you understand what I mean.
Apparently YOU don't even know.
I sure do. and apparently you do also as you don't support abortion.
I know what I think "support abortion" means.
So you agree with abortion on demand?
I believe every woman in America should be allowed to choose whether to
have an abortion.
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
OK. But that position is contrary to the laws of the U.S. and Canada.
The phrase "abortion on demand" is Right Wing
propaganda with different meanings depending on which Right Wingerer is
using it.
Now 'that' is propaganda.
"Abortion on demand" comes closer to reality in Canada.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
07 Oct 2006 12:38:15 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
OK. But that position is contrary to the laws of the U.S. and Canada.
Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
have not made it illegal. I think they should.
The phrase "abortion on demand" is Right Wing
propaganda with different meanings depending on which Right Wingerer is
using it.
Now 'that' is propaganda.
"Abortion on demand" comes closer to reality in Canada.
Yes, I suppose that is correct.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 04:17:43 PM |
|
|
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want. Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our legislators
have not made them illegal.
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed. It's
legal, plain and simple.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 03:31:01 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
True. Canada follows the "British system" -- what is not forbidden is
allowed. But that's immaterial because abortion is not the same as eating
ice cream. or maybe it is to you. Others will have greater care for the
potential for harminganother life.
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed. It's
legal, plain and simple.
Actually, it isn't as you state it. It is a vacuum/grey area since the
courts told the legislators to re-write the law, causing the CCoC laws
applying to abortion to be rendered useless (though not nullfied).
.
|
|
|
| User: "TopPoster ." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 04:25:33 PM |
|
|
I respect your views Peter don't have an abortion, let it go to full term,
at the same time you should respect the views of women ,or people will think
you are the same as those old religious Muslim men who want to tell women
what to do with their bodies
--
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:bvdWg.4$O45.0@newsfe24.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
True. Canada follows the "British system" -- what is not forbidden is
allowed. But that's immaterial because abortion is not the same as eating
ice cream. or maybe it is to you. Others will have greater care for the
potential for harminganother life.
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed.
It's
legal, plain and simple.
Actually, it isn't as you state it. It is a vacuum/grey area since the
courts told the legislators to re-write the law, causing the CCoC laws
applying to abortion to be rendered useless (though not nullfied).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 04:19:38 PM |
|
|
In article <bvdWg.4$O45.0@newsfe24.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
True. Canada follows the "British system" -- what is not forbidden is
allowed.
LOL!!! As opposed to what?
But that's immaterial because abortion is not the same as eating
ice cream. or maybe it is to you. Others will have greater care for the
potential for harminganother life.
1) How many children have you adopted?
2) If abortion were made illegal, would you support your taxes being
raised to pay for the health care of the mother and child, and the
education and expenses of the child? Would you support raising taxes
for child care so the woman can continue with her career?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 07:18:51 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081020061419382925%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <bvdWg.4$O45.0@newsfe24.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
True. Canada follows the "British system" -- what is not forbidden is
allowed.
LOL!!! As opposed to what?
The Napoleonic (for example) where the premise is the opposite.
But that's immaterial because abortion is not the same as eating
ice cream. or maybe it is to you. Others will have greater care for the
potential for harming another life.
2) If abortion were made illegal, would you support your taxes being
raised to pay for the health care of the mother and child, and the
education and expenses of the child? Would you support raising taxes
for child care so the woman can continue with her career?
I would support addiitonal taxation for child care and early child
intervention programs as well as teen support programs aimed at reduicing
child pregnancy, and a host of other social safety net programs. And all
that regardless of whether abortion is legal or available or not. How about
you? Is abortion just a tax saving measure for you?
Now, I answered your questions. When are you going to produce reputable
support for the ones I asked you?
<cue dodge, weave, duck, run, hide, side issue, smoke, mirrors>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 07:59:49 PM |
|
|
In article <%ygWg.5929$dR.1893@newsfe20.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081020061419382925%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <bvdWg.4$O45.0@newsfe24.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
True. Canada follows the "British system" -- what is not forbidden is
allowed.
LOL!!! As opposed to what?
The Napoleonic (for example) where the premise is the opposite.
So you have nothing to offer. What a shock.
But that's immaterial because abortion is not the same as eating
ice cream. or maybe it is to you. Others will have greater care for the
potential for harming another life.
2) If abortion were made illegal, would you support your taxes being
raised to pay for the health care of the mother and child, and the
education and expenses of the child? Would you support raising taxes
for child care so the woman can continue with her career?
I would support addiitonal taxation for child care and early child
intervention programs as well as teen support programs aimed at reduicing
child pregnancy, and a host of other social safety net programs. And all
that regardless of whether abortion is legal or available or not. How about
you? Is abortion just a tax saving measure for you?
Abortion is civil liberties. You probably don't understand. But keep
asking inane questions....
Now, I answered your questions. When are you going to produce reputable
support for the ones I asked you?
<cue dodge, weave, duck, run, hide, side issue, smoke, mirrors>
Ask your questions. That is apparently all you do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 04:35:25 PM |
|
|
In article <nicoya-18FCF9.16174107102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote:
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed. It's
legal, plain and simple.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
You got it. That whole "Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because
our legislators have not made it illegal" statement makes no sense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
07 Oct 2006 08:01:51 PM |
|
|
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want. Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our legislators
have not made them illegal.
That has got to be the worst comparison of apples and turnips I
have ever seen. There is a whole world of difference between
abortion and eating ice cream or wearing a hat.
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed. It's
legal, plain and simple.
Yes I know. I also think it should not be.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 09:17:33 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:36YVg.1902$cz.28901@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators : have
not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion, eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because
our legislators have not made them illegal.
That has got to be the worst comparison of apples and turnips I have ever
seen. There is a whole world of difference between abortion and eating
ice cream or wearing a hat.
have you ever cooked and apple or two with turnips, then added sugar and a
bit of cinnamon? Try it. There's no comparison
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed.
It's legal, plain and simple.
Yes I know. I also think it should not be.
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 08:17:58 PM |
|
|
In article <36YVg.1902$cz.28901@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
: have not made it illegal. I think they should.
You could say the same thing about pretty much any activity you want.
Abortion,
eating ice cream, wearing a hat. They're all legal only because our
legislators
have not made them illegal.
That has got to be the worst comparison of apples and turnips I
have ever seen. There is a whole world of difference between
abortion and eating ice cream or wearing a hat.
From the guy who said, "In Canada it is legal only because our
legislators have not made it illegal."
It's not some bizarre loophole or grey area that will soon be closed. It's
legal, plain and simple.
Yes I know. I also think it should not be.
Move to Iran or Iraq. They think exactly like you and other of the
"pro-life."
.
|
|
| | | | |
