| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Tleilax" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 07:28:40 PM |
| Object: |
one abortion a second |
EACH year over thirty million abortions are performed throughout the
world. That is about one abortion for every second of each day all year
long.
Iin recent years many countries have passed more permissive abortion
laws. In some places there are very few restrictions, meaning that the
legal policy is 'abortion on demand.' Some authorities predict that
most countries will eventually adopt this attitude. In India killing
unborn girls is an accepted practice.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 06:04:59 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
Do you have supporting evidence?
Yes, *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 08:53:51 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
Do you have supporting evidence?
Yes, *****.
I really feel sorry for people who need to call names simply in order
to boost their own insecurities. Regardless, provide your evidence
please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 09:25:39 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
Do you have supporting evidence?
Yes, *****.
I really feel sorry for people who need to call names simply in order
You don't feel sorry for anybody, *****. You're just a pathetic
control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sylvia R. Dickinson" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 03:34:57 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
I really feel sorry for people
You don't feel sorry for anybody.
who need to call names
That's what you do.
simply in order
to boost their own insecurities.
You're a shameless hypocrite and contemptible creep, lock, stock, and
barrel.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sylvia R. Dickinson" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 03:43:44 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
Do you have supporting evidence?
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts
Who is anti-sex?
Not you when it comes to you. Have you ever noticed that you've done
the very thing for which you have sternly criticized others?
You haven't denied being a "pervert", maybe you are the pervert and
hide behind it in the newsgroup.
You wouldn't be here if weren't for your wandering nano-*****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gilbertus Albans" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 07:22:27 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 09:26:27 PM |
|
|
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion is
good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it.
And yet the pope wants to deny people that freedom.
They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions,
"Sex is a crime."
Pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 10:22:55 PM |
|
|
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Get the idea yet? The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole, not just the
deranged desires of a group of religious savages who worship a dead
Jewish guy and an old male virgin in a dress. The availability of
medical care and research in how to contain/cure the spread of deadly
diseases benefits society as a whole; the opinions of old male virgins
in dresses do not. Particularly when their "ideas" also involve covering
up for pedophiles. Is that clear now?
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 11:41:28 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Get the idea yet? The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole, not just the
deranged desires of a group of religious savages who worship a dead
Jewish guy and an old male virgin in a dress. The availability of
medical care and research in how to contain/cure the spread of deadly
diseases benefits society as a whole; the opinions of old male virgins
in dresses do not. Particularly when their "ideas" also involve covering
up for pedophiles. Is that clear now?
Good answer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 12:44:30 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Get the idea yet? The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole, not just the
deranged desires of a group of religious savages who worship a dead
Jewish guy and an old male virgin in a dress. The availability of
medical care and research in how to contain/cure the spread of deadly
diseases benefits society as a whole; the opinions of old male virgins
in dresses do not. Particularly when their "ideas" also involve covering
up for pedophiles. Is that clear now?
Good answer.
He won't get it.
Is it me, or do we have an extra-large helping of idjit religious trolls
round these parts lately?
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 01:38:43 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Get the idea yet? The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole, not just the
deranged desires of a group of religious savages who worship a dead
Jewish guy and an old male virgin in a dress. The availability of
medical care and research in how to contain/cure the spread of deadly
diseases benefits society as a whole; the opinions of old male virgins
in dresses do not. Particularly when their "ideas" also involve covering
up for pedophiles. Is that clear now?
Good answer.
He won't get it.
Is it me, or do we have an extra-large helping of idjit religious trolls
round these parts lately?
"Lately"? I used to be that the idiots came every September and
lasted for a couple of months. Then AOL and WebTV and the like came
along and the newsgroups filled up with idiots.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 09:05:10 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
--sexkitten-- <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer < >" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that comes
with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Get the idea yet? The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole, not just the
deranged desires of a group of religious savages who worship a dead
Jewish guy and an old male virgin in a dress. The availability of
medical care and research in how to contain/cure the spread of deadly
diseases benefits society as a whole; the opinions of old male virgins
in dresses do not. Particularly when their "ideas" also involve covering
up for pedophiles. Is that clear now?
Good answer.
He won't get it.
Is it me, or do we have an extra-large helping of idjit religious trolls
round these parts lately?
"Lately"? I used to be that the idiots came every September and
lasted for a couple of months. Then AOL and WebTV and the like came
along and the newsgroups filled up with idiots.
Indeed...I didn't get here until 1989, but that was back when September only
occurred once a year...and it became permanent in September 1992, for
practical purposes.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 5, Houston 4 (SO) (October 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 20 at Grand Rapids, 6:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gilbertus Albans" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 04:33:55 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are
okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that
comes with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline, so
why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for fire
departments?
Is sex the result of "accidents"?
Get the idea yet?
you haven't.
The government, when spending tax money, is supposed
to put it to the use that benefits society as a whole
Yeah, but not to protect people of their own wishful and destructive
stupidity. Take your example of "fires" and fire dept. If somebody is
negligent with thier fireplace or stove, after an investigation they get
a fine, to pay for damages. They may even go to jail for arson or
neglect. If you want to have Sex with every tom ***** and Harry, go
ahead. When you get an STD, you pay for your medical care.
This has nothing to do with religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 07:19:52 AM |
|
|
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
"Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net>" wrote:
The point your trying to avoid is that the pope's demands are
unrealistic, go contrary to natural human behavior, and are IMMORAL
because they result in millions of people DYING.
What do you think would happen if the Pope said "Condoms are
okay"? Do
you think people who don't wear them now would start? Do you
honestly
believe that the only reason people don't wear condoms is because of
what the Pope says?
The Pope doesn't allow condoms is a poor excuse. Just like abortion
is good for rape is a poor excuse.
Religious zealots hate freedom. Their way or death are the only
acceptable options.
These excuses are created by people to alliviate their ill trained
conscious to begin with.
People want to fornicate and don't want the responsibility that
comes with their actions, whether it be a an STD or pregnancy.
You anti-sex preverts have been so corrupted by your hatred of people
that you would rather see people dead than free to have sex safely.
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
People are free to smoke, barbecue, own fireplaces and buy gasoline,
so why should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for
fire departments?
Is sex the result of "accidents"?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
And BTW, fires are not always accidental.
Get the idea yet?
you haven't.
Oh, I got it. You did too. That's why you're trying to wiggle out of it now.
The government, when spending tax money, is supposed to put it to the
use that benefits society as a whole
Yeah, but not to protect people of their own wishful and destructive
stupidity.
Yup, if the results are detrimental to society as a whole then it is the
responsibility of the government to rectify the error to the best
interests of society as a whole. Welcome to civilization.
Take your example of "fires" and fire dept. If somebody is
negligent with thier fireplace or stove, after an investigation they get
a fine, to pay for damages.
Where do you live? Here, they just bill their insurance. No fines involved.
They may even go to jail for arson or
neglect.
Except that we aren't supposed to be paying for police or jails, since
they will have to live with the consequences of their actions. Isn't
that what you JUST said?
If you want to have Sex with every tom ***** and Harry, go
ahead. When you get an STD, you pay for your medical care.
And when you get robbed, you pay to catch and imprison the criminal. Out
of your own pocket. We'll see how long you keep singing this tune.
This has nothing to do with religion.
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BullDozer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 07:54:05 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
You are being dishonest. And this invalidate the rest of your argument,
since it is built on a faulty premise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 08:02:01 AM |
|
|
BullDozer wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Gilbertus Albans wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
What an oxymoronic statement. If people want to have sex freely so be
it. They then must live with the consequence of theirr actions, hence
why should the goverment spend a dime of my tax payer money for HIV
research, or public preborn slaughter clincs?
By golly you're right.
People are able to steal, rape and murder if they so choose. So why
should the government spend a dime of my taxpayer money for police
services and jails?
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
Feel free to demonstrate how and why sex should be held to a completely
different standard than any other human action. Please be specific.
You are being dishonest.
No, I'm making a perfectly valid point. Why is sexual activity different
that any other activity? Be specific.
And this invalidate the rest of your argument,
since it is built on a faulty premise.
"Because I say so" is not a valid argument. You need to demonstrate how
it is faulty.
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BullDozer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 08:17:23 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
Feel free to demonstrate how and why sex should be held to a completely
different standard than any other human action. Please be specific.
From your point in the thread some actions are legal, sanctioned by
society, some are not, again defined by society. This applies to all
human activity. We are talking abour specifics.
You want to generilize the subject. That is misleading and dishonest.
You are being dishonest.
No, I'm making a perfectly valid point. Why is sexual activity different
that any other activity? Be specific.
I just did. If you were specific, there would have been no need to
negate the point. People should be held responsible and accountable to
society for their actions. Do you agree or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 08:58:16 AM |
|
|
BullDozer wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
Feel free to demonstrate how and why sex should be held to a completely
different standard than any other human action. Please be specific.
From your point in the thread some actions are legal, sanctioned by
society, some are not, again defined by society.
Again, completely irrelevant. The point was the use of tax dollars to
repair the damage caused by free action.
This applies to all
human activity. We are talking abour specifics.
You want to generilize the subject. That is misleading and dishonest.
Then demonstrate, as I asked, how and why sex should be held to a
completely different standard than any other action.
You are being dishonest.
No, I'm making a perfectly valid point. Why is sexual activity different
that any other activity? Be specific.
I just did.
No, you didn't. You are trying the same trick the original poster tried,
which was to separate sexual activity from any other activity, and hold
it to a different standard, without providing a specific reason why it
should be so.
If you were specific, there would have been no need to
negate the point. People should be held responsible and accountable to
society for their actions. Do you agree or not?
How come people keep asking me questions and refusing to answer any of
mine?
How about you answer mine first?
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BullDozer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 10:04:48 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
BullDozer wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
Feel free to demonstrate how and why sex should be held to a completely
different standard than any other human action. Please be specific.
From your point in the thread some actions are legal, sanctioned by
society, some are not, again defined by society.
Again, completely irrelevant. The point was the use of tax dollars to
repair the damage caused by free action.
This applies to all
human activity. We are talking abour specifics.
You want to generilize the subject. That is misleading and dishonest.
Then demonstrate, as I asked, how and why sex should be held to a
completely different standard than any other action.
You are being dishonest.
No, I'm making a perfectly valid point. Why is sexual activity different
that any other activity? Be specific.
I just did.
No, you didn't. You are trying the same trick the original poster tried,
which was to separate sexual activity from any other activity, and hold
it to a different standard, without providing a specific reason why it
should be so.
What part of "society deems, what human activity is legal or not" did
you miss?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
16 Oct 2006 05:30:56 PM |
|
|
BullDozer wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
BullDozer wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Apple and oranges. Sex is not a crime right?
Irrelevant. Your point was that if people are able to act freely on
something, tax money should not be spent on the results.
I had to read the subject of the thread. And I believe the issue here
is sex, not "something".
Feel free to demonstrate how and why sex should be held to a completely
different standard than any other human action. Please be specific.
From your point in the thread some actions are legal, sanctioned by
society, some are not, again defined by society.
Again, completely irrelevant. The point was the use of tax dollars to
repair the damage caused by free action.
This applies to all
human activity. We are talking abour specifics.
You want to generilize the subject. That is misleading and dishonest.
Then demonstrate, as I asked, how and why sex should be held to a
completely different standard than any other action.
You are being dishonest.
No, I'm making a perfectly valid point. Why is sexual activity different
that any other activity? Be specific.
I just did.
No, you didn't. You are trying the same trick the original poster tried,
which was to separate sexual activity from any other activity, and hold
it to a different standard, without providing a specific reason why it
should be so.
What part of "society deems, what human activity is legal or not" did
you miss?
I didn't miss it; it just has no bearing on the conversation taking place.
--
--sexkitten--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 03:25:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 04:08:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Nancys Sweetie" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 08:34:06 AM |
|
|
"osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com>" wrote:
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted????
That's not fair.
Some years ago, an Televangelist in the USA asked his followers to pray
that a member of the US Supreme Court would die, so that then-President
Reagan could appoint a conservative and overturn Roe v Wade.
*
The problem is that some people wish the world was easy. They want the
bad guys to be easily identifiable. They want problems to have easily-
identified causes which can then be condemned.
Some people believe that their ideas are so obviously true, that people
who disagree aren't merely wrong, they are also EVIL! They refuse to
join us not because they believe we are the ones who are mistaken, but
because they are power-hungry nutjobs who want to rule everything.
Those other people know we are right, they just don't want to give up
power.
If you wish the world was easy, you imagine that it is so. You conjure
up a line between good and evil, and you put yourself on one side and
those who disagree on the other.
That's a total fantasy, of course, but it's a comforting one. The
unpleasant truth is that the line between good and evil runs right down
the center of every single one of us.
*
People who see the world in simple ways, and refuse to acknowledge the
intelligence and decency and morality of their opponents can be found in
any group of any size. Read stuff published by Fundamentalists about
Roman Catholics, or by Creationists about mainstream geologists. Read
"alt.atheism" for a week. Visit any "advocacy" newsgroup for any
operating system. You can find rabid people arguing in nasty language
over any subject.
But don't think you're immune. Ask yourself a few questions about any
big problem:
1) How many causes do I see for a given problem?
2) How much difficulty is involved in my solution?
3) How much doubt do I have that my solution will work?
4) How many possible unpleasant side-effects do I see to my solution?
5) How many people on the other side do I respect?
6) How many people on my side do I think are nutters?
Add up your answers. The lower the number, the simpler your thinking
is. If you score less than 20, you're living in a dreamworld.
Darren Provine ! ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
-- Charles Darwin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 01:51:15 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
ssssssssssssss@hutup.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted????
Maybe they've dealt with the likes of you?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (October 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, October 15 at San Antonio, 5:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 05:40:52 AM |
|
|
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
ssssssssssssss@hutup.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted????
Maybe they've dealt with the likes of you?
Anyone who goes and preaches to others the ill's of war and claims to
care about innocent lives lost in war, and then wishes that others will
die, get hurt, or that they were aborted...is nothing more than a
hypocrite.
Hey, that's YOU!
--
Patrick "The Chief Idiot" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (October 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, October 15 at San Antonio, 5:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
15 Oct 2006 10:42:34 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
The Chief Idiot wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
ssssssssssssss@hutup.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted????
Maybe they've dealt with the likes of you?
Anyone who goes and preaches to others the ill's of war and claims to
care about innocent lives lost in war, and then wishes that others will
die, get hurt, or that they were aborted...is nothing more than a
hypocrite.
Hey, that's YOU!
Thanks for showing that your "education" has enabled you to waste thirty lines
on an IKYABWAI.
chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (October 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, October 15 at San Antonio, 5:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rog" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 07:13:00 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side
always wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted?
Because that way there'd be fewer election-steeling nut-jobs,
ditto-zombies, money-grubbing scam-artists, bible-thumping
child molestors, and war-mongering Patton-waannabe's, running
around, thinking they can dictate their mean-spirited view of
morality to others and turn back the clock to a time before women
got the vote and began controlling their own destiny.
But then there are some folks who say that only throught the
existance of darkness and evil can we measure the force of
goodness and light. So, maybe you're right. =R=
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 11:20:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:13:00 -0400, "Rog'"
<rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side
always wish that others die, get hurt, or that they were aborted?
Because that way there'd be fewer election-steeling nut-jobs,
ditto-zombies, money-grubbing scam-artists, bible-thumping
child molestors, and war-mongering Patton-waannabe's, running
around, thinking they can dictate their mean-spirited view of
morality to others and turn back the clock to a time before women
got the vote and began controlling their own destiny.
But then there are some folks who say that only throught the
existance of darkness and evil can we measure the force of
goodness and light. So, maybe you're right. =R=
Republicans are inheritantly evil. They are the ones that kill
hundreds of thousands in the name of Christ, yet they preach "thou
shall not kill" and preach their anti-abortion crap which anyone with
half a brain can see is nothing but to appeal to those who love
babies, in order to obtain their votes. Of course they also want to
preserve all unborn lives, so the parent, (who is often very poor),
can pay the bill to raise this baby to the age of 18 so the
republicans can kill them off the next time they want to kill off a
large number of people in one of their wars. Republicans are the
biggest liars on earth. If they truely realize they are blaspheming
God to gain votes so they can kill, they may someday realize they are
the ones thart will be awarded with an eternity in HELL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 11:42:50 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ssssssssssssss@hutup.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
Why are you such a sleazy bigot, *****?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: one abortion a second |
14 Oct 2006 12:14:47 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
ssssssssssssss@hutup.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Too bad they didn't abort YOU !!!!!!!!
Why is it that so many on the left and/or on the pro-choice side always
Why are you such a sleazy bigot, *****?
You first.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
