Science > Abortion > Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" |
| Date: |
20 Jul 2006 07:06:58 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
On 19 Jul 2006 09:28:57 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky wrote:
Craig Chilton<xanadu222@mchsi.com>wrote:
Moronic Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
Pro-Choice in a nutshell.
Wrong! HERE are the FACTS:
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human (adj.)
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
* (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
To the contrary. I'm a sensible, fair-minded and intelligent
egalitarian who marshals facts well and then presents them
effectively, so as to help to destroy that hateful and loathsome
agendas of petty little ignorant bigots like you.
COUNT on my doing that for as long as it take for those
mindless agendas to join their EQUALLY-loathsome cousin,
that of the segregationists -- in EXTINCTION.
[[[ For the READERS' benefit ]]] ---
(And I take note that you were totally UNABLE to disprove
ANY of the facts presented above. ...
All of which are based on a fallacious assumption of a conclusion
that when we speak of [RPEs], we are not speaking of human beings.
There's nothing fallacious there. The only FALLACY is your
*delusion* that mere RPEs -- Reproductive-Process Entities --
Yeah, I know how proud you are of your unique acronym.
That's like saying I'm proud that Mt. Everest is a mountain. Simply
using the abbreviation, RPE, for "Reproductive-Process Entities" is
logical. And there's probably no more accurately-descriptive term
that encompasses all four stages of the reproductive process than
that.
It also rests on the unproven assertion that you are not talking
about a human being.
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!! It's further
verification that ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying rat's *****
for the actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being, and their future
opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid, selfish, mean-spirited, mindless,
and -- as I mentioned, totally irrational.
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your response
to my post with you in a separate response.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
| User: "rudy canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have itaborted! |
21 Jul 2006 08:51:50 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 09:28:57 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!! It's further
verification that ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying rat's *****
for the actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being, and their future
opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid, selfish, mean-spirited, mindless,
and -- as I mentioned, totally irrational.
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your response
to my post with you in a separate response.
Perhaps there's no response because it's vacuous idiotic garbage, like
everything else from you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 03:23:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:51:50 +1200,
rudy canoza <canoza@security.llc> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!! It's further
verification that ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying rat's *****
for the actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being, and their future
opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid, selfish, mean-spirited, mindless,
and -- as I mentioned, totally irrational.
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your response
to my post with you in a separate response.
Perhaps there's no response because...
...there is NO way that any Anti-Choicer could ever even
BEGIN to justify such abject stupidity on their part.
Anti-Choicers: America's National Laughingstock.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
America's mentally-challenged version of the Taliban.
Where common sense and intelligence combine,
a fair-minded egalitarian is ALWAYS the result. RRR
Cult lemmings always lack either one or the other, or
both, of those two elements.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
20 Jul 2006 09:32:35 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 09:28:57 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky wrote:
Craig Chilton<xanadu222@mchsi.com>wrote:
Moronic Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
Pro-Choice in a nutshell.
Wrong! HERE are the FACTS:
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human (adj.)
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
* (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
To the contrary. I'm a sensible, fair-minded and intelligent
egalitarian who marshals facts well and then presents them
effectively, so as to help to destroy that hateful and loathsome
agendas of petty little ignorant bigots like you.
COUNT on my doing that for as long as it take for those
mindless agendas to join their EQUALLY-loathsome cousin,
that of the segregationists -- in EXTINCTION.
[[[ For the READERS' benefit ]]] ---
(And I take note that you were totally UNABLE to disprove
ANY of the facts presented above. ...
All of which are based on a fallacious assumption of a conclusion
that when we speak of [RPEs], we are not speaking of human beings.
There's nothing fallacious there. The only FALLACY is your
*delusion* that mere RPEs -- Reproductive-Process Entities --
Yeah, I know how proud you are of your unique acronym.
That's like saying I'm proud that Mt. Everest is a mountain. Simply
using the abbreviation, RPE, for "Reproductive-Process Entities" is
logical. And there's probably no more accurately-descriptive term
that encompasses all four stages of the reproductive process than
that.
It also rests on the unproven assertion that you are not talking
about a human being.
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!!
Well, it says that I am human and maybe I missed something. Since
there is something that you would like to address and since there are
quite a few topics that could be extracted from the "above", can you
narrow it down for me and tell me exactly which portion of the "above"
you would like me to address?
<snip>
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your response
to my post with you in a separate response.
Promise?
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
21 Jul 2006 02:32:45 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2006 19:32:35 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky wrote:
Craig Chilton<xanadu222@mchsi.com>wrote:
Moronic Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
Pro-Choice in a nutshell.
Wrong! HERE are the FACTS:
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human (adj.)
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
* (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
To the contrary. I'm a sensible, fair-minded and intelligent
egalitarian who marshals facts well and then presents them
effectively, so as to help to destroy that hateful and loathsome
agendas of petty little ignorant bigots like you.
COUNT on my doing that for as long as it take for those
mindless agendas to join their EQUALLY-loathsome cousin,
that of the segregationists -- in EXTINCTION.
[[[ For the READERS' benefit ]]] ---
(And I take note that you were totally UNABLE to disprove
ANY of the facts presented above. ...
All of which are based on a fallacious assumption of a conclusion
that when we speak of [RPEs], we are not speaking of human beings.
There's nothing fallacious there. The only FALLACY is your
*delusion* that mere RPEs -- Reproductive-Process Entities --
Yeah, I know how proud you are of your unique acronym.
That's like saying I'm proud that Mt. Everest is a mountain. Simply
using the abbreviation, RPE, for "Reproductive-Process Entities" is
logical. And there's probably no more accurately-descriptive term
that encompasses all four stages of the reproductive process than
that.
It also rests on the unproven assertion that you are not talking
about a human being.
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!!
Well, it says that I am human and maybe I missed something. Since
there is something that you would like to address and since there are
quite a few topics that could be extracted from the "above", can you
narrow it down for me and tell me exactly which portion of the "above"
you would like me to address?
I think that's quite OBVIOUS:
You (Anti-Choicers) hatefully and mindlessly seek to
FORCE full gestation upon millions of girls and women
AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immense hardship
upon them in many ways. [Those ways including the
circumvention of their rights, disregard for their bodily
autonomy, invasion of their privacy, relegating them to
second-class-citizen status, elevating mere non-sentient
and unwanted RPEs to the status of people, which is
irrational and stupid, the disruption of their desired status
quo against their will, the disruption of their well-being,
and the certain destruction and forever-after denial to
them of countless of their future opportunities as they
had existed BEFORE the forced gestation.
Of course, I'd *already* made MOST of that quite clear in THIS
statement, which you inexplicably SNIPPED in your response just now:
ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying
rat's ***** for actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being,
and their future opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid,
selfish, mean-spirited, mindless, and -- as I mentioned, totally
irrational.
So, in light of the fact that I'd already said that, your asking
me the question that you just did serves as EVIDENCE of your
irrationality.
In case you wonder why RRR Cultists/Anti-Choicers/homophobes
are regarded by most SENSIBLE people to be complete (and bone-
ignorant) assh*oles, that comprises a major reason.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!! It's further
verification that ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying rat's *****
for the actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being, and their future
opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid, selfish, mean-spirited,
mindless, and -- as I mentioned, totally irrational.
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your
response to my post with you in a separate response.
Promise?
Yes... if you lose the irrationality, and dishonest and cowardly
omissions of what I say.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "rudy canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have itaborted! |
22 Jul 2006 01:34:38 AM |
|
|
"Douchebag Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Child-FREE!" wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 19:32:35 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky wrote:
Craig Chilton<xanadu222@mchsi.com>wrote:
Moronic Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!!
Well, it says that I am human and maybe I missed something. Since
there is something that you would like to address and since there are
quite a few topics that could be extracted from the "above", can you
narrow it down for me and tell me exactly which portion of the "above"
you would like me to address?
I think that's quite OBVIOUS:
You (Anti-Choicers) hatefully and mindlessly
Rubbish. We think abortion is homicide, murder.
seek to
FORCE full gestation upon millions of girls and women
AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immense hardship
upon them in many ways. [Those ways including the
circumvention of their rights, disregard for their bodily
autonomy, invasion of their privacy, relegating them to
second-class-citizen status, elevating mere non-sentient
and unwanted RPEs to the status of people, which is
irrational and stupid, the disruption of their desired status
quo against their will, the disruption of their well-being,
and the certain destruction and forever-after denial to
them of countless of their future opportunities as they
had existed BEFORE the forced gestation.
This bullcrap is not an argument.
[snip dungheap]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 03:19:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:34:38 +1200,
Mindless Bigot, rudy canoza <canoza@security.llc> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" wrote:
You (Anti-Choicers) hatefully and mindlessly...
Rubbish. We think abortion is homicide, murder.
Ah. So you were dropped on your head as a kid from a
significant height? That could explain your abject idiocy.
ROTFL!!!! What a tool.
Anti-Choics loons/loser/bigots/sociopaths seek to
FORCE full gestation upon millions of girls and women
AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immense hardship
upon them in many ways. [Those ways including the
circumvention of their rights, disregard for their bodily
autonomy, invasion of their privacy, relegating them to
second-class-citizen status, elevating mere non-sentient
and unwanted RPEs to the status of people, which is
irrational and stupid, the disruption of their desired status
quo against their will, the disruption of their well-being,
and the certain destruction and forever-after denial to
them of countless of their future opportunities as they
had existed BEFORE the forced gestation.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have itaborted! |
22 Jul 2006 01:38:21 AM |
|
|
rudy canoza <canoza@security.llc> wrote:
You (Anti-Choicers) hatefully and mindlessly
Rubbish. We think abortion is homicide, murder.
And you'll kill anybody who gets in the way.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 12:17:40 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 19:32:35 -0700,
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
"Yarrido" <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- Help to Make the USA Bigotry-FREE! wrote:
Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky wrote:
Craig Chilton<xanadu222@mchsi.com>wrote:
Moronic Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
Pro-Choice in a nutshell.
Wrong! HERE are the FACTS:
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human (adj.)
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
* (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
To the contrary. I'm a sensible, fair-minded and intelligent
egalitarian who marshals facts well and then presents them
effectively, so as to help to destroy that hateful and loathsome
agendas of petty little ignorant bigots like you.
COUNT on my doing that for as long as it take for those
mindless agendas to join their EQUALLY-loathsome cousin,
that of the segregationists -- in EXTINCTION.
[[[ For the READERS' benefit ]]] ---
(And I take note that you were totally UNABLE to disprove
ANY of the facts presented above. ...
All of which are based on a fallacious assumption of a conclusion
that when we speak of [RPEs], we are not speaking of human beings.
There's nothing fallacious there. The only FALLACY is your
*delusion* that mere RPEs -- Reproductive-Process Entities --
Yeah, I know how proud you are of your unique acronym.
That's like saying I'm proud that Mt. Everest is a mountain. Simply
using the abbreviation, RPE, for "Reproductive-Process Entities" is
logical. And there's probably no more accurately-descriptive term
that encompasses all four stages of the reproductive process than
that.
It also rests on the unproven assertion that you are not talking
about a human being.
"Human being" is neither a medical nor legal term. It is simply
one way of referring to PEOPLE. (And ALL people have been BORN.)
But it's funnier than hell to watch you and your fellow loons clutching
at such vapid straws in your desperation to duck the REALITY: that
you hatefully and mindlessly seek to FORCE full gestation upon millions
of girls and women AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immerse
hardship upon them in many ways. Talk about being STUPID. You
Anti-Choice louts are some of the most bone-IGNORANT louts on the
face of the earth, and that alone is all the proof anyone would ever
need of that.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!!
Well, it says that I am human and maybe I missed something. Since
there is something that you would like to address and since there are
quite a few topics that could be extracted from the "above", can you
narrow it down for me and tell me exactly which portion of the "above"
you would like me to address?
I think that's quite OBVIOUS:
You (Anti-Choicers) hatefully and mindlessly seek to
FORCE full gestation upon millions of girls and women
AGAINST their will, and thereby impose immense hardship
upon them in many ways. [Those ways including the
circumvention of their rights, disregard for their bodily
autonomy, invasion of their privacy, relegating them to
second-class-citizen status, elevating mere non-sentient
and unwanted RPEs to the status of people, which is
irrational and stupid, the disruption of their desired status
quo against their will, the disruption of their well-being,
and the certain destruction and forever-after denial to
them of countless of their future opportunities as they
had existed BEFORE the forced gestation.
Of course, I'd *already* made MOST of that quite clear in THIS
statement, which you inexplicably SNIPPED in your response just now:
ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying
rat's ***** for actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being,
and their future opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid,
selfish, mean-spirited, mindless, and -- as I mentioned, totally
irrational.
So, in light of the fact that I'd already said that, your asking
me the question that you just did serves as EVIDENCE of your
irrationality.
In case you wonder why RRR Cultists/Anti-Choicers/homophobes
are regarded by most SENSIBLE people to be complete (and bone-
ignorant) assh*oles, that comprises a major reason.
Your LACK of response to the above speaks *volumes*!! It's further
verification that ANTI-Choicers irrationally and hatefully whine about
defending mere, non-sentient RPEs while not giving a flying rat's *****
for the actual PEOPLE, their rights, their well-being, and their future
opportunities. That is ABYSMALLY stupid, selfish, mean-spirited,
mindless, and -- as I mentioned, totally irrational.
Let's talk about THAT, and then I'll discuss the REST of your
response to my post with you in a separate response.
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us? Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do. Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity. Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy. Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual. The zygote
is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her
own unique genetic fingerprint. The embryo is living, characterized by
metabolism,
growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. The embryo is human,
carrying DNA with a human genetic signature. Finally, the embryo is an
individual being:
a self-contained,self-integrated living entity with her own nature. She
has the innate capacity to proceed through the full series of human
developmental
stages. All that's needed is proper nurture and environment, the same
as you and I. The embryo, therefore, from the very moment of conception
is an
individual, living, human being, a bona fide member of the human
family. Her cells are not yet individuated (they haven't developed
unique vocations as bone
cells, skin cells, etc.). Yet she is still an individual self (though
not yet self-aware), and will remain herself for her entire life until
death. She will
never become a human; she already is one. That's incontrovertible
science.
Fact is, each of your fallacious assertions either begs the question or
is nothing more than an adhominem attack.
For example, you appeal to a woman's right to control her own body,
but this assumes there is only one body involved-that of the woman.
And yet that's exactly the point you hope to prove; hence, you beg
the question. You next claim that I am anti-choice, but this, too,
begs the question by assuming, without argument, that the unborn are
not human. Should we be "pro-choice" on the question of men beating
their wives? Parents torturing toddlers? Look, the abortion debate is
not a dispute between those who are pro-choice and those who are
anti-choice. Let me be clear. I am vigorously "pro-choice" when it
comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman's
right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school,
to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own
religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among
the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country(How
does that make me into someone wanting to reduce women to second class
citizens?). But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human
beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.
No, we shouldn't be allowed to choose that. Hence, the real issue that
separates you from me is the question "What is the unborn?" Until
you address that issue with a compelling argument, you appeals to
"choice" are nothing but question-begging rants. You make a value
statement that the life of the sentient woman is more valuable than
non-sentient embryo. And in fact the crux of the moral puzzle has to do
with value: What gives human beings their worth? There are two general
possibilities. Either human value is derived from some extrinsic,
changeable quality (size, level of development, location, social
convention, etc.), or humans are valuable in themselves because of some
intrinsic, unchangeable quality that is part of their created nature.
Classically, western civilization has affirmed the latter, a conviction
summed up eloquently by our Founding Fathers as the cornerstone of our
human rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights." This one moral conviction has been the impulse for
every human rights crusade up to the end of the 20th century, from the
abolition of slavery in the United States and England, to child labor
laws, to the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, to Dr. Martin Luther
King's crusade for civil rights in the '60s. Of course, the
Founders may have been wrong, but such ideas have consequences. Remove
the moral foundation and the moral edifice built upon it topples.
Here's the problem. If humans are valuable because of some
transcendent quality, then human value is intrinsic. It exists
regardless of any physical or functional changes size, location,
abilities, etc. Conversely, if any physical or functional change
affects human value, then that value can only be extrinsic, dependent
on external factors. Human value becomes conditional. The danger is,
when value is functionally defined, there is no basis for inalienable
human rights. Whatever can be functionally defined, can be functionally
defined away.
Zygote, embryo and fetus are terms that are words used for the
descriptions of various stages of human development. To say that the
developing child is a fetus is like saying that something is a
two-year-old. You have added an additional phrase of RPE which is
simply a combining of the various stages, some of which I have already
described, into a single phrase to include them all. That is like
saying that an organism has some unspecific age to it that falls within
a range of nine months.(How am I elevating a period of time to a human
being? If I believed that, I would be irrational as you charge. How
rational is it to even think of the possibility that someone would
actually do that?) So, I ask you when we are talking about the unborn,
what is it we are talking about? Your response has consistently been
that it is an RPE(i.e. it has some unspecific age to it that falls
within nine months). How does that answer my question? It doesn't(If my
not answering your question says something about me, your not answering
my question says something about you. It's just clearer as to what in
your case). Then you tack on the word "entity" to your grouping of
various stages of development during a nine month period, but that is
like tacking that word to "five-year-old" and making a "five-year-old
entity." The word "entity" is so broad in meaning that it could mean
just about anything and is only a demonstration of a kind of category
error where you are asked to provide one category of information and
you provide a completely different category of information about the
organism in question. So,in fact you have never answered the question
of what the unborn is, you have simply assumed your conclusion that it
is not a member of the human family(saying that it is a certain
unspecific age/stage of development does not tell us what it
is)...without evidence(begging the question). Again, all of your
assertions on the topic under discussion stand on the foundation of
this fallacy.
The RRR cult issue has already been dealt with in the first week of
July 2006. You never responded to my destruction of your argument that
it is a logical contradiction. Yet, you persist in the usage of the
term. Is that the behavior of a rational human being? You be the judge.
In regards to sniping your response....the snipping was my attempt at
practicing tolerance as it was mostly a unsupported personal attack on
my character. I tolerated your obvious hatred of me and my position and
by sniping it, I was attempting to avoid the issue of your lack of
courtesy and proper breeding as it has nothing to do with our present
discussion. While the pursuit of such a discussion might tell a great
deal about me and you, it would tell nothing about the issue of
abortion which is the present issue under discussion. Well, I tried to
avoid it, but you insisted on my mentioning it here. I would have
preferred to leave it alone.
Furthermore, I don't understand why you are insulting yourself
publicly. When you state that asking you questions is irrational you do
just that. Although I don't agree with your position, I have no
interest in insulting you. It seems that I have a higher regard for you
than you do yourself. That's a pretty sad situation...don't you think?
Promise?
Yes... if you lose the irrationality, and dishonest and cowardly
omissions of what I say.
If I have omitted something this time, it was inadvertent and I will
expect that you point it out to me. Fair enough? Now...I await your
response to this and previous post.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 01:47:05 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
What else have you got?
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 02:26:47 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No, I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others and no
one else is allowed to do the same....so, that you can enjoy the
freedom to do as you wish while denying others that same freedom.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it. If they are lies, prove it. If it is
insane, prove it. If it is not rational, prove it.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them. You seem to have done
that to most of my response and not just the ones in which I make a
unsupported personal attack on you.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response. All you have to do is
address the issues it raised. If you have the courage to that is. But
then, that is something that is gained through hardships in life that
you try to avoid. So, perhaps, just perhaps, you have squandered those
opportunities to gain the courage to confront the truth.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie and can easily be
disproved, but you can't do that because it is no lie.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more, I gave specific references that can be
verified. That is a rational thing to do when you make a rational
point.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs(what
is it?). I noticed that you have not yet done so. You have not even
bothered to keep the section where it shows your category mistakes. You
just sweep your errors under the rug and hope that no one will notice
the bulge and question what is under there. You are pretending that
reality is something other than what everyone around you observes is
so.
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie...an assertion simply does not make an
argument a lie. You have to prove that it contradicts reality before
you can call something a lie...and you have not done so. How is it
rational to simply call something a lie without backing it up with
facts?
Is this all YOU got? All you have is a bluf...I called it and your have
nothing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
23 Jul 2006 02:59:34 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
24 Jul 2006 09:18:43 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
Thank you for your calm, reasonable and rational response. You lose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
24 Jul 2006 10:37:47 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
Thank you for your calm, reasonable and rational response. You lose.
"Declare victory and run away."
Pro-liar coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
25 Jul 2006 10:35:16 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
Thank you for your calm, reasonable and rational response. You lose.
"Declare victory and run away."
You are the one who ran away. You haven't answered one of my challanges
yet(you can't call...calling me a liar an answer to my challanges).
That is a dismissal, not a refutation or debunking.
Pro-liar coward.
I am not so cowardly as not to respond to your only attempt at defense
here...and it is not a very good one at that. I was going to let it go,
but you keep insisting.
Your claim:
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
There is not a single organism on this planet that is disqualifed
from being a member of a particular species because they cannot survive
when they are removed from their proper environment (In the preborn
case the womb)or deprived from nutrition. There is not a single
individual that is disqualifed from being a member of the human race
because they cannot survive when they are removed from their proper
environment or are starved to death. There is not a single conjoined
twin that is not a human being because they are not seperate and do not
rely on their twin to keep them alive....not one, nor are they not each
individuals because of their condition. Your requirement for membership
in the human race is bogus nonsense on the basis of these facts.
You have not responded to a single challange that I presented to
you..not one. I have responded to every single one that you
posed....that I know of. On the basis of this FACT, everyone can see
who wins...and it is not you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
26 Jul 2006 02:18:52 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
Thank you for your calm, reasonable and rational response. You lose.
"Declare victory and run away."
You are the one who ran away.
Everybody can see that you're lying.
You haven't answered one of my challanges
Everybody can see some of my responses above.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
26 Jul 2006 10:46:32 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
yarrido@aol.com <yarrido@aol.com> wrote:
Let us reduce your lengthy response to the fundamentally essential
ideas that it contains. In other words, let's simplify the thing
without losing the
essential meaning. What you are saying is that I failed to address the
issue of a woman's right to chose and her right to control her own
body. But
"but"
there is
another underlying idea that I think exists here and that prompts me to
address it first and foremost by asking the following questions. Are
you saying it's
wrong for pro-lifers to force their views on others? If so, who are you
to force THAT view on us?
So you argue that it is okay to force people to obey you and to treat
them like slaves so that you can enjoy the freedom to have what you
want.
No,
Liar.
I argue that you think it's OK to force your views on others
And there is proof that you're a lying *****. We do NOT want to
force you to get abortions. We demand the right to be free of your
dictatorship.
Second,you are just plain wrong that pro-life
advocates
provide no rational defense for their position. Sure they do.
No, they do not. You examples are riddled with falsehoods and
outright lies. That is not rational. That is insanity.
If they are false, prove it.
Done that. Repeatedly.
You keep lying.
Problem
is, you won't take the time to actually engage the sophisticated case
pro-life
philosophers present in support of fetal humanity.
Such arguments are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the rights
and humanity of women and ignore the truth.
Show us where and how that is so.
You demand the enslavement of pregnant women. YOu would force them to
serve the needs of fetuses, even when it means their suffering and
even death.
Even at the popular
level, you can't bring yourself to answer a basic pro-life
argument-one based on
science and philosophy.
because there aren't any.
Well, there aren't NOW that you sniped them.
There never have been any, pro-liar.
Scientifically, pro-lifers contend that from
the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living,
and whole human
beings.
Which is an obvious lie.
Which is obviously an assertion with nothing to back it up with.
Just like your claim that an embryo is a "whole human being"?
Tell us: If it's a whole human being then why does it need a woman's
body? Why doesn't it have its own lungs and brain and gut and porgans
to keep itself alive?
And if it's "distinct" then why is it a part of a pregnant woman?
So there is one "argument" addressed aand readily dismissed.
Without proof that it is a lie...it cannot be.
Without proof that your claims are true they remain falsehoods and
lies.
What else have you got?
It was there before you cut it from my response.
No, pro-liar, it was crap.
True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole
human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this.
Another outright lie.
If it is, then my references are aso a lie
Anybody can cite a book and claim that it says something that it does
not, pro-liar.
[See, for example,
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology
Naming books doesn't prove your case.
That is why I did much more,
You made unsupported claims about the books as well.
(Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O'Rahilly, Ronand and Muller,
Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.]By
any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of
the human race.
An obvious falsehood given that a fetus is not a separate individual
and thus does not qualify as a member of the human race.
Then you will be good enough to tell us in what niche it belongs
It's an embryo, moron. It's a part of a pregnant woman.
Are you really this stupid?
From the moment of conception the embryo is an
individual.
Obviously you cannot justify your immoral ideology without resorting
to outright lying. There is no point in debate with irrational
fanatics who lie in order to justify their misogyny.
Without proof that it is a lie..
Without proof that you're telling the truth, you're a liar.
Thank you for your calm, reasonable and rational response. You lose.
"Declare victory and run away."
You are the one who ran away.
Everybody can see that you're lying.
Not true. You are only bluffing.
You haven't answered one of my challanges
Everybody can see some of my responses above.
Raising new issues is not a response to an old issue I raised. You
have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your side...and I
was rooting for you to do so. I was actually hoping you would. I was
dissapointed. I was dissapointed because I love a challange and you
provided me with none.
Next!
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't work, ***** bitches, put the baby on welfare or have it aborted! |
26 Jul 2006 10:00:07 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
You
have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your side.
Which should a woman be forced to suffer the pain, injury, expense,
and risk of childbirth just to save the life of a fetus when you are
free to let born children die rather than spend a few dollars a day to
keep them alive?
..and I
was rooting for you to do so.
You've seen the arguments. You refuse to be convinced because you're a
dishonest control freak. Like most pro-liars you care more about
making people obey and suffer than you care about the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
