| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Cracklin" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 01:15:13 PM |
| Object: |
Pope and abortion |
Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”
Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 06:08:08 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:40:46 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.
Not to worry about their conscience. God has them booked to go regardless of
their conscience.
Which diety are you talking about? Hades? Pluto? Ares? There are
hundreds of thousands to choose from, if not millions. Care to
objectively prove that your diety exists?
Mark Sebree
And dat be da way it tis.
duke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 05:41:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<rivFe.3071$Ie1.2664@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
In your opinion.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 06:57:23 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:tqede15ncjlfqt95pbpil7vhlhmjmc2aag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<rivFe.3071$Ie1.2664@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
In your opinion.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Which is a negligent act.
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
Why me?
It isn't my child.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.
A woman?
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 11:37:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:57:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<v4AFe.2281$G71.1078@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:tqede15ncjlfqt95pbpil7vhlhmjmc2aag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<rivFe.3071$Ie1.2664@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
In your opinion.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Which is a negligent act.
No it is not. Where is she forced to take care of it?
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
Why me?
It isn't my child.
You seem to be the one objecting to her having it removed. Personally
I could not care less.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.
A woman?
Yes, since it is women who become pregnant.
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.
But as far as the freedom of choice is concerned only women are
directly involved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 11:05:23 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lo3ee1pbu540fvjjtqlkhlkjtlhmjk9vns@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:57:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<v4AFe.2281$G71.1078@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:tqede15ncjlfqt95pbpil7vhlhmjmc2aag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<rivFe.3071$Ie1.2664@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
In your opinion.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Which is a negligent act.
No it is not. Where is she forced to take care of it?
The law does protect children in case you forgot about that.
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
Why me?
It isn't my child.
You seem to be the one objecting to her having it removed. Personally
I could not care less.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.
A woman?
Yes, since it is women who become pregnant.
Another remark that reilies on sexism.
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.
But as far as the freedom of choice is concerned only women are
directly involved.
*****! Why isn't it only the pregnant woman who is involved then? Why
does she need assistance?
That perspective is not sufficient to govern a society that is comprised of
men, women, and children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 04:46:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:05:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<YfOFe.4963$Ie1.227@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:lo3ee1pbu540fvjjtqlkhlkjtlhmjk9vns@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:57:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<v4AFe.2281$G71.1078@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:tqede15ncjlfqt95pbpil7vhlhmjmc2aag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<rivFe.3071$Ie1.2664@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options. No force of any kind is involved.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
In your opinion.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Fine. Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Which is a negligent act.
No it is not. Where is she forced to take care of it?
The law does protect children in case you forgot about that.
But the parent is not required to provide this support. She can
surrender all parental rights and responsibility at will.
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
Why me?
It isn't my child.
You seem to be the one objecting to her having it removed. Personally
I could not care less.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny.
A woman?
Yes, since it is women who become pregnant.
Another remark that reilies on sexism.
This from someone who considers pregnancy sexism.
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women.
But as far as the freedom of choice is concerned only women are
directly involved.
*****! Why isn't it only the pregnant woman who is involved then? Why
does she need assistance?
Because performing medical procedures is something a trained
specialist does, and few people perform any medical procedures on
themselves.
You really ask stupid questions don;t you?
That perspective is not sufficient to govern a society that is comprised of
men, women, and children.
It seems to work pretty well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 03:20:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we? Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
Do you actually know anything about fetal development?
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Not one that can function independently, no.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.
-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 03:39:11 PM |
|
|
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.
================
Johnny would make an excellent communist. :-)
--
CR......
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
Make sure of which Cracklin' you're replying to - the TROLL from
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn is using other people's names to bypass
killfiles. There are now TWO Cracklin's and TWO Reel McKoi's posting here.
There is no limit to how low a religious fanatic will stoop to silence
someone or get an audience for themselves when ignored.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 04:23:55 PM |
|
|
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?
Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.
The beauty of law is that no one does the deciding.
With Pro-Choice you have the burden of defending your choice.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only includes
the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
Do you actually know anything about fetal development?
Quite a bit.
There is nothing non-functional about a human being in gestation.
It isn't supposed to be walking and talking already or driving a car.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Not one that can function independently, no.
Which is shows that it needs the womb to survive, and that any outside force
invading it is a threat unto its existence.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
Without representative government there is no democracy.
And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.
Fetuses do not need to be citizens to be represented.
The voters are who have the power to decide this issue.
If the voters decide that fetuses, even thought they afre not considered
citizens, have the right to live, then that is the way that the government
must rule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:22:24 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e71384@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQxFe.4206$Ie1.891@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only includes
the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
--
CR........
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
(God did it! God did it!)
~ Thus Spake God's Creator ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~><> ><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 11:00:56 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e71384@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQxFe.4206$Ie1.891@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the part
of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female involved,
which would require signatures from both parties, and that record should be
publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only
includes the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:26:56 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from. Why publicly available since it's no one's
business but the people involved.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings? That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
--
CR.......
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 09:36:04 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e7d8ed$0$16530$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 11:01:08 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
## Yes it is - because the man doesn't have to bear an unwanted child that
HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
## Too bad. The man knows this when he drops his pants, doesn't he? If
not, than he's a complete idiot and shouldn't be having sex.
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
## Do we make public all the other medical records people accrue over their
lifetime? Would you want people to know your medical history? You're full
of crap Johnny - you just want the records to use against the women involved
to make them SUFFER and PAY! I don't see you demanding the records for
hangnail surgery or facelifts... why not? Why just private abortion
records?
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
## Which makes them trustworthy in your eyes?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
## How could they since the backyard abortionists were well hidden? So you
feel we should TERRORIZE American society to overturn RvW to appease
misogynists like you?
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
## LOL!!! RIGHT! You don't see Pro-Choicers murdering Dr and innocent
people by blowing them up. That's the so called Pro-Lifers dept.! Yes,
Johnny we're making slow progress with you.
CR.........
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 12:04:05 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e8fa31$0$16517$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against
her will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and
perhaps suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
## Yes it is
Wrong.
- because the man doesn't have to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't
have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
Which does what to say that women can not become pregnant and are therefore
being treated equally?
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
## Too bad.
It is too bad.
The man knows this when he drops his pants, doesn't he? If not, than
he's a complete idiot and shouldn't be having sex.
You enjoy being played by men who know from the start that they do not want
to take care of a child they created and then left to choice?
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
## Do we make public all the other medical records people accrue over
their lifetime?
Which part of publishing something that causes a death is foreign to you?
Would you want people to know your medical history? You're full of crap
Johnny - you just want the records to use against the women involved to
make them SUFFER and PAY!
Wrong. Are you dissatisfied that you are a woman and can or coulda become
pregnant?
Are you dissatisfied that Pro-Choice does not love you as such?
I don't see you demanding the records for hangnail surgery or
facelifts... why not?
Because no unique life was extinguised by those procedures.
Why just private abortion records?
Because a unique individual dies in an abortion.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
## Which makes them trustworthy in your eyes?
You seem to think that choice is somehow a good thing when it comes to
abortioning living human progeny in utero.
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
## How could they since the backyard abortionists were well hidden?
Sluts need an abortionist, huh?
So you feel we should TERRORIZE American society to overturn RvW to
appease misogynists like you?
What terror?
Who is afraid?
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
## LOL!!! RIGHT! You don't see Pro-Choicers murdering Dr and innocent
people by blowing them up.
Only defenseless living humans in utero.
That's the so called Pro-Lifers dept.!
So, who is stronger?
Yes, Johnny we're making slow progress with you.
Slow because you are mentally deficient and less able to perform any given
task?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 03:32:14 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%c8Ge.13853$h.4786@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
## Yes it is
Wrong.
## Oh? Is the MAN carrying the fetus? I don't think so.
- because the man doesn't have to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't
have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
Which does what to say that women can not become pregnant and are
therefore being treated equally?
## That makes no sense - try asking it again.
The man knows this when he drops his pants, doesn't he? If not, than
he's a complete idiot and shouldn't be having sex.
You enjoy being played by men who know from the start that they do not
want to take care of a child they created and then left to choice?
## Huh? I'm a married grandmother. LOL!!!! I'm hardly interested in
being "played" by any man for any reason.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
## Do we make public all the other medical records people accrue over
their lifetime?
Which part of publishing something that causes a death is foreign to you?
## Which is foreign to you? What death? You mean when illegal
abortionists accidentally killed women and girls? Why would you want that
information? So you can bomb someone's home?
Would you want people to know your medical history? You're full of crap
Johnny - you just want the records to use against the women involved to
make them SUFFER and PAY!
Wrong.
## Then why would you want that information? What good would it do you?
Are you dissatisfied that you are a woman and can or coulda become
pregnant?
## I'm a mother and a grandmother while YOU are still a middle aged virgin.
That tells us something about YOU.
Are you dissatisfied that Pro-Choice does not love you as such?
## Rephrase that as it makes no sense. I chose to have my son. I had a
choice, if that's what you're asking.
I don't see you demanding the records for hangnail surgery or
facelifts... why not?
Because no unique life was extinguised by those procedures.
## Why would you want that information? What good would it do you? Would
you bomb the woman's homes or simply shoot them like some anti-choicer
believe in?
Why just private abortion records?
Because a unique individual dies in an abortion.
## Why would you want that information? What good would it do you? Would
you bomb the woman's homes or simply shoot them like some anti-choicer
believe in?
## Which makes them trustworthy in your eyes?
You seem to think that choice is somehow a good thing when it comes to
abortioning living human progeny in utero.
## Why is it bad for the desperate women or teen?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
## How could they since the backyard abortionists were well hidden?
Sluts need an abortionist, huh?
## What sluts? Which ones since you seem to believe all women are sluts.
So you feel we should TERRORIZE American society to overturn RvW to
appease misogynists like you?
What terror?
Who is afraid?
## Shooting Drs, bombing buildings.....
## LOL!!! RIGHT! You don't see Pro-Choicers murdering Dr and innocent
people by blowing them up.
Only defenseless living humans in utero.
## Living humans have been BORN. No one snatches a living baby from it's
cradle to shoot it or blow it up.
That's the so called Pro-Lifers dept.!
So, who is stronger?
## You tell us. Since abortion is legal I guess the pro-choice group is
stronger - and never shot one Dr or blew up one building harming innocent
people.
Yes, Johnny we're making slow progress with you.
Slow because you are mentally deficient and less able to perform any given
task?
## Yes, Johnny we're making slow progress with you because you have a
learning disability......
--
CR.......
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
Make sure of which Cracklin' you're replying to - the TROLL from
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn is using other people's names to bypass
killfiles. There are now TWO Cracklin's and TWO Reel McKoi's posting here.
There is no limit to how low a religious fanatic will stoop to silence
someone or get an audience for themselves when ignored.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natalie Clifford Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 08:03:21 PM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
## Yes it is - because the man doesn't have to bear an unwanted child that
HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
If he belongs to a religious order he doesnt even have to pay for the child....>
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
Natalie Clifford Barney
Le membre de L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....
“Lesbianism is about to take over our community. "
Reverend Willie Wilson, Washington DC 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
30 Jul 2005 02:54:15 PM |
|
|
"Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message
news:42E98054.F119418C@20RueJacob.fr...
Cracklin' wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against
her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and
perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
## Yes it is - because the man doesn't have to bear an unwanted child
that
HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
If he belongs to a religious order he doesnt even have to pay for the
child....>
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
$$ How is it sexist since he can't take on the physical burden and any
complications?
"Lesbianism is about to take over our community. "
Reverend Willie Wilson, Washington DC 2005
--
CR..........
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 11:51:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:36:04 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e7d8ed$0$16530$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
There is only one party.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
No.
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
Wrong.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
Irrelevant.
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
Of course it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 07:43:20 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:q63ie1ldemt47gp2j95eca52g7b9q7i723@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:36:04 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e7d8ed$0$16530$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against
her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and
perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
There is only one party.
Incorrect.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
No.
Little baby need his pacifier?
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
Wrong.
Little baby need his pacifier?
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevance has not been demonstrated.
Your objection is without merit; and, therefore, it is overruled.
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
Of course it does.
Not in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 08:56:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:43:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<zXeGe.10125$8g5.1032@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:q63ie1ldemt47gp2j95eca52g7b9q7i723@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:36:04 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<f26Ge.7938$8g5.6747@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e7d8ed$0$16530$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against
her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and
perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
There is only one party.
Incorrect.
No. The only party involved is the pregnant woman.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
No.
Little baby need his pacifier?
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
Wrong.
Little baby need his pacifier?
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevance has not been demonstrated.
Of course it has. You contend that somehow the existence of a legal
service justifies illegal acts? Including murder?
Your objection is without merit; and, therefore, it is overruled.
I reject your 'overrule'. What can you do about it?
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
Of course it does.
Not in reality.
Reality says the freedom of choice is still available.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 01:59:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:36:04 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e7d8ed$0$16530$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female
involved, which would require signatures from both parties, and that
record should be publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
## Which is 100% sexist since the man can then FORCE a woman, against her
will, to bear an unwanted child that HE doesn't have to carry and perhaps
suffer the consequences from.
It is not sexist to require both parties to a pregnancy to give their
consent for an abortion to be performed.
It is sexist to allow either gender sole authority in the decision-making
process.
Oh, please. This is just stupid. Women get pregnant, men
don't. Just as men and women shouldn't need permission from anyone to
use birth control or get sterilzed, women shouldn't be forced to get a
man's permission to terminate a pregnancy. Give this some thought.
Functional couples work this stuff out between themselves. Rapists,
abusers, men who've abandoned their partners, child molestors and
fathers/brothers/in-laws who impregnant their
daughters/sisters/relatives should not be in a decision making role.
Why publicly available since it's no one's business but the people
involved.
Because, if it is a legal activity, there should be no resistance to
publication of such information.
So, please make sure and publicly announce every time you have
intercourse with your wife (if and when you marry). I mean, it's
legal, so you should be more than happy to provide intimate details
about precisely what you did.
Oh, and let's expand it to voting. Why not just tell everyone
how one casts one's vote? I mean, it's legal -- so it should be
something you want to make sure everyone knows about, right?
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
## Oh you mean like the *anti-choicers* murdering Dr's and blowing up
buildings?
That was their *choice*, remember?
And, none of those acts you mention occurred prior to Roe V Wade.
So, R v W forced the Pro Birth lobby to murder and commit
arson?
Boy, their morals must be really firm.
That makes them trustworthy in your reality? How pathetic......
It does nothing to make Pro-Choicers trustworthy.
Nor does it have anything to do with them being untrustworthy.
You dehumanize Pro Choice individuals pretty effectively. Do
fetuses that grow up to be Pro Choice lose their value in your eyes?
-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ReelMcKoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 04:01:31 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
How many men, force women to have an abortion?
Abortion is attractive to men, so they don't have to pay the price of
raising a kid, when a relationship goes sour. MAny wone use children as
vendetta tools to get back at men.
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the part
of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female involved,
which would require signatures from both parties, and that record should be
publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
Not according the national organization of fat and ugly women without a
mate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 09:38:36 AM |
|
|
"ReelMcKoi" <ReelMckoi@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1122498091.000346.24640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
How many men, force women to have an abortion?
Any of them that can say "it is your right to choose, and I can't have this
baby."
Abortion is attractive to men, so they don't have to pay the price of
raising a kid, when a relationship goes sour. MAny wone use children as
vendetta tools to get back at men.
A vendetta after some man got them pregnant?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part
of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female involved,
which would require signatures from both parties, and that record should
be
publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
Not according the national organization of fat and ugly women without a
mate.
Why wouldn't they be for their right to disallow an abortion if a man who
got them pregnant was for an abortion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 04:41:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:00:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e71384@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQxFe.4206$Ie1.891@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda,
right?
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the part
of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female involved,
which would require signatures from both parties, and that record should be
publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
Utter nonsense.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only
includes the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
I suspect my opinion would be exactly opposite to your's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 09:39:47 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vqvfe1lf30d6nqlevqfr1f9fvdn3ep6k65@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:00:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e71384@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQxFe.4206$Ie1.891@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we?
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose
agenda,
right?
## Where does the man come in here? Are you claiming he should have
the
RIGHT to force some woman to bear him a child?
For abortion on demand to be non-sexist it would require consent on the
part
of both parties to the pregnancy, both the male and the female involved,
which would require signatures from both parties, and that record should
be
publicly available.
Anything less is reproachable.
Utter nonsense.
To a lower intellect such as yours it doesn't make sense.
No surprise there.
Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice ***** when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only
includes the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
## What makes a pro-choicer "untrustworthy" and a anti-choicer so
trustworthy?
Demonstrated behavior.
I suspect my opinion would be exactly opposite to your's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
28 Jul 2005 11:53:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:39:47 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<L56Ge.7942$8g5.7198@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vqvfe1lf30d6nqlevqfr1f9fvdn3ep6k65@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:00:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ObOFe.4961$Ie1.1311@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e72f21$0$16597$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e71384@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQxFe.4206$Ie1.891@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:bl6de1hetudv0n2b21mdam3ij05t2rkr2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny&qu | | | | | | | |
