| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Simone Soullier" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 01:53:23 PM |
| Object: |
Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
"N.O.Y.B." <mslava04@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2o1a10F5p3kbU1@uni-berlin.de>...
You pro-lie's are unbelievable!
Fair-minded pro-choicers aren't going to take any notice of your hateful
slander fetish.
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket? How about cooking up some
meth in her kitchen? How about taking off her clothes and strolling
through her local mall? Why can this same government circumscribe how
she uses her body in these areas, sir? Oh, her behavior is affecting
others? Then tell us, what does sexual intercourse usually produce? A
bag of potatoes, sir? No, it produces another human being is what it
usually produces, otherwise we wouldn't have killed over 30 million of
them since 1973. They weren't "aborting" carrots, sir.
Anyway, this argument doesn't wash because the time for her to control
her body is at the time of sexual intercourse, not after. Similarly,
the time to control what and how much you drink is *before* you get in
that car, not after where you ended up running over an innocent
pedestrian. This is what you're doing with abortion. You're killing
and then burying the evidence of your crime.
Following this same logic, a woman could just as easily refuse to
nurse a two day old infant dependent upon her milk to survive under
the legal theory that it's her body and the infant is parasitical in
its demands on her body.
Simone Soullier
.
|
|
| User: "~Holly~" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 07:34:05 AM |
|
|
(Simone Soullier) wrote in
Then tell us, what does sexual intercourse usually produce?
Simone Soullier
A climax. (Speaking for myself - that is.)
I understand religiously-impaired women are generally fridgid though.
Is that true?
Seriously...numerous fucks equal only a few babies & sometimes, thanks
to the pill - NO BABIES. So why do we ***** so much? I think it's
because (drum roll) fucking is FUN you stupid cow!
Holly
.
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 07:50:41 AM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2004 05:34:05 -0700, (~Holly~)
wrote:
moore_needs_a_bath@hotmail.com (Simone Soullier) wrote in
Then tell us, what does sexual intercourse usually produce?
Simone Soullier
A climax. (Speaking for myself - that is.)
I understand religiously-impaired women are generally fridgid though.
Is that true?
Marie (Simone) is a hooker for the Republican Reich.
Seriously...numerous fucks equal only a few babies & sometimes, thanks
to the pill - NO BABIES. So why do we ***** so much? I think it's
because (drum roll) fucking is FUN you stupid cow!
Wow, get a load of that. Having sex for fun. Who'd have thunk it!
;-)
Holly
--A happily married, heterosexual woman enjoying sex with spouse. Eat
your heart out, marie!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joebruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 02:56:20 AM |
|
|
(Simone Soullier) wrote in message news:<6abe70a9.0408121053.3aeec127@posting.google.com>...
"N.O.Y.B." <mslava04@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2o1a10F5p3kbU1@uni-berlin.de>...
You pro-lie's are unbelievable!
Fair-minded pro-choicers aren't going to take any notice of your hateful
slander fetish.
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket? How about cooking up some
meth in her kitchen? How about taking off her clothes and strolling
through her local mall? Why can this same government circumscribe how
she uses her body in these areas, sir? Oh, her behavior is affecting
others? Then tell us, what does sexual intercourse usually produce? A
bag of potatoes, sir? No, it produces another human being is what it
usually produces, otherwise we wouldn't have killed over 30 million of
them since 1973. They weren't "aborting" carrots, sir.
Anyway, this argument doesn't wash because the time for her to control
her body is at the time of sexual intercourse, not after. Similarly,
the time to control what and how much you drink is *before* you get in
that car, not after where you ended up running over an innocent
pedestrian. This is what you're doing with abortion. You're killing
and then burying the evidence of your crime.
Following this same logic, a woman could just as easily refuse to
nurse a two day old infant dependent upon her milk to survive under
the legal theory that it's her body and the infant is parasitical in
its demands on her body.
Simone Soullier
Agreed. If she could do as she likes with her own body, prostitution would be legal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EvilZak" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
14 Aug 2004 09:10:19 AM |
|
|
(Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.0408122356.5ff55c7d@posting.google.com>...
moore_needs_a_bath@hotmail.com (Simone Soullier) wrote in message news:<6abe70a9.0408121053.3aeec127@posting.google.com>...
Following this same logic, a woman could just as easily refuse to
nurse a two day old infant dependent upon her milk to survive under
the legal theory that it's her body and the infant is parasitical in
its demands on her body.
Simone Soullier
Are you claiming that it would be legally possible to force a woman to
provide breastmilk for an infant? It's not. In case you don't know (as
you don't appear to be very intelligent) a born infant can survive
perfectly well on formula milk from a bottle, provided by anyone else.
THe basic difference between a born infant and a foetus is that the
infant, having been born, is an actual person, not dependent on the
womb or the mother for survival, whereas the foetus, up until birth
(and certainly at the stage where most elective abortions are
performed) cannot survive outside the womb, therefore the mother's
rights and wishes supercede any rights the sentimental or ignorant
wish to claim for the foetus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N.O.Y.B." |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 04:05:56 AM |
|
|
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket? How about cooking up some
meth in her kitchen? How about taking off her clothes and strolling
through her local mall? Why can this same government circumscribe how
she uses her body in these areas, sir?
The fact is, these drug laws, just like laws that make abortion illegal, are
WRONG. Laws prescribing what drugs a person may use are immoral laws and
should be scrapped and replaced with a more respectable system. After all,
people can freely ingest alcohol. Why not opiates? Barbiturates and other
sedatives? If not, then why not? There is no logical reason why they can't.
For example, if a person prefers the use of narcotics for pain control, then
so long as the person is not directly harming another person or their
property, they have the right to use narcotics for pain control.
The war on drugs is just one of the various draconian government schemes
that seem to have popped up in history. It's time the war on drugs ended,
it's an unwinnable war - because it robs us of our RIGHTFUL liberties and
because humans do NOT like other humans telling them what to do with their
own bodies without a valid and logical reason. So people use drugs, some get
caught, a few get into trouble. But it is wrong to punish somebody for using
opiates or amphetamines when other people can freely use alcohol and
tobacco - opiates are sedatives just like alcohol, and amphetamines are not
much different to tobacco. If a person takes drugs he or she must assume
responsibility for his or her actions whilst under the influence of said
drug, that way we would put an end to so many ridiculous liberty-destroying
laws.
noyb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
14 Aug 2004 03:01:36 AM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2004 11:53:23 -0700,
"Simone Soullier" wrote:
"N.O.Y.B." <mslava04@hotmail.com> wrote:
You pro-lie's are unbelievable!
Fair-minded pro-choicers aren't going to take any notice of
your hateful slander fetish.
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong
to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket? How about cooking up some
meth in her kitchen? How about taking off her clothes and strolling
through her local mall? Why can this same government circumscribe how
she uses her body in these areas, sir? Oh, her behavior is affecting
others?
Well, DUH!!! Does this mean you're finally **getting** it?
Then tell us, what does sexual intercourse usually produce?
Absolutely NOTHING, when the woman chooses for it not to.
(Are you REALLY that dense? Guess so, since you seem to be an
Anti-Choicer, and a person has to be one of the most ignorant people
on the planet to have ANYTHING to do with THAT hateful idiocy.)
Anyway, this argument doesn't wash because the time for her to
control her body is at the time of sexual intercourse, not after.
LOL!!!!!!
Yeah. Right. Just as the time for a person to control their car
and thus never have an accident is before they get behind the wheel.
CLUE: Most injuries sustained in auto accidents can be cured,
and most auto accidents can be prevented by practicing defensive
driving. If an accident happens anyway, get the injuries REMEDIED,
if you don't feel like living with that damage.
By the same token, if a woman gets pregnant but doesn't want to
be, the safe and legal REMEDY of abortion is totally accessible to
her, and she can choose to access it, if she doesn't feel like
suffering the consequences of an *unwanted* pregnancy.
(Damn, but it's surreal, telling such obvious things to Anti-
Choicers! It's like teaching two-year-olds about looking both
ways before crossing the street. Such things should be
OBVIOUS to any person over the age of, say, five or six.) Trying
to show aan Anti-Choicer how to be a SENSIBLE and FAIR-monded
person is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And about as likely to
succeed, with MOST of those socially-retarded and programmed
lemmings.)
[ ... ]
Following this same logic, a woman could just as easily refuse to
nurse a two day old infant dependent upon her milk to survive under
the legal theory that it's her body and the infant is parasitical in
its demands on her body.
Wrong. infants are PEOPLE, and *people* have RIGHTS.
Mere entities of the human reproductive process (which include the
**living**, **human**, and unique *gametes* that comprise Stage One
of that process, but are hypocritically ignored by dumber-than-a-dead-
rock Anti-Choicers) -- ALL of which just as much are **potential**
people as are the other three stages -- are NOT people, and have
NO rights. NOR do they even remotely deserve any. No more than
rocks do.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
12 Aug 2004 01:56:15 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2004 11:53:23 -0700, (Simone
Soullier) wrote:
"N.O.Y.B." <mslava04@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2o1a10F5p3kbU1@uni-berlin.de>...
You pro-lie's are unbelievable!
Fair-minded pro-choicers aren't going to take any notice of your hateful
slander fetish.
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
12 Aug 2004 03:21:36 PM |
|
|
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder! No woman should have a right to murder the child that
slumbers in her womb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rorqhual" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
27 Aug 2004 07:20:42 AM |
|
|
"XC_22-188-16" <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1> wrote in message
news:10hnkc6dp4ot307@corp.supernews.com...
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder! No woman should have a right to murder the child that
slumbers in her womb.
Why? When does life start? Is using a condom murder because the egg doesn't
get fertilised? And who ever speaks out for the million or so lost souls
that just don't get to the egg in time?
It's at times like this I start to lose the will to live.
Incidentally, why is it that, in general, people who are so keen to protect
live before it's begun are usually equally keen to deprive it from those who
break the law? is it, like, 'we got you as far as birth, but from now on
your ***** is toast?'
Just pondering
:o)
R
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Keenan" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 04:47:57 PM |
|
|
"XC_22-188-16" <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1> wrote in message
news:10hnkc6dp4ot307@corp.supernews.com...
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder! No woman should have a right to murder the child that
slumbers in her womb.
Well, Tommy, what about having the right to harm "the child that slumbers in
her womb"? Should women have the right to smoke when pregnant? The right
to drink? Take aspirin or drink ginseng tea? Live in a polluted area?
Do you think that poisoning the child that slumbers in her womb is
acceptable?
-pk
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 05:11:34 PM |
|
|
Patrick Keenan wrote:
"XC_22-188-16" <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1> wrote in message
news:10hnkc6dp4ot307@corp.supernews.com...
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder! No woman should have a right to murder the child that
slumbers in her womb.
Well, Tommy, what about having the right to harm "the child that slumbers
in
her womb"?
What about it? It's wrong!
Should women have the right to smoke when pregnant?
No, smoking leads to low birth weight.
The right to drink?
No! Fetal Alcohol Syndrome results in mental retardation and birth defects.
Take aspirin or drink ginseng tea? Live in a polluted area?
If the doctor says she can.
Do you think that poisoning the child that slumbers in her womb is
acceptable?
No! Any doctor that would give RU486 to a woman should be S===. You figure
it out. And any woman that would take such a drug should suffer the same
F--e......Understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Domville" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
14 Aug 2004 12:10:33 AM |
|
|
In article <10hqf6e4oiire1@corp.supernews.com>
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
No! Any doctor that would give RU486 to a woman should be S===.
You figure
it out. And any woman that would take such a drug should suffer
the same
F--e......Understand?
We understand what a total lowlife ***** you are. How come
all you anti-choicer freaks keep talking about murdering people?
Killing Doctors? Killing women who abort? You're a fucking
bunch of hypocrites! Do society a favor and shoot yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 06:59:19 PM |
|
|
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:10hqf6e4oiire1@corp.supernews.com:
Patrick Keenan wrote:
Do you think that poisoning the child that slumbers in her womb is
acceptable?
No! Any doctor that would give RU486 to a woman should be S===.
explain to readers what your cute little slang "S===" means and then jusyify
your statement.
You
figure it out. And any woman that would take such a drug should suffer
the same F--e......Understand?
Ohhh, "F--e," another cute piece of slang. what is there about the word you
were trying to write that frightened you so much that you couldn't write it?
of course, you'll also want to justify why a women who follows the medical
advice of her physicial should suffer at all, right?
you don't want to come across as a woman-hatrer, do you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
14 Aug 2004 03:07:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400,
"XC_22-188-16" wrote:
Abortion is murder! No woman should have a right to murder
the child that slumbers in her womb.
ROTFL!!!!!!
Another dumber-than-a-dead-anvil Anti-choicer heard from.
(1) NO child has EVER "slumbered" in ANY womb, since NO
child has ever BEEN in one. Mere reproductive-process
entities, yes. Children, no.
(2) Any PEOPLE can be murdered. NO reproductive-process
entity prior to birth has EVER been a person, while at
that stage of development. ALL **people** have been
BORN.
(3) No person should EVER think that he as ANY right to
dictate to ANY woman what she can and can't choose
to do with resp[ect to reproduction.
(4) How do people like you GET so bone-ignorant? Are you
actually BORN that stupid? Or are you just too retarded
to resist the brainwashing of the RRR cult's leaders?
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
12 Aug 2004 06:00:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 05:21:44 PM |
|
|
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
Justify it any way you want...
.
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
15 Aug 2004 04:23:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:21:44 -0400, XC_22-188-16
<1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
Justify it any way you want...
Why should I justify your dishonesty?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
15 Aug 2004 12:19:01 PM |
|
|
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqfpcrd023qd3
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
Justify it any way you want...
she made no effort to justify your error.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
12 Aug 2004 06:08:51 PM |
|
|
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
What do you call it...Choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
12 Aug 2004 07:02:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
What do you call it...Choice?
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 05:44:37 PM |
|
|
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
What do you call it...Choice?
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have children.
First of all, had the woman not had a doctor suck the fetus out of her,
WOULD A BABY HAVE BEEN BORN?
1..(A) Yes
2..(B) No
http://www.armyofgod.com/BabySelect.html
What say you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 08:05:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:44:37 -0400, XC_22-188-16
<1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0400, XC_22-188-16 <127.O.O.1@127.O.O.1>
wrote:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
I believe Patrick holds libertarian principles dear to heart!
Libertarian principle rules! Women's bodies do NOT belong to YOU!
GET OVER IT!
noyb
Does this also mean that since her body belongs to her she can smoke
some grass and drive to the supermarket?
Yes, she physically can. Can she do this legally in place where it's
prohibited -- not without legal consequences!
Abortion is murder!
Don't be silly.
What do you call it...Choice?
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say:
Exactly what I wrote above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 08:34:09 PM |
|
|
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have children.
The usual hatred from the pro-liar *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 05:49:14 PM |
|
|
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her what she
meant rather than responding to what she said?
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a reason
for doing that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 05:56:44 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her what
she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice, I changed the word "abortion" with murder. You don't have a
problem with that DO YOU?
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a reason
for doing that?
Words in her mouth? Nice way to spin it. (Are you saying she can't speak for
herself?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "-SomeSappyWriter-" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 08:06:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:56:44 -0400, XC_22-188-16
<1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her what
she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice...
What I wrote is what I wrote -- no matter how many times you wish it
agreed with your opinion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 06:27:25 PM |
|
|
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:10hqhr4n3s2g1ba@corp.supernews.com:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have
children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her
what she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice, I changed the word "abortion" with murder. You don't have
a problem with that DO YOU?
you man you changed what she actually said to what you claimed she said?
that's what i thought.
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a
reason for doing that?
Words in her mouth?
that's what you just admitted to above.
Nice way to spin it.
you got caught so it wasn't so nice.
you'll probably have an easier time if you misrepresent less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XC_22-188-16" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 06:45:07 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:10hqhr4n3s2g1ba@corp.supernews.com:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children, which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have
children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her
what she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice, I changed the word "abortion" with murder. You don't have
a problem with that DO YOU?
you man you changed what she actually said to what you claimed she said?
that's what i thought.
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a
reason for doing that?
Words in her mouth?
that's what you just admitted to above.
Nice way to spin it.
you got caught so it wasn't so nice.
you'll probably have an easier time if you misrepresent less.
If you're going to cut and snip than I'm not going to deal with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
13 Aug 2004 07:06:50 PM |
|
|
"XC_22-188-16" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1299298.ZcQVcI0mvI@FreeBSD...
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:10hqhr4n3s2g1ba@corp.supernews.com:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I
am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children,
which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have
children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her
what she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice, I changed the word "abortion" with murder. You don't have
a problem with that DO YOU?
you man you changed what she actually said to what you claimed she said?
that's what i thought.
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a
reason for doing that?
Words in her mouth?
that's what you just admitted to above.
Nice way to spin it.
you got caught so it wasn't so nice.
you'll probably have an easier time if you misrepresent less.
If you're going to cut and snip than I'm not going to deal with you.
He is very well known for many dishonest tactics.
From: (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Another Keegan lie
Sender: (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <CJv5BB.u3o@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 06:13:59 GMT
Anyone who wants to can go back and look at your article
<KEEGAN.94Jan18094454@ausable.crd.ge.com>. You should stick to
waiting until the article's expired off most people's machines before
lying about what you wrote.
James G. Keegan, Jr. (a.k.a. Keegan, the Cowardly Forger),
Message-ID: <40F19659.4040401@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:34:49 -0600
From: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
James g. keegan jr. keeps lying and lying and lying.
This james g. keegan jr. is a dangerous psychosexual misandrist and
sadistic sociopath. Just read his posts about boys and how he keeps
mentioning raping them, killing them, cutting them open, sexually
torturing them. He has a pathological hatred for all boys and men.
It's only a matter of time before he acts on these violent fantasies.
In his sick mind he's "getting even" with boys and men by killing them
and making them suffer. He's talked to other sadistic faggots and
females to see how they think and tick (psychosexual child killers) and
james sounds exactly like them. They all hate men, they blame men for
all their woes, most had cruel cold psychotic mothers, uncaring or
absent mothers, they tortured animals, wet their beds, were social
rejects, almost all were unpopular with men and all had failed to have
any meaningful relationships with men. It's just a matter of time
before james acts.
From: (Peter Nyikos)
Date: 1996/04/16
Message-ID: <4l0igb$9hf@redwood.cs.sc.edu>#1/1
"More false advertising by Keegan in thread titles"
From: (John Hausmann)
Date: 1996/07/12
Message-ID: <hausmannDuF4rF.2qs@netcom.com>
All the basic assumptions from the previous salvo have been bought into by
Keegan. Key ones relevant to this post are:
1) Keegan is lazy.
2) Keegan used a RFC1036 compliant newsreader.
Keegan lied
Keegan lies frequently. He lies when he posted this and he lied
when he posted that. Imagine that. Keegan a liar. Whoooda thunk it?
From: (peal nora c)
Date: 1997/03/12
Message-ID: <5g6mun$t59@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>#1/1
Because keegan's statement was a lie,
From: frank@charlemont (Frank O'Dwyer)
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 16:33:28 GMT
Message-ID: <CqItzt.rw@charlemont>
Keegan has imploded. Below Keegan includes the text that
proves him a liar.
Keegan has so obviously
lost it. He is so obviously willing to tell a stupid lie such as
his lies here in order to smear anyone who challenges his and his
apologist's nonsense. But then, to Mr. Keegan, appearance is
paramount and the facts are secondary.
From: (Ralph Taite)
Date: 1996/02/29
Message-ID: <4h473i$f17@panix2.panix.com>#1/1
James Keegan lie
From: (Earl Blacklock)
Date: 1996/10/21
Message-ID: <blacklock.1295.000B4513@visia.net>
Keegan has
since piggybacked on the lie
From: (Larry Margolis)
Subject: James Keegan commits forgery
Message-ID: <CIGowv.LFs@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 00:19:43 GMT
Keegan dishonestly added text to make it look as though I were saying
"Good point" to his false accusations, rather than to the question
"why should i ask?".
.
|
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody's Body Belongs Only to Themselves! |
16 Aug 2004 08:01:52 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<N56dnSGNSOL4yoDcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>...
"XC_22-188-16" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1299298.ZcQVcI0mvI@FreeBSD...
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:10hqhr4n3s2g1ba@corp.supernews.com:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
XC_22-188-16 <1270.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:10hqh4dskp6f994
@corp.supernews.com:
-SomeSappyWriter- wrote:
Why would I want to irrelevantly call it choice, when the choice I
am
supporting is the woman's right to choose abortion or children,
which
all have *****-all to do with murder.
You mean to say: The woman's right to murder her child or have
children.
doesn't she know what she meant to say? how is it that you tell her
what she meant rather than responding to what she said?
If ya notice, I changed the word "abortion" with murder. You don't have
a problem with that DO YOU?
you man you changed what she actually said to what you claimed she said?
that's what i thought.
it appears that you are putting words into her mouth. do you have a
reason for doing that?
Words in her mouth?
that's what you just admitted to above.
Nice way to spin it.
you got caught so it wasn't so nice.
you'll probably have an easier time if you misrepresent less.
If you're going to cut and snip than I'm not going to deal with you.
He is very well known for many dishonest tactics.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
My God, the irony in that statement is richer than I can even
describe.
The following were snipped because it wasn't proof of Asspry's claim.
Asspry didn't prove anywhere that J. Keegan lies, instead he snipped
apart several posts of people saying that Keegan lies. I suspect that
Asspry believes that the rest of us are stupid enough to believe that
it was proof that Keegan lies.
<snip *supposed* proof from dipshit Asspry>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
