Science > Abortion > Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2005 05:32:19 PM |
| Object: |
Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
The good folks at Operation Rescue do have a valid point, these women are
already suffering emotional turmoil. These are not the times to be
influencing decisions of life or death.
http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=272#comments
Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane
Victims
Little Rock, AR - Abortionist Jerry Edwards of Little Rock, Arkansas, is
offering free abortions to victims of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This move
has stirred national controversy as pro-lifers expressed outrage that he
would prey upon vulnerable women dealing with the aftermath of two natural
disasters.
But Edwards is not new to controversy. He was the medical director and
primary abortionist for Planned Parenthood of Houston, TX from 1991-98. He
developed new techniques for killing children before six weeks gestation,
earlier than most abortionists are willing to kill for safety reasons. He
also was one of the first abortionists to jump onto the RU486 bandwagon, a
dangerous abortion drug responsible for at least four maternal deaths that
now carries new FDA warnings.
"Abortionist Edwards seems to enjoy child-killing to the extent that he is
willing to try new methods, in spite of the risks to women. One has to
wonder who he experimented on when developing his early abortion method and
what happened to those unfortunate women," said Operation Rescue
spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 08:36:57 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134531393.965375.265080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Society does not have to pay for either the pregnancy or the abortion,
since the doctor is donating his services.
Where did it say that the doctor is donating his services?
Persons and corporations are not allowed to receive tax deductions for the
time (services, labor) they perform for tax exempt organizations.
The reason that you do not
see it is because you refuse to see fact that you disagree with.
I do not see what is not there to see.
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
Then just look below.
That is not proof.
That is opinion.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
That one is the easiest thing in the world to prove. The cost of an
abortion is between $350 and $600, depending on what part of the
country you are in.
You are too short sighted.
The actual cost to society is not so simple in abortion.
The cost of a pregnancy through delivery is $10,000 - $20,000 if there
are no complications.
Why are you bitching?
Wonder why people who go into abortion as a job are so stupid then.
And if the pregnancy forces her onto welfare,
The pregnancy?
You have no understanding of what 'forces' people onto welfare.
then it is likely that
she is getting at least several thousand a year until the child is 18
years old.
You still bitching?
Therefore, the comparison is between $0 and $10,000 in the short term,
and several times that in the long term.
Simple math proves my statement.
No it doesn't.
You forgot about the contribution to GDP that the child makes.
You failed, again.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You made the allegation that the doctor is getting some type of
compensation,
I did not make a direct allegation, reading comprehension underling.
so therefore you are the one that is required to support
your allegation that the doctor is being compensated from some other
source.
Your logic and debating skills suck. primarily beause you lack reason and
because you are so biased.
You presented the premise, so you are responsible for
supporting it.
You formed the premise in your own mind that I directed alleged that the
doctor receives compensation for thes4 services.
Your lies are easily noticed.
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No, the original article said that a particular doctor was offering
free abortions to women affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Nobody ever
said that you were offering abortions, free or otherwise.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
We already know that they are free, since that is what the article said
in the first place. You offered the premise that the doctor was
getting compensation from some other source.
And for proof that you provided that premise the quote is yours from
earlier in the thread:
"I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without compensation from any source."
You have presented the premise that he was getting compensation when
the original article made no indication of this.
He was getting compensation for performing abortions.
You think he didn't?
LOL!
Now you think he never performed an abortion and received compensation at
any time?
LOL!
Therefore, it is your
premise. And therefore, you are responsible for supporting it. And I
have yet to see any support for your premise, as usual for you.
Bye. argumentative fool.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 01:14:30 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134531393.965375.265080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Society does not have to pay for either the pregnancy or the abortion,
since the doctor is donating his services.
Where did it say that the doctor is donating his services?
Where it said that the services would be provided for free.
Persons and corporations are not allowed to receive tax deductions for the
time (services, labor) they perform for tax exempt organizations.
That just supports the concept that the doctor is donating his
services.
The reason that you do not
see it is because you refuse to see fact that you disagree with.
I do not see what is not there to see.
You do not see what is there, and you fail to see what is there quite
regularly.
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
Then just look below.
That is not proof.
That is opinion.
The numbers are solid. Feel free to check them out yourself.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
That one is the easiest thing in the world to prove. The cost of an
abortion is between $350 and $600, depending on what part of the
country you are in.
You are too short sighted.
The actual cost to society is not so simple in abortion.
I am more far sighted than you have ever shown yourself to be. The
cost of an abortion to society is far, far lower than the cost of
forcing the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
The cost of a pregnancy through delivery is $10,000 - $20,000 if there
are no complications.
Why are you bitching?
You are the one that is bitching.
Wonder why people who go into abortion as a job are so stupid then.
They are smarter than you are. Those same doctors also do pre-natal,
post natal, and delivery for the women that want to continue their
pregnancies. I am pointing out the numbers that show that abortion is
less expensive to society is far lower than forcing the woman to
continue her pregnancy.
And if the pregnancy forces her onto welfare,
The pregnancy?
You have no understanding of what 'forces' people onto welfare.
Yes, I do. And an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is one of those
items.
then it is likely that
she is getting at least several thousand a year until the child is 18
years old.
You still bitching?
No. Just pointing out the fact that you choose to ignore because they
contradict your delusions.
Therefore, the comparison is between $0 and $10,000 in the short term,
and several times that in the long term.
Simple math proves my statement.
No it doesn't.
You forgot about the contribution to GDP that the child makes.
No, I am not. A child raised in poverty is likely to continue to live
in poverty, and not be a significant contributor to the GDP. What's
more, since the woman was forced into poverty by the pregnancy, it is
far more likely that she is earning far less than she would have if she
had been able to get an abortion. Therefore, she is contributing less
to the GDP for the rest of her life than she would have otherwise. And
since she is living at a lower standard of living, that means that her
children are less likely to get the education that they need to become
significant contributors.
No matter how you slice it, preventing women from getting abortions to
terminate unwanted pregnancies costs society quite a lot, both in the
short term and the long term.
You failed, again.
You have never supported your position. And I have not failed.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You made the allegation that the doctor is getting some type of
compensation,
I did not make a direct allegation, reading comprehension underling.
Well, reading comprehension failure, you made an implied allegation
with your question that challenged what was written.
so therefore you are the one that is required to support
your allegation that the doctor is being compensated from some other
source.
Your logic and debating skills suck.
They are many orders of magnitude better than your logic and debating
skills, since you have none at all.
primarily beause you lack reason and
because you are so biased.
I have provided plenty of reason. You simply dislike the reasons
because you cannot provide anything substantial to substantiate your
biased and illogical position. Your biases are well known, as your
your lack of reason.
You presented the premise, so you are responsible for
supporting it.
You formed the premise in your own mind that I directed alleged that the
doctor receives compensation for thes4 services.
That is your premise. Your question contains the premise. After all,
why would you say that the dactor that is reported to be providing
specific services to disaster victims for free is receiving
compensation if you did not think that he was receiving compensation.
That premise was present as soon as you stated that you see no proof
that the doctor was not receiving compensation for his services.
In fact, you literally restate this premise at the end of your post,
proving that it is your premise.
Your lies are easily noticed.
You are seeing what is not there. I am telling the truth, as usual.
Your attempts to weasel out of support your premises are easily
noticed, since that is about all you do.
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No, the original article said that a particular doctor was offering
free abortions to women affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Nobody ever
said that you were offering abortions, free or otherwise.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
We already know that they are free, since that is what the article said
in the first place. You offered the premise that the doctor was
getting compensation from some other source.
And for proof that you provided that premise the quote is yours from
earlier in the thread:
"I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without compensation from any source."
You have presented the premise that he was getting compensation when
the original article made no indication of this.
He was getting compensation for performing abortions.
For the ones that he does for pay, yes. Not for the ones that he is
doing for free, which are the only ones that are under discussion.
You think he didn't?
No. The article stated that he was providing abortions to Hurricane
Katrina victims for free. Therefore, there is no reason to think that
he is getting any compensation for those abortions. You seem to think
that he is. Therefore, it is up to you to prove your premise.
LOL!
Now you think he never performed an abortion and received compensation at
any time?
You are mis-stating your premise. He is not getting compensation for
the abortions that he is doing for free for Hurricane Katrina victims.
You have yet to show that he gets any compensation for these abortions.
LOL!
Therefore, it is your
premise. And therefore, you are responsible for supporting it. And I
have yet to see any support for your premise, as usual for you.
Bye. argumentative fool.
I do not see you supporting your premise. And you are the ignorant
fool, since you do not seem to know anything, and you are trying to
make yourself seem better than you are and failing miserably. You
cannot support anything that you say, which only supports your
opponent. You are the only argumentative fool present in this thread.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
14 Dec 2005 07:12:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:08:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Z_Lnf.7150$kP5.1209@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Did you see any indication that it was not?
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You certainly implied it. Your position is that the doctor was paid
by someone at some point.
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No one said you were. You are probably not qualified to do so.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
No, you simply raise a question with no basis for doing so simply as a
smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy. As usual the accuracy of your
comments and any truth they may or may not contain are entirely
outside your concern or interest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 08:41:42 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:f660q1ho616ee8i9p0uafqreic3us3ss9b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:08:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Z_Lnf.7150$kP5.1209@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Did you see any indication that it was not?
Yes. I saw nothing that said that Planned Parenthood was not compensating
this man to perform abortions.
Free to the Customer does NOT mean free to society.
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past.
Endlessly?
LOL!
Is that why it goes away so much and then someone has to present thier money
lover's ***** reasons again to sustain killing human beings in utero to make
a dollar?
Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You certainly implied it.
Actually, the article implied it.
Your position is that the doctor was paid
by someone at some point.
He was paid.
You forgot that part, too?
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No one said you were. You are probably not qualified to do so.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
No, you simply raise a question with no basis for doing so simply as a
smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy. As usual the accuracy of your
comments and any truth they may or may not contain are entirely
outside your concern or interest.
Your NARAL-esque ***** sucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 04:19:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:41:42 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Befof.22255$Y72.14574@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:f660q1ho616ee8i9p0uafqreic3us3ss9b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:08:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Z_Lnf.7150$kP5.1209@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Did you see any indication that it was not?
Yes. I saw nothing that said that Planned Parenthood was not compensating
this man to perform abortions.
There was nothing that said the Free Union Of Outer Space Beings was
not compensating him either. Do you assume he is getting money from
them? Do you assume he is being compensated by every organization
that was not mentioned as not compensating him?
The Boy Scouts?
The Catholic Church?
The JDL?
The Republican Party?
The AFof L?
Intel?
Chase Bank?
Operation Freedom?
The list is long . . .
Free to the Customer does NOT mean free to society.
Sometimes it does.
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past.
Endlessly?
Over and over and over and over.
Perhaps I should have said 'tediously' since the constant repetition
is somewhat tiresome.
LOL!
Is that why it goes away so much and then someone has to present thier money
lover's ***** reasons again to sustain killing human beings in utero to make
a dollar?
There is no human being before birth, and being paid for services is
the way our system works.
Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You certainly implied it.
Actually, the article implied it.
Oh? Not from where I sit.
Your position is that the doctor was paid
by someone at some point.
He was paid.
You forgot that part, too?
Then the subject is a lie isn't it? It is not free.
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No one said you were. You are probably not qualified to do so.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
No, you simply raise a question with no basis for doing so simply as a
smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy. As usual the accuracy of your
comments and any truth they may or may not contain are entirely
outside your concern or interest.
Your NARAL-esque ***** sucks.
Again you try to pull attention from your lack of facts with a trigger
word loaded comment meaning nothing but loaded with propaganda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 04:39:15 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:req3q1df9nl9083g3fhhlqatt2mfi46j9b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:41:42 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Befof.22255$Y72.14574@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:f660q1ho616ee8i9p0uafqreic3us3ss9b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:08:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Z_Lnf.7150$kP5.1209@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Did you see any indication that it was not?
Yes. I saw nothing that said that Planned Parenthood was not compensating
this man to perform abortions.
There was nothing that said the Free Union Of Outer Space Beings was
not compensating him either.
Correct.
Do you assume he is getting money from
them?
How would I know?
Would the Free Union of Outer Space beings want to pay him?
Do you assume he is being compensated by every organization
that was not mentioned as not compensating him?
The Boy Scouts?
The Catholic Church?
The JDL?
The Republican Party?
The AFof L?
Intel?
Chase Bank?
Operation Freedom?
The list is long . . .
Free to the Customer does NOT mean free to society.
Sometimes it does.
And maybe so.
If he is doing this 100 percent free without any compensation and without
deducting anything from his taxable income by doing it then I guess it
appears to be more free.
Then the real cost(s), if any, associated with this activity would be
incurred only by him and then we see it cost him, a member of society,
something, but if there was no cost at all I guess it is a free activity.
Then we can get into the opportunity cost associated with conducting 'free'
activities.
You heard of TINSTAAFL before?
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past.
Endlessly?
Over and over and over and over.
Perhaps I should have said 'tediously' since the constant repetition
is somewhat tiresome.
LOL!
Is that why it goes away so much and then someone has to present thier
money
lover's ***** reasons again to sustain killing human beings in utero to
make
a dollar?
There is no human being before birth, and being paid for services is
the way our system works.
Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You certainly implied it.
Actually, the article implied it.
Oh? Not from where I sit.
Your position is that the doctor was paid
by someone at some point.
He was paid.
You forgot that part, too?
Then the subject is a lie isn't it? It is not free.
I do not know.
Free to the customer would mean at least partially free, right?
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No one said you were. You are probably not qualified to do so.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
No, you simply raise a question with no basis for doing so simply as a
smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy. As usual the accuracy of your
comments and any truth they may or may not contain are entirely
outside your concern or interest.
Your NARAL-esque ***** sucks.
Again you try to pull attention from your lack of facts with a trigger
word loaded comment meaning nothing but loaded with propaganda.
Lack of facts is not that hard to overcome with auditing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 09:58:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:39:15 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<bemof.4316$zt1.1203@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:req3q1df9nl9083g3fhhlqatt2mfi46j9b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:41:42 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Befof.22255$Y72.14574@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:f660q1ho616ee8i9p0uafqreic3us3ss9b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:08:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Z_Lnf.7150$kP5.1209@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1134485001.895457.280020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
However, chances are it is also free to the society.
I saw no indication of that in the post.
Did you see any indication that it was not?
Yes. I saw nothing that said that Planned Parenthood was not compensating
this man to perform abortions.
There was nothing that said the Free Union Of Outer Space Beings was
not compensating him either.
Correct.
Do you assume he is getting money from
them?
How would I know?
You seem to assume for no reason and on no basis that somehow this
doctor is being paid by someone for his services. Why do you make
this assumption?
Would the Free Union of Outer Space beings want to pay him?
Why would they not want to pay him? That is the question you are
raising.
Do you assume he is being compensated by every organization
that was not mentioned as not compensating him?
The Boy Scouts?
The Catholic Church?
The JDL?
The Republican Party?
The AFof L?
Intel?
Chase Bank?
Operation Freedom?
The list is long . . .
Free to the Customer does NOT mean free to society.
Sometimes it does.
And maybe so.
Yes, sometimes it does.
If he is doing this 100 percent free without any compensation and without
deducting anything from his taxable income by doing it then I guess it
appears to be more free.
More free? How can something be 'more free'? It is either free or it
is not free.
Then the real cost(s), if any, associated with this activity would be
incurred only by him and then we see it cost him, a member of society,
something, but if there was no cost at all I guess it is a free activity.
Is there anything in the overall statement that indicates this is not
in fact the case? If an electrician said he was going to donate his
services to free electrical work under these same conditions would you
automatically assume he is being paid by someone else other than the
end user?
How about taxies that give free rides on New Years to reduce drunk
driving? Do you look for someone who pays them to do this?
Then we can get into the opportunity cost associated with conducting 'free'
activities.
You heard of TINSTAAFL before?
Of course. But generally such costs are borne by the person who gives
their time and service. Otherwise the service would be provided at
cost, not for free, to insure expenses are covered.
There is a value to the publicity, but that cannot be considered
compensation.
It certainly
costs society less than forcing her to continue her pregnancy against
her will.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past.
Endlessly?
Over and over and over and over.
Perhaps I should have said 'tediously' since the constant repetition
is somewhat tiresome.
LOL!
Is that why it goes away so much and then someone has to present thier
money
lover's ***** reasons again to sustain killing human beings in utero to
make
a dollar?
There is no human being before birth, and being paid for services is
the way our system works.
Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
And that is just considering the cost of the pregnancy
through childbirth.
I see no proof of your statement.
The proof has been endlessly provided here in the past. Your refusal
to accept or remember it has no bearing on reality.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
I see no proof from you of the doctor getting any compensation.
I am not required to prove it.
You certainly implied it.
Actually, the article implied it.
Oh? Not from where I sit.
Your position is that the doctor was paid
by someone at some point.
He was paid.
You forgot that part, too?
Then the subject is a lie isn't it? It is not free.
I do not know.
Free to the customer would mean at least partially free, right?
No, something is either free or not free. If something is advertised
as free it is frequently illegal for that item or service to be
compensated for by someone else.
Why do you say the doctor was paid? What do you base this statement
upon? Did ne not say he was providing this service free?
I did not make a statement that I was offering free abortions.
No one said you were. You are probably not qualified to do so.
I am not required to prove that they are free or performed with
compensation
to the doctor who offerred to perform free abortions.
No, you simply raise a question with no basis for doing so simply as a
smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy. As usual the accuracy of your
comments and any truth they may or may not contain are entirely
outside your concern or interest.
Your NARAL-esque ***** sucks.
Again you try to pull attention from your lack of facts with a trigger
word loaded comment meaning nothing but loaded with propaganda.
Lack of facts is not that hard to overcome with auditing.
But you have no such audit. You simply don't like abortions and
attack anyone involved with them with absolutely no interest in
whether what you say contains any truth whatsoever. As far as you are
concerned whatever you say is justified because you don't like the
idea of abortions and therefore can do or say whatever you like with
no regard for content, accuracy, or any other reasonable or logical
factor. The end justifies the means.
Which is exactly how the terrorists on 9/11 performed. Just like you.
In the mideast those with similar opinions carry bombs into crowds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
13 Dec 2005 04:01:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society. That is not for you to define or
determine.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it. Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
13 Dec 2005 09:06:10 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
14 Dec 2005 12:53:35 AM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
A member of society is not all of society and is not a spokeman for
the society.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
Your whining does not imply cost to society.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
14 Dec 2005 07:06:00 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYLnf.7139$kP5.5351@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
Possibly. But at best you speak for only one member unless you have
been designated under the rules of a society to speak for that
society. You certainly have not been so designated by my society. You
do not and never will speak for me in any way on any subject.
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
What vote totals? The subject under discussion does not involve any
vote.
If someone uses his chainsaw to cut a tree limb to clear a road and
does not charge his neighbors for this does that imply he submits a
bill to someone else for payment?
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Free to the customer does not imply any other charge to any segment of
society.
I
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
You evidently do not understand this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 08:21:59 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q50q1lbv7nqqsubn7oupir5rb038jpd29@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYLnf.7139$kP5.5351@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
Possibly. But at best you speak for only one member unless you have
been designated under the rules of a society to speak for that
society.
You showed some qualification according to your own standard to grant you
more authority in society than me?
You certainly have not been so designated by my society.
What society is your society?
I live in the USA, my society, the society I live in.
You
do not and never will speak for me in any way on any subject.
You really want it that way?
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
What vote totals?
You forgot about the vote in this society?
Obviously the USA isn't your society since you seem not to know about it as
much as me.
The subject under discussion does not involve any
vote.
Society involves many things, and votes are part of it in the USA.
Sorry you want to dis2qualifgy yourself so easily with your ignorance.
This is NOT your society because you know too little about it.
If someone uses his chainsaw to cut a tree limb to clear a road and
does not charge his neighbors for this does that imply he submits a
bill to someone else for payment?
It could imply that he drives a bigger vehicle and is the only one who
needed the tree limb removed.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
LOL!
My writing a true statement disqualifies me from speaking for society?
Seems to me you are not for society now.
Free to the customer does not imply any other charge to any segment of
society.
Free to the customer implies only what it says.
Whether it means what it says is another issue.
And, there is no reason to assume that it means more than what it says.
So, I am not for assuming that free to the customer means free to society at
large.
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
You evidently do not understand this.
Nah.
Seems to me you are wiggling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 04:09:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<6Yeof.2399$zt1.573@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q50q1lbv7nqqsubn7oupir5rb038jpd29@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYLnf.7139$kP5.5351@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
Possibly. But at best you speak for only one member unless you have
been designated under the rules of a society to speak for that
society.
You showed some qualification according to your own standard to grant you
more authority in society than me?
Where did I say I have such authority?
You certainly have not been so designated by my society.
What society is your society?
The USA.
I live in the USA, my society, the society I live in.
You
do not and never will speak for me in any way on any subject.
You really want it that way?
Absolutely. You do not and never will speak for me in any way on any
thing. I totally disagree with you on every conceivable subject.
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
What vote totals?
You forgot about the vote in this society?
No vote was under discussion. Are you stupid or just can't keep up?
Obviously the USA isn't your society since you seem not to know about it as
much as me.
Obviously I know a bit more about grammar.
The subject under discussion does not involve any
vote.
Society involves many things, and votes are part of it in the USA.
Not everything. Such as this discussion.
No vote was made involving whether or ant the free abortions offered
were free of compensation from any source.
Sorry you want to dis2qualifgy yourself so easily with your ignorance.
This is NOT your society because you know too little about it.
Amusing.
If someone uses his chainsaw to cut a tree limb to clear a road and
does not charge his neighbors for this does that imply he submits a
bill to someone else for payment?
It could imply that he drives a bigger vehicle and is the only one who
needed the tree limb removed.
That answers the above question. You truly are stupid.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
LOL!
My writing a true statement disqualifies me from speaking for society?
As a part of society I reject your statement as being false, not true.
Seems to me you are not for society now.
Free to the customer does not imply any other charge to any segment of
society.
Free to the customer implies only what it says.
And it says free. What part of "free" is beyond your comprehension?
Whether it means what it says is another issue.
True, but there is nothing implied in the information provided that
indicates anything other than 'free'. Is there?
And, there is no reason to assume that it means more than what it says.
Is there any reason to assume it does not mean exactly what it says?
If so, precisely what?
So, I am not for assuming that free to the customer means free to society at
large.
Do you make that assumption about every statement made on every
subject, or do you pick and choose?
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
You evidently do not understand this.
Nah.
Seems to me you are wiggling.
Which shows what 'means to you' is really worth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 04:27:34 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:cnp3q1lkggpglmeouo1rikppfieiquq493@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<6Yeof.2399$zt1.573@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q50q1lbv7nqqsubn7oupir5rb038jpd29@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYLnf.7139$kP5.5351@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
Possibly. But at best you speak for only one member unless you have
been designated under the rules of a society to speak for that
society.
You showed some qualification according to your own standard to grant you
more authority in society than me?
Where did I say I have such authority?
As long as you realize that we both have equal rights in the USA I think we
should be ok.
You certainly have not been so designated by my society.
What society is your society?
The USA.
I live in the USA, my society, the society I live in.
You
do not and never will speak for me in any way on any subject.
You really want it that way?
Absolutely. You do not and never will speak for me in any way on any
thing. I totally disagree with you on every conceivable subject.
I am not sure why you think my views would harm you.
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
What vote totals?
You forgot about the vote in this society?
No vote was under discussion. Are you stupid or just can't keep up?
Obviously the USA isn't your society since you seem not to know about it
as
much as me.
Obviously I know a bit more about grammar.
The subject under discussion does not involve any
vote.
Society involves many things, and votes are part of it in the USA.
Not everything. Such as this discussion.
No vote was made involving whether or ant the free abortions offered
were free of compensation from any source.
Sorry you want to disqualify yourself so easily with your ignorance.
This is NOT your society because you know too little about it.
Amusing.
If someone uses his chainsaw to cut a tree limb to clear a road and
does not charge his neighbors for this does that imply he submits a
bill to someone else for payment?
It could imply that he drives a bigger vehicle and is the only one who
needed the tree limb removed.
That answers the above question. You truly are stupid.
Do you have an answer for it?
I have considered the right of way and who benefits from it and how it
should be maintained and how such maintenance should be financed.
You did not tell me enough specifics for me to give you a concise answer.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
LOL!
My writing a true statement disqualifies me from speaking for society?
As a part of society I reject your statement as being false, not true.
How do you know there is no compensation to the doctor in this case?
Seems to me you are not for society now.
Free to the customer does not imply any other charge to any segment of
society.
Free to the customer implies only what it says.
And it says free. What part of "free" is beyond your comprehension?
Free means free which would imply that the doctor receives zero compensation
from any source for conducting this service.
Whether it means what it says is another issue.
True, but there is nothing implied in the information provided that
indicates anything other than 'free'. Is there?
It only indicated free abortions were being offerred.
That is all I saw to go on.
And, there is no reason to assume that it means more than what it says.
Is there any reason to assume it does not mean exactly what it says?
If so, precisely what?
Not being the person who made the statement I am not able to give you the
details.
So, I am not for assuming that free to the customer means free to society
at
large.
Do you make that assumption about every statement made on every
subject, or do you pick and choose?
Such an assumption may be made on many subjects.
Are you wanting to assert that tax exemptions to Churches are not free to
society at large?
I can see that angle, yet the First Amendment does not allow the government
to infringe free exercise of religion rights of the people.
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
You evidently do not understand this.
Nah.
Seems to me you are wiggling.
Which shows what 'means to you' is really worth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
15 Dec 2005 09:30:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:27:34 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<d3mof.4256$zt1.2662@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:cnp3q1lkggpglmeouo1rikppfieiquq493@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<6Yeof.2399$zt1.573@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q50q1lbv7nqqsubn7oupir5rb038jpd29@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:10 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sYLnf.7139$kP5.5351@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mo6tp19ii846p4466rggqhqnecjhbg0s3k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster
victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work
without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
Am I a member of society?
Possibly. But at best you speak for only one member unless you have
been designated under the rules of a society to speak for that
society.
You showed some qualification according to your own standard to grant you
more authority in society than me?
Where did I say I have such authority?
As long as you realize that we both have equal rights in the USA I think we
should be ok.
No, you do not and will not speak or act for me. Yet you seem to
think you speak for everyone. You do not and never will. You are
arrogant.
Any position you take on anything is nothing more than a position
taken by one person, and it inconsequential.
You certainly have not been so designated by my society.
What society is your society?
The USA.
I live in the USA, my society, the society I live in.
You
do not and never will speak for me in any way on any subject.
You really want it that way?
Absolutely. You do not and never will speak for me in any way on any
thing. I totally disagree with you on every conceivable subject.
I am not sure why you think my views would harm you.
You are an arrogant crusader who would force everyone to live
according to your personal opinions if you had the power to do so. You
are dangerous and should be stopped at every opportunity. It was
people like you who brought down the twin towers.
Fortunately you are also inept and are clear in what you are
attempting to do so what you are is apparent to everyone. For that
reason you are and will remain ineffectual.
That is not for you to define or
determine.
Observe the vote totals where votes were tallied.
What vote totals?
You forgot about the vote in this society?
No vote was under discussion. Are you stupid or just can't keep up?
Obviously the USA isn't your society since you seem not to know about it
as
much as me.
Obviously I know a bit more about grammar.
The subject under discussion does not involve any
vote.
Society involves many things, and votes are part of it in the USA.
Not everything. Such as this discussion.
No vote was made involving whether or ant the free abortions offered
were free of compensation from any source.
Sorry you want to disqualify yourself so easily with your ignorance.
This is NOT your society because you know too little about it.
Amusing.
If someone uses his chainsaw to cut a tree limb to clear a road and
does not charge his neighbors for this does that imply he submits a
bill to someone else for payment?
It could imply that he drives a bigger vehicle and is the only one who
needed the tree limb removed.
That answers the above question. You truly are stupid.
Do you have an answer for it?
There is no answer for stupidity.
I have considered the right of way and who benefits from it and how it
should be maintained and how such maintenance should be financed.
You did not tell me enough specifics for me to give you a concise answer.
Just as such information was not included as far as payment was
concerned in the origional story.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it.
Free to the customer does not imply free to the society.
You do not speak for society.
LOL!
My writing a true statement disqualifies me from speaking for society?
As a part of society I reject your statement as being false, not true.
How do you know there is no compensation to the doctor in this case?
How do you know there is? Why do you assume something that is not
addressed?
Seems to me you are not for society now.
Free to the customer does not imply any other charge to any segment of
society.
Free to the customer implies only what it says.
And it says free. What part of "free" is beyond your comprehension?
Free means free which would imply that the doctor receives zero compensation
from any source for conducting this service.
Is that not what was said? Did I misread the word 'free'?
Whether it means what it says is another issue.
True, but there is nothing implied in the information provided that
indicates anything other than 'free'. Is there?
It only indicated free abortions were being offerred.
That is all I saw to go on.
Then what part of 'free' implies to you compensation?
And, there is no reason to assume that it means more than what it says.
Is there any reason to assume it does not mean exactly what it says?
If so, precisely what?
Not being the person who made the statement I am not able to give you the
details.
Why do you think it was not in fact fully and completely a free
service?
So, I am not for assuming that free to the customer means free to society
at
large.
Do you make that assumption about every statement made on every
subject, or do you pick and choose?
Such an assumption may be made on many subjects.
Oh? Such as what?
Are you wanting to assert that tax exemptions to Churches are not free to
society at large?
No, they are not free. All such exemptions must be made up by the
taxes of others because a total amount of taxes is necessary for a
government to function. Tax exemptions do not mean less tax overall,
simply that it is paid by someone else. the total amount of needed
revenue must still be raised.
That has nothing to do with an offer of a free or reduced cost service
for a limited group for a limited time.
I can see that angle, yet the First Amendment does not allow the government
to infringe free exercise of religion rights of the people.
Not giving tax exemptions to religious groups is not an infringement
on their rights. Religion has no right to such an exemption.
Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
Free means free, in case you forgot.
You evidently do not understand this.
Nah.
Seems to me you are wiggling.
Which shows what 'means to you' is really worth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
13 Dec 2005 05:49:04 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:31 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%7mnf.3234$kP5.2330@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:kkgrp11bgojqt0db2ese28nf5ds2ev70c8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1fnf.8283$MA2.7251@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:92qpp1d8apemo82pbnfqj006lnlevmb010@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<OOednUN9lO4CKgHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
A service provider is offering his services free to disaster victims.
I see no proof that the doctor in this case is offering to work without
compensation from any source.
Then they would not be free would they?
Free to the customer does not necessarily mean free to the society.
You do not speak for society. That is not for you to define or
determine.
Just at no charge to the
patient.
Do you see any proof payment is being made from some other source?
I see no proof that there is no compensation to the doctor.
The use of the word 'free' certainly implies it. Or does that word
have a special meaning in your world, as so many words seem to have?
You got it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
11 Dec 2005 09:08:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
"Abortionist Edwards seems to enjoy child-killing to the extent that he is
willing to try new methods, in spite of the risks to women. One has to
wonder who he experimented on when developing his early abortion method and
what happened to those unfortunate women," said Operation Rescue
spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.
In the litigious USA, isn't a statement like that sailing a little
close to the wind? They seem to be inferring that this bloke conducted
dangerous experiments which would be against the law. Defamation? Or
do extremist Christians have some sort of legal immunity when it comes
to lies like that?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
16 Dec 2005 12:05:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:19 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
The good folks at Operation Rescue do have a valid point, these women are
already suffering emotional turmoil. These are not the times to be
influencing decisions of life or death.
Not a very good time to have a baby either, but I'm betting you don't
have any first-hand knowledge on that.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Preying on the Vulnerable: Abortionist Offers Free Abortions to Hurricane Victims |
13 Dec 2005 07:08:11 AM | | |
