| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mike D." |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 08:59:15 PM |
| Object: |
Question |
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual, and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life. If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt, or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them, since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here, judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills). By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you all?
Mike.
.
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
10 Mar 2005 07:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z8WdnXsiwo-kQq3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion
the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual,
## Yes. And THAT comes first. It's the woman's body and you and I have no
right to force her to do anything she doesn't want to do. No one is forcing
YOU or her to abort an unwanted fetus.
and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life.
## A fetus is not another person with rights. Sperm and eggs are also
potential persons - are you also going to start defending their rights?
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt, or even
in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
## Sadists torture humans as well as animals. HELLO,... here have you
been? No one is torturing the fetus. It's quickly dispatched and removed.
since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here, judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
## How is insulting those with different beliefs than yours going to help
you win an argument? There are idiots out there who would happily force a
woman to bear the child of a brutal rapist, no matter the mental and
physical cost to the woman. If you want to punish women - find another way.
Start by not getting anyone pregnant.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you all?
Mike.
## Where's the connection?
CR..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 02:21:26 AM |
|
|
Cracklin Rosie, this what you said
## How is insulting those with different beliefs than yours going to help
you win an argument? There are idiots out there who would happily force a
woman to bear the child of a brutal rapist, no matter the mental and
physical cost to the woman. If you want to punish women - find another way.
Start by not getting anyone pregnant.
I am not trying to win an argument( right is right and wrong is wrong,
regardless of what me and another person say about it) I was trying to
convince someone that abortion is wrong, because it is killing, and whether
it is necessary or not it is still wrong.
You said If I want to punish women, I should start by not getting them
pregnant. What that means, by deduction, is that it would be desirable to
any woman to be impregnated by me. You show a lot about yourself by tripping
over your own words, like some of the other foaming the mouth haters here
( humphrey, chilton and rosie are the big three in my opinion. Vehement
pro-abortion liberal Bill Clinton worshipping types. People such as you are
what undermines great civilizations and make them come apart at the seams
from within. You promote various types of behaviors which weaken a society
and debauch it. You promote homicide and call kowtowing to an irresponsible
persons inclination to dodge responsibility, at the expense of the life of
a bay, and call it protecting a persons rights. You protect a woman's right
not to be inconvenienced at the expense of the life of an unborn, and
reconcile it all by denying any life is being lost with an outrageous lie
( "it isn't a human, it's just a clot of cells, like a tumor") and try to
say you are a champion of freedom. The problem is, nobody believes you, the
truth is clear as day. Abortion involves the killing of an unborn baby. No
matter how many times you lie, it is still killing, and everyone knows it.
The honest ones admit what they are doing, the scum ( u know who you are)
try to call the blue sky green. Mike.
"Cracklin' Rosie" <koi@fish.net> wrote in message
news:4230ed86$0$1654$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z8WdnXsiwo-kQq3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion
the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual,
## Yes. And THAT comes first. It's the woman's body and you and I have
no
right to force her to do anything she doesn't want to do. No one is
forcing
YOU or her to abort an unwanted fetus.
and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost
of
another person's life.
## A fetus is not another person with rights. Sperm and eggs are also
potential persons - are you also going to start defending their rights?
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt, or even
in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
## Sadists torture humans as well as animals. HELLO,... here have you
been? No one is torturing the fetus. It's quickly dispatched and
removed.
since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here, judging
by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
## How is insulting those with different beliefs than yours going to help
you win an argument? There are idiots out there who would happily force a
woman to bear the child of a brutal rapist, no matter the mental and
physical cost to the woman. If you want to punish women - find another
way.
Start by not getting anyone pregnant.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you all?
Mike.
## Where's the connection?
CR..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 01:28:38 AM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dOadnQHNSrtct6zfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
Cracklin Rosie, this what you said
## How is insulting those with different beliefs than yours going to help
you win an argument? There are idiots out there who would happily force a
woman to bear the child of a brutal rapist, no matter the mental and
physical cost to the woman. If you want to punish women - find another
way.
Start by not getting anyone pregnant.
I am not trying to win an argument( right is right and wrong is wrong,
regardless of what me and another person say about it) I was trying to
convince someone that abortion is wrong, because it is killing, and
whether
it is necessary or not it is still wrong.
## From YOUR point of view! Vegetarians think eating animals is wrong.
Jews think eating pork is wrong. Does that give these groups the right to
foster these beliefs on others? NO! It doesn't.
You said If I want to punish women, I should start by not getting them
pregnant.
## Sorry - that wasn't clear. I meant punish them some other way than
forcing them to bear unwanted children. And do not get any pregnant unless
you BOTH want a child. Your mindles blather SNIPPED.
--
CR......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
10 Mar 2005 06:30:54 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion?
Because there is no need to defend a woman's right to continue her
pregnancy of her own free will and by her choice. Nobody is trying to
take that option away from her.
What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age.
Because we do not like the idea of forcing women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Because we do not like the idea of women being forced
into involuntary servitude, and harmed physically, emotionally, and
financially from the unwanted pregnancy. Because we either remember
what it was like before abortion was legal, or we study history, or we
can look ahead and see what the most likely short and long term results
of forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies are.
And last, but not least, because we have friends, relatives, family,
and the families of friends that include women of breeding age. We do
not have to be women to understand that forcing women to continue
unwanted pregnancies is WRONG.
I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because
they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in
no
position to defend themselves.
Not to mention that they are also acting AGAINST the interested of
human life, and they want to take away the ability for them to defend
themselves against unwanted intrusions. Namely, pregnant women that do
not want to remain pregnant.
But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could be made is that they are defending
the
personal sovereignty of the individual,
Isn't that enough? This is, after all, the USA.
and they would be extremists by definition,
Wrong. That would be the anti-choice people, since they are the ones
that seem to think that they can force women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Look at the actions of the two groups, and then think
again.
since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life.
There is only one person present in a pregnancy, and that is the
pregnant women. And even if you want to consider the embryo/fetus a
person, then that still does not work. No person has the right to
unfettered use of another person's body and bodily resources without
the used person's ongoing consent.
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion people
i know of nobody that is "pro-abortion".
should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt,
Actually, I am, with certain cravats. But that is another, completely
separate issue.
or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
That would be more in line with the anti-choice advocates, since they
are the ones in favor of forcing pregnant women to suffer the physical,
emotional, and financial hardship and torture of unwanted pregnancies,
even to the woman's severe detriment.
since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue
And anti-choice people do not seem to see the woman as a person, since
they think that they can inflict pain and suffering on her.
( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here,
judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
Yes, the anti-choice advocates do tend to be short on compassion,
logic, and reasoning skills.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you
all?
Mike.
These are complex issues in their own rights, and have nothing to do
with abortion. And we are all individuals, and thus have our own
opinions on each of these subjects. Unlike some anti-choice advocates,
we are not robots or the same, and we do not want to be. We value
individuality and freedom, including the freedom to control who and
what has use of one's body.
We do not dictate what a woman can and cannot do during her pregnancy,
nor the choices that she makes. We are simply for making sure that the
choices are available, and then leave the decision completely up to
her.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 01:37:31 AM |
|
|
Did you say you are in favor of hunting with certain cravats?
"> Actually, I am, with certain cravats. But that is another, completely
separate issue"
"cra·vat
Pronunciation: kr&-'vat
Function: noun
Etymology: French cravate, from Crabate, Cravate Croatian
1 : a band or scarf worn around the neck
2 : NECKTIE
What are you saying? That certain neckwear goes better with certain hunting
outfits? Is neckwear mandatory for you to approve a hunt? By completely
separate issue, do you mean a fashion issue?Can one shoot one's hunting
party member if that member arrives at the hunting site and has a fashion
malfunction? Mike.
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110501054.515082.117330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike D. wrote:
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion?
Because there is no need to defend a woman's right to continue her
pregnancy of her own free will and by her choice. Nobody is trying to
take that option away from her.
What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age.
Because we do not like the idea of forcing women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Because we do not like the idea of women being forced
into involuntary servitude, and harmed physically, emotionally, and
financially from the unwanted pregnancy. Because we either remember
what it was like before abortion was legal, or we study history, or we
can look ahead and see what the most likely short and long term results
of forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies are.
And last, but not least, because we have friends, relatives, family,
and the families of friends that include women of breeding age. We do
not have to be women to understand that forcing women to continue
unwanted pregnancies is WRONG.
I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because
they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in
no
position to defend themselves.
Not to mention that they are also acting AGAINST the interested of
human life, and they want to take away the ability for them to defend
themselves against unwanted intrusions. Namely, pregnant women that do
not want to remain pregnant.
But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could be made is that they are defending
the
personal sovereignty of the individual,
Isn't that enough? This is, after all, the USA.
and they would be extremists by definition,
Wrong. That would be the anti-choice people, since they are the ones
that seem to think that they can force women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Look at the actions of the two groups, and then think
again.
since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life.
There is only one person present in a pregnancy, and that is the
pregnant women. And even if you want to consider the embryo/fetus a
person, then that still does not work. No person has the right to
unfettered use of another person's body and bodily resources without
the used person's ongoing consent.
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion people
i know of nobody that is "pro-abortion".
should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt,
Actually, I am, with certain cravats. But that is another, completely
separate issue.
or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
That would be more in line with the anti-choice advocates, since they
are the ones in favor of forcing pregnant women to suffer the physical,
emotional, and financial hardship and torture of unwanted pregnancies,
even to the woman's severe detriment.
since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue
And anti-choice people do not seem to see the woman as a person, since
they think that they can inflict pain and suffering on her.
( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here,
judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
Yes, the anti-choice advocates do tend to be short on compassion,
logic, and reasoning skills.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you
all?
Mike.
These are complex issues in their own rights, and have nothing to do
with abortion. And we are all individuals, and thus have our own
opinions on each of these subjects. Unlike some anti-choice advocates,
we are not robots or the same, and we do not want to be. We value
individuality and freedom, including the freedom to control who and
what has use of one's body.
We do not dictate what a woman can and cannot do during her pregnancy,
nor the choices that she makes. We are simply for making sure that the
choices are available, and then leave the decision completely up to
her.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 12:49:40 AM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
Did you say you are in favor of hunting with certain cravats?
"> Actually, I am, with certain cravats. But that is another, completely
separate issue"
"cra·vat
Pronunciation: kr&-'vat
Function: noun
Etymology: French cravate, from Crabate, Cravate Croatian
1 : a band or scarf worn around the neck
2 : NECKTIE
What are you saying? That certain neckwear goes better with certain hunting
outfits? Is neckwear mandatory for you to approve a hunt? By completely
separate issue, do you mean a fashion issue?Can one shoot one's hunting
party member if that member arrives at the hunting site and has a fashion
malfunction? Mike.
I think the logical assumption is that he meant "caveat" -- i.e., beware, or
take caution. Unlike self-proclaimed defenders of the fetus (to the exclusion
of everyone else) like you, pro-choicers generally tend not to be perfect, and
are a little more honest about it than you and your comrades are. There's a
caveat for you.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 02:05:13 AM |
|
|
I guess a parent has the right not to be inconvenienced to properly care
for whatever children she/he has elected to allow to birth. In other words,
if a mom wants to leave her toddler in the car while she gets her nails
done instead of spending money on a babysitter, the child welfare people are
inflicting mental stress on her by forcing her to spend money to provide for
the child's care and supervision while 'mom' is absent.
Let me get you( and the other ones) argument straight, by summarizing your
argument into a typical and common scenario
a woman allows herself to get pregnant. Instead of employing some type of
contraception, she gets impregnated unintentionally. If society has laws
protecting the life of the unborn child she is carrying ( contrary to the
lies you and the others repeat mindlessly, it is a scientific fact that
from the moment of conception, the offspring is a human being. It is not an
appendage, a cell, tissue, or organ, it is an organism in a state of
infancy. It is not in a state of predevelopment, it is a developing Homo
sapiens.Early development. The fact that it doesn't have a functioning
central nervous system does not negate it's status as a human being than
being in a 'persistent vegetative state' negates an accident victim's status
as a human), laws which would compel the woman to complete the pregnancy
that she started, they are forcing her into slavery?
I could respect a person if they said " I understand it is homicide, but
I/we have decided to have an abortion. At least they would be honest. But
the sorry losers who get abortions want it both ways, they want to be
irresponsible and get pregnant, then terminate the pregnancy at the cost of
the baby's life, and not have anyone say or even think they have done
anything that a decent person's conscience would be troubled over. The pro
abortionists vehemently deny existence of God, for the same reason. If
there ever is a final judgment, mincing words , lying, and all the other
games people here play when they want to call a killing a medical
procedure aren't going to help you.
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110501054.515082.117330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike D. wrote:
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion?
Because there is no need to defend a woman's right to continue her
pregnancy of her own free will and by her choice. Nobody is trying to
take that option away from her.
What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age.
Because we do not like the idea of forcing women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Because we do not like the idea of women being forced
into involuntary servitude, and harmed physically, emotionally, and
financially from the unwanted pregnancy. Because we either remember
what it was like before abortion was legal, or we study history, or we
can look ahead and see what the most likely short and long term results
of forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies are.
And last, but not least, because we have friends, relatives, family,
and the families of friends that include women of breeding age. We do
not have to be women to understand that forcing women to continue
unwanted pregnancies is WRONG.
I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because
they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in
no
position to defend themselves.
Not to mention that they are also acting AGAINST the interested of
human life, and they want to take away the ability for them to defend
themselves against unwanted intrusions. Namely, pregnant women that do
not want to remain pregnant.
But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could be made is that they are defending
the
personal sovereignty of the individual,
Isn't that enough? This is, after all, the USA.
and they would be extremists by definition,
Wrong. That would be the anti-choice people, since they are the ones
that seem to think that they can force women to continue unwanted
pregnancies. Look at the actions of the two groups, and then think
again.
since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life.
There is only one person present in a pregnancy, and that is the
pregnant women. And even if you want to consider the embryo/fetus a
person, then that still does not work. No person has the right to
unfettered use of another person's body and bodily resources without
the used person's ongoing consent.
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion people
i know of nobody that is "pro-abortion".
should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt,
Actually, I am, with certain cravats. But that is another, completely
separate issue.
or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
That would be more in line with the anti-choice advocates, since they
are the ones in favor of forcing pregnant women to suffer the physical,
emotional, and financial hardship and torture of unwanted pregnancies,
even to the woman's severe detriment.
since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue
And anti-choice people do not seem to see the woman as a person, since
they think that they can inflict pain and suffering on her.
( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here,
judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
Yes, the anti-choice advocates do tend to be short on compassion,
logic, and reasoning skills.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you
all?
Mike.
These are complex issues in their own rights, and have nothing to do
with abortion. And we are all individuals, and thus have our own
opinions on each of these subjects. Unlike some anti-choice advocates,
we are not robots or the same, and we do not want to be. We value
individuality and freedom, including the freedom to control who and
what has use of one's body.
We do not dictate what a woman can and cannot do during her pregnancy,
nor the choices that she makes. We are simply for making sure that the
choices are available, and then leave the decision completely up to
her.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
10 Mar 2005 11:14:59 PM |
|
|
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
I guess a parent has the right not to be inconvenienced to properly care
for whatever children she/he has elected to allow to birth.
Adoption is legal.
In other words,
if a mom wants to leave her toddler in the car while she gets her nails
done instead of spending money on a babysitter, the child welfare people are
inflicting mental stress on her by forcing her to spend money to provide for
the child's care and supervision while 'mom' is absent.
Try not to be dumber than you have to be.
Let me get you( and the other ones) argument straight,
You're not smart enough.
[...]
a woman allows herself to get pregnant.
In the same sense that women "allow" themselves to be raped.
Instead of employing some type of
contraception,
How do you know she didn't?
If society has laws
protecting the life of the unborn child she is carrying ( contrary to the
lies you and the others repeat mindlessly, it is a scientific fact that
from the moment of conception, the offspring is a human being.
Stop lying, *****. It isn't a "scientific" fact or any other kind
of fact. It a complete falsehood.
laws which would compel the woman to complete the pregnancy
that she started, they are forcing her into slavery?
Should she be free to to simply remove it from her body intact, or do
you demand that she provide the use of her body in order to keep it
alive?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
10 Mar 2005 08:03:35 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual, and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life.
Here's a quick lesson for you: Status as a "person" is granted by the
specific society in which one lives. In the United States, in order to
be considered a "person", society specifically states that to obtain
that status, one must be born, and must be born within the U.S. to be
considered a constitutionally protected citizen (Amendment 14). So
you're statement that "they are defending a person's rights even at the
cost of another person's life" is incorrect.
Now back to your regularly scheduled diatribe...
If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt,
There is no right to hunt. Hunting is a highly regulated privilege.
or even in favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them,
Society has crafted laws against such things.
since the only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue
That's an illogical conclusion from what you or anyone else has stated.
( I hope this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here,
It isn't sophisticated at all. It's actually quite flawed.
judging by your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills).
Judging by your statements, you don't know that you aren't too strong in
logic or reasoning skills.
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs,
Some are, some aren't. It's a different issue.
legalization of suicide,
Suicide absolutely should be legal, as no one can ever be prosecuted for
successfully committing the "crime" of suicide.
etcetera.
Define etcetera.
Are you all?
All your base are belong to pro-choice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, itll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:31:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:59:15 -0800,
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Why would people who are [Pro-Choice] come here to
defend abortion?
We defend that remedy, as well as unfettered and easy ACCESS
to that remedy, to all girls and women who CHOOSE it. *Being*
Pro-Choicers, we just as vigorously defend the right of all women to
have no barriers to choosing to gestate-to-term, as well, if that is
their choice. UNlike our mindless and hateful ANTI-Choice counter-
parts, who would loathsomely DENY the first choice to those girls
and women, which would leave them with NO choice but to be
FORCED to gestate-to-term against their will, and thus undergo a
very real, 8-month-long form of forcible RAPE at their hands.
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
<Mindless TRIPE flushed. No loss.>
By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera.
Are you all?
SENSIBLE and compassionate people support ALL personal
liberties in which the person exercising them does no overt harm
to his neighbors. That pretty much rules out drugs, since even
one as innocuous and marijuana can impair perceptions when
driving, which can result in accidents that can injure or kill others.
Another personal right that egalitarians widely accept and
support is the sort of "Death with Dignity" statute that the vast
majority of Oregonians support, voted twice upon as referenda,
and passed both times. Even MORE overwhelmingly, the
*second* time.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 06:08:52 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4dv231duj1l4mhjo8uh3die41pu2tlmp6b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:59:15 -0800,
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Why would people who are [Pro-Choice] come here to
defend abortion?
We defend that remedy, as well as unfettered and easy ACCESS
to that remedy, to all girls and women who CHOOSE it. *Being*
Pro-Choicers, we just as vigorously defend the right of all women to
have no barriers to choosing to gestate-to-term, as well, if that is
their choice. UNlike our mindless and hateful ANTI-Choice counter-
parts, who would loathsomely DENY the first choice to those girls
and women, which would leave them with NO choice but to be
FORCED to gestate-to-term against their will, and thus undergo a
very real, 8-month-long form of forcible RAPE at their hands.
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:02:38 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4dv231duj1l4mhjo8uh3die41pu2tlmp6b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:59:15 -0800,
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Why would people who are [Pro-Choice] come here to
defend abortion?
We defend that remedy, as well as unfettered and easy ACCESS
to that remedy, to all girls and women who CHOOSE it. *Being*
Pro-Choicers, we just as vigorously defend the right of all women to
have no barriers to choosing to gestate-to-term, as well, if that is
their choice. UNlike our mindless and hateful ANTI-Choice counter-
parts, who would loathsomely DENY the first choice to those girls
and women, which would leave them with NO choice but to be
FORCED to gestate-to-term against their will, and thus undergo a
very real, 8-month-long form of forcible RAPE at their hands.
So -- if you want to understand such fair-minded, sensible, and
compassionate people as those of us who are Pro-Choicers with
respect to the remedy of abortion, you need go no farther than your
dictionary, and look up just this ONE word: Egalitarian.
Here's another word for you to look up:
adoption.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 12:46:49 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
CR.......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:18:40 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents? For
all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher rate than
the abortion advocates. Wouldn't that also be a logical explanation for the
126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the abortion advocates aren't
doing their part?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 08:03:21 PM |
|
|
"Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wvSdnThPyNZMha_fRVn-iA@adelphia.com...
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the
United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most
of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no
family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
============================
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents?
# Where are yours? Every healthy white child put up for adoption is snapped
up as fast as you can say Jack Frost. Now prove the thousands in State care
who are not white or who are disabled are really NOT THERE. That the
states are lying and no foster homes are needed....
For
all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher rate
than
the abortion advocates.
# For all we know? Then why are so many unwanted disabled, minority and
bi-racial children in state care? Where are all those anti-choicers who
were instrumental in them being born?
Wouldn't that also be a logical explanation for the
126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the abortion advocates
aren't
doing their part?
# What do you expect them to do when there are more unwanted children then
anti-choicer loud-mouths willing to adopt them? You do realize that once
these unwanted children are born the anti-choicers are no longer involved or
interested, aren't you? Why aren't YOU anti-choicers doing something to
get these disabled and non-white children adopted?
CR...........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 08:26:05 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:42324deb$0$29281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wvSdnThPyNZMha_fRVn-iA@adelphia.com...
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the
United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most
of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no
family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
============================
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents?
# Where are yours?
Are you getting the point yet....there are none. Yet you blather on as if
it is a given that this situation is the abortion opponents fault.
Every healthy white child put up for adoption is snapped
up as fast as you can say Jack Frost. Now prove the thousands in State
care
who are not white or who are disabled are really NOT THERE. That the
states are lying and no foster homes are needed....
And this is the abortion opponents fault, as opposed to the fault of
abortion advocates....how?
For
all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher rate
than
the abortion advocates.
# For all we know? Then why are so many unwanted disabled, minority and
bi-racial children in state care? Where are all those anti-choicers who
were instrumental in them being born?
Ahhh, now we get to it. You believe that it would be better that these kids
were never born at all. I thought you were pro-CHOICE! Apparently it was
the mothers' CHOICE to bear these children.
Wouldn't that also be a logical explanation for the
126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the abortion advocates
aren't
doing their part?
# What do you expect them to do when there are more unwanted children then
anti-choicer loud-mouths willing to adopt them? You do realize that once
these unwanted children are born the anti-choicers are no longer involved
or
interested, aren't you? Why aren't YOU anti-choicers doing something to
get these disabled and non-white children adopted?
Here we go again. One could just as easily say, "What do you expect them to
do when there are more unwanted children then pro-choicer loud-mouths
willing to adopt them? You do realize that once these unwanted children are
born the pro-choicers are no longer involved or
interested, aren't you? Why aren't YOU pro-choicers doing something to get
these disabled and non-white children adopted?" Where are your FACTS on
adoption rates of pro-choicers vs. pro-lifers? The CHOICE was made to bear
these children!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:25:02 PM |
|
|
Eraser wrote:
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents?
It's doubtful such stats exist.
For all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher rate than
the abortion advocates. Wouldn't that also be a logical explanation for the
126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the abortion advocates aren't
doing their part?
Considering you started that statement with "for all we know", what type
of reply are you expecting? Do you want someone to argue against an unknown?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 05:55:40 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2VoYd.214$gV1.115@news02.roc.ny...
Eraser wrote:
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents?
It's doubtful such stats exist.
For all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher
rate than the abortion advocates. Wouldn't that also be a logical
explanation for the 126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the
abortion advocates aren't doing their part?
Considering you started that statement with "for all we know", what type
of reply are you expecting? Do you want someone to argue against an
unknown?
I was asking a rhetorical question in order to point out the fact that
Cracklin' Rosie's diatribe against abortion opponents is as unfounded an
explanation for the number of unadopted children as the explanation that I
offered. Either explanation would suffice...if either were founded on
anything other than biased analysis. (Sheeesh....I'm really shocked that I
had to explain that.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 08:08:38 PM |
|
|
"Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ctKdncjGOZUYsq_fRVn-hw@adelphia.com...
I was asking a rhetorical question in order to point out the fact that
Cracklin' Rosie's diatribe against abortion opponents is as unfounded an
explanation for the number of unadopted children as the explanation that I
offered.
# The issue is - why aren't all the abortion opponents doing MORE for all
the children they coerce unwilling women to bear? They abandon the unwanted
child and woman as soon as it's born. That the child is never adopted
doesn't faze them at all. Why aren't they running agencies to find homes
for all these children? They seem to expect the Gov. or "someone else" to
do that dirty work for them. They never mention these youngsters rotting
away in state care, going from one foster home to another, to another.....
Either explanation would suffice...if either were founded on
anything other than biased analysis. (Sheeesh....I'm really shocked that
I
had to explain that.)
# BS! You're trying to hide the truth that thousands are already
languishing in state custody and will never get adopted.
CR......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 08:16:43 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:42324f28$0$29284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ctKdncjGOZUYsq_fRVn-hw@adelphia.com...
I was asking a rhetorical question in order to point out the fact that
Cracklin' Rosie's diatribe against abortion opponents is as unfounded an
explanation for the number of unadopted children as the explanation that
I
offered.
# The issue is - why aren't all the abortion opponents doing MORE for all
the children they coerce unwilling women to bear? They abandon the
unwanted
child and woman as soon as it's born. That the child is never adopted
doesn't faze them at all. Why aren't they running agencies to find homes
for all these children? They seem to expect the Gov. or "someone else" to
do that dirty work for them. They never mention these youngsters rotting
away in state care, going from one foster home to another, to another.....
Once again, as I said earlier, you offer no facts...just blathering
invective. One could just as easily say that the abortion opponents are
doing everything humanly possible to save the unwanted child, but it is the
abortion advocates who aren't doing their part in adopting them. Maybe it
is the abortion opponents who are running agencies to find homes for these
children, but the advocates aren't do the same. Could be that it is the
abortion advocates who seem to expect the Gov. or "someone else" to do that
dirty work for them, and it is they never mention these youngsters rotting
away in state care, going from one foster home to another. Without any
facts to back up your diatribe, it is very easy to blather on about these
thing.....but WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?
Either explanation would suffice...if either were founded on
anything other than biased analysis. (Sheeesh....I'm really shocked that
I
had to explain that.)
# BS! You're trying to hide the truth that thousands are already
languishing in state custody and will never get adopted.
So why don't abortion advocates handle the situation and begin adopting
them. <sarcasm>After all, as I said above it is very apparent that the
abortion opponents are doing everything humanly possible, but the advocates
aren't doing their share.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 09:05:26 PM |
|
|
Eraser wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2VoYd.214$gV1.115@news02.roc.ny...
Eraser wrote:
"Cracklin' Rosie" <K@Rosie.net> wrote in message
news:4231e79e$0$29279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
===============================
They're the WRONG color/race. Some are disabled. Sad but true. Most of
these unwanted and unloved minority children will stay in State care.
They're kicked out at the age of 18 to fend for themselves with no family
members and little chance of success in life. Do you think the
anti-choice
group cares about these BORN people? Not a chance in hell.....
Blathering invective says nothing. Where are your stats which show the
average adoption rate for abortion advocates vs. abortion opponents?
It's doubtful such stats exist.
For all we know, the abortion opponents are adopting at a much higher
rate than the abortion advocates. Wouldn't that also be a logical
explanation for the 126,000 children waiting to be adopted...that the
abortion advocates aren't doing their part?
Considering you started that statement with "for all we know", what type
of reply are you expecting? Do you want someone to argue against an
unknown?
I was asking a rhetorical question in order to point out the fact that
Cracklin' Rosie's diatribe against abortion opponents is as unfounded an
explanation for the number of unadopted children as the explanation that I
offered. Either explanation would suffice...if either were founded on
anything other than biased analysis. (Sheeesh....I'm really shocked that I
had to explain that.)
You didn't. You could've just said "None".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 04:39:06 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 09:53:03 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
No, he's asking a Jeezoid like you why you can't be bothered to do as you
demand of everyone else.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:27:20 AM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1xalseow.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
No, he's asking a Jeezoid like you why you can't be bothered to do as you
demand of everyone else.
Sticks and stones... Sticks and stones...
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 08:31:11 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1xalseow.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
No, he's asking a Jeezoid like you why you can't be bothered to do as you
demand of everyone else.
Sticks and stones... Sticks and stones...
Oh, well, you decided to cut and run 24 minutes after you deigned to respond
to my observations...I'll be thankful that I only spent a bit less than my
first decade being a short drive down the road in Tulsa, where we had Brother
Oral to use for target practice. Give your friend Fred Phelps and his
diseased brood my regards.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 08:13:33 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:i6pYd.7135$ju.5038@okepread07...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:yijYd.162$WI1.49@news02.roc.ny...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
=================================>
Are you trying to use it to add thousands more each year? 126,000 homeless
children isn't enough? Or are you and your anti-choice friends out there
actively trying to find homes for those already here and
unwanted/unadoptable? Are you all contributing to their future college
education's? Try putting your money where your mouth is.
CR........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 08:17:37 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rosie" <koi@fish.net> wrote in message
news:42324b5a$0$1672$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the
United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
=================================>
Are you trying to use it to add thousands more each year? 126,000
homeless
children isn't enough? Or are you and your anti-choice friends out there
actively trying to find homes for those already here and
unwanted/unadoptable? Are you all contributing to their future college
education's?
Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
Try putting your money where your mouth is.
Harsh words are a sign of a weak argument.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
11 Mar 2005 10:00:19 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Cracklin' Rosie" <koi@fish.net> wrote in message
news:42324b5a$0$1672$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
There are currently 126,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United
States. Where are the "caring" families who can't have children?
Are you trying to use this as justification to murder?
Are you trying to use it to add thousands more each year? 126,000 homeless
children isn't enough? Or are you and your anti-choice friends out there
actively trying to find homes for those already here and
unwanted/unadoptable? Are you all contributing to their future college
education's?
Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
So, you're not just an arrogant "Christian", but a cowardly arrogant
"Christian", and in Wichita, of all places. Who'd have guessed -that-?
Try putting your money where your mouth is.
Harsh words are a sign of a weak argument.
I can hardly wait for your explanation of how the guy known as "BTK" is
getting railroaded.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:29:49 AM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szksm31qzsc.fsf@eris.io.com...
..
So, you're not just an arrogant "Christian", but a cowardly arrogant
"Christian", and in Wichita, of all places. Who'd have guessed -that-?
Sticks and stones... Sticks and stones...
I can hardly wait for your explanation of how the guy known as "BTK" is
getting railroaded.
Huh?
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 08:34:51 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szksm31qzsc.fsf@eris.io.com...
So, you're not just an arrogant "Christian", but a cowardly arrogant
"Christian", and in Wichita, of all places. Who'd have guessed -that-?
Sticks and stones... Sticks and stones...
Someone needs to nudge you -- your needle's stuck again.
I can hardly wait for your explanation of how the guy known as "BTK" is
getting railroaded.
Huh?
He's in YOUR community, Sherlock -- and was a pillar of his church right there
in Wichita...while hiding that little detail about his past for fifteen years
or so. I can sympathize with a lot of people up there being in shock about
that. Given some of the church's leaders, though, I'm expecting some spin
control.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 5, Houston 0 (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 12 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
