| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
04 May 2004 02:44:20 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
On 4 May 2004 08:42:44 -0700,
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSI*BLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any womb,
innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities, which
are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire to gestate
it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses. But NEVER
babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any boby that a someone
tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus that could be
heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that emanating
from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far too much
in stories relating to perverion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are representitive
of the gay community. They are not only representitive, they are
the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible 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.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton <>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 02:13:27 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:4097ecb4.14048128@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 4 May 2004 08:42:44 -0700,
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSI*BLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any womb,
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage. Unborn or recently born
human being.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abtrbng/terms.htm
innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities, which
are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire to gestate
it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses. But NEVER
babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any boby that a someone
tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus that could be
heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that emanating
from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far too much
in stories relating to perverion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are representitive
of the gay community. They are not only representitive, they are
the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution --
Which Amendment?
the supreme
law of the land.
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
With all due respect; do you tour the country promoting abortion?
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton < >
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 04:01:42 AM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4097ecb4.14048128@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 4 May 2004 08:42:44 -0700,
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSI*BLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any womb,
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage. Unborn or recently born
human being.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abtrbng/terms.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861596701
child
Dictionary
child (plural chil·dren)
noun
1. young human being: a young human being between birth and puberty
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13062&dict=CALD
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/child
child
Pronunciation: (chIld), [key]
—n.,
—pl. chil•dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for
children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Law
Development
Child development is the study or examination of processes and
mechanisms that operate during the physical and mental development of an
infant into an adult.
Pediatrics is the branch of medicine relating to the care of children.
It encompasses ages from prenatal to teenagers and even young adults
(ages 0-21 years).
Terms for stages of age-related physical development include:
South American boy
* Zygote, the point of Conception, fertilization
* Embryo; in the later stages also called fetus
* Birth
* Child
o Infant (baby, newborn)
o Toddler
o Primary school age (also called prepub
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/53666A28-C98A-4AE9-A4B1062564739566/alpha/C
child
(1) A son or daughter of any age, ***sometimes including biological
offspring, unborn children,**** adopted children, stepchildren, foster
children and children born outside of marriage.
child
n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A
"child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in
almost all states.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c036.htm
Note the use here of the word "born".
So what else can I do for you today
--
--sexkitten--Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow they may make it illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 10:28:13 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7cv1f$2f5ql$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Chris wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4097ecb4.14048128@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 4 May 2004 08:42:44 -0700,
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSI*BLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any womb,
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage. Unborn or recently
born
human being.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abtrbng/terms.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
You forgot "An unborn infant; a fetus".
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861596701
child
Dictionary
child (plural chil·dren)
noun
1. young human being: a young human being between birth and puberty
You forgot "unborn baby: an unborn baby"
AND "with child pregnant".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13062&dict=CALD
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
From this SAME dictionary:
unborn [Show phonetics]
adjective
not yet born; in the mother's womb:
the protection of the unborn child
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/child
child
Pronunciation: (chIld), [key]
—n.,
—pl. chil•dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for
children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
You forgot "a human fetus".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Law
Development
Child development is the study or examination of processes and
mechanisms that operate during the physical and mental development of an
infant into an adult.
Pediatrics is the branch of medicine relating to the care of children.
It encompasses ages from prenatal to teenagers and even young adults
(ages 0-21 years).
Terms for stages of age-related physical development include:
South American boy
* Zygote, the point of Conception, fertilization
* Embryo; in the later stages also called fetus
* Birth
* Child
o Infant (baby, newborn)
o Toddler
o Primary school age (also called prepub
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/53666A28-C98A-4AE9-A4B1062564739566/alpha/C
child
(1) A son or daughter of any age, ***sometimes including biological
offspring, unborn children,
Note the use here of the word "unborn".
**** adopted children, stepchildren, foster
children and children born outside of marriage.
child
n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A
"child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in
almost all states.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c036.htm
Note the use here of the word "born".
So what else can I do for you today
Explain what THIS definition means:
Child: An unborn infant; a fetus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
--
--sexkitten--Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow they may make it
illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 05:57:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:13:27 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSIBLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any
womb, innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities,
which are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire
to gestate it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses.
But NEVER babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any baby
that a someone tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus
that could be heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that
emanating from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
<Dictionary bullcrap flushed. I deal with *reality*,
not the sterile definitions of lexicographers.>
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far too much
in stories relating to perverion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are representitive
of the gay community. They are not only representitive, they are
the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
Several could probably be brought into play in defense of that
right. But the beauty of this is the fact that even the hatemongering
BIGOTS of the RRR cult know this. Or they wouldn't be so desperately
(and vainly) seeking to infuse the pollution of a Bigotry Amendment
into the Constitution. (Funnier than hell! Those sociopathic losers
LOST before they even started. Americans will **never** pass such
a loathsome amendment... and same-sex marriage will be a reality in
less than 2 weeks!)
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
(I **LOVE** to see bigots *proving* themselves to be as
ABJECTLY ignorant and trollish as you do! ROTFL!!!!)
To answer your trollish question, medical science has known
for decades that reproductive-process entities lack sufficient brain
archictecture for consciosness until the 3rd trimester.
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
More from peer-reviewd and meticulously-conducted STUDIES, some
of which I've included in many of my past posts. That's REALITY. RRR
cult loons hate it, but TOUGH. Hate is what they are all about.
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
With all due respect; do you tour the country promoting abortion?
Nope. But I've done radio interviews all over the country in
defense of women's right to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and the
remedy of safe and legal abortion, unimpeded. On two occasions, I
debated Anti-Choice activist on Chicago radio, and made mincemeat of
him both times. Since Anti-Choicers have NO FACTS on their side,
doing that is a piece of cake!
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton <>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 11:18:03 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:409e164c.25607049@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:13:27 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence occur,
the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSIBLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any
womb, innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities,
which are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire
to gestate it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses.
But NEVER babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any baby
that a someone tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus
that could be heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that
emanating from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
<Dictionary bullcrap flushed. I deal with *reality*,
not the sterile definitions of lexicographers.>
I see. Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are born?
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far too much
in stories relating to perverion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are
representitive
of the gay community. They are not only representitive, they are
the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
Several could probably be brought into play in defense of that
right.
Name one.
But the beauty of this is the fact that even the hatemongering
BIGOTS of the RRR cult know this. Or they wouldn't be so desperately
(and vainly) seeking to infuse the pollution of a Bigotry Amendment
into the Constitution. (Funnier than hell! Those sociopathic losers
LOST before they even started. Americans will **never** pass such
a loathsome amendment... and same-sex marriage will be a reality in
less than 2 weeks!)
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
(I **LOVE** to see bigots *proving* themselves to be as
ABJECTLY ignorant and trollish as you do! ROTFL!!!!)
To answer your trollish question, medical science has known
for decades that reproductive-process entities lack sufficient brain
archictecture for consciosness until the 3rd trimester.
Who says this "brain archictecture" is the ONLY way to experience conscious
awareness; and what about the OTHER two thirds of the gestation?
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
More from peer-reviewd and meticulously-conducted STUDIES,
Will you present one?
some
of which I've included in many of my past posts. That's REALITY. RRR
cult loons hate it, but TOUGH. Hate is what they are all about.
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
With all due respect; do you tour the country promoting abortion?
Nope.
Unlike what you have done above.
But I've done radio interviews all over the country in
defense of women's right to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and the
remedy of safe and legal abortion, unimpeded.
How do you defend a woman's right to choose carrying-to-term?
On two occasions, I
debated Anti-Choice activist on Chicago radio, and made mincemeat of
him both times. Since Anti-Choicers have NO FACTS on their side,
doing that is a piece of cake!
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton < >
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
06 May 2004 09:29:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
...as is his USUAL modus operandi, asked a few
one-liner TROLLISH questions about things that are
OBVIOUS to almost everyone who has a working brain.
(This is a heads-up on that for the readers on that.)
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence
occur, the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSIBLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any
womb, innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities,
which are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire
to gestate it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses.
But NEVER babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any baby
that a someone tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus
that could be heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that
emanating from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
<Dictionary bullcrap flushed. I deal with *reality*,
not the sterile definitions of lexicographers.>
I see. Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are born?
Total separation of the fetus from the woman.
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far
too much in stories relating to perversion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are
representitive of the gay community. They are not only
representitive, they are the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED
America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
CLUE: You won't come up with any. And that's why the hateful
and moronic loons of the RRR cult are so desperate to push through
a BIGOTRY Amendment with which to pollute and poison the document
that guarantees our liberties. (Which *fortunately* will NEVER pass!)
Several could probably be brought into play in defense of that
right.
Name one.
See above.
But the beauty of this is the fact that even the hatemongering
BIGOTS of the RRR cult know this. Or they wouldn't be so desperately
(and vainly) seeking to infuse the pollution of a Bigotry Amendment
into the Constitution. (Funnier than hell! Those sociopathic losers
LOST before they even started. Americans will **never** pass such
a loathsome amendment... and same-sex marriage will be a reality in
less than 2 weeks!)
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
(I **LOVE** to see bigots *proving* themselves to be as
ABJECTLY ignorant and trollish as you do! ROTFL!!!!)
To answer your trollish question, medical science has known
for decades that reproductive-process entities lack sufficient brain
archictecture for consciosness until the 3rd trimester.
Who says this "brain archictecture" is the ONLY way to
experience conscious awareness; and what about the OTHER
two thirds of the gestation?
Medical science. And... that is the part of gestation PRIOR to
the aforementioned brain architecture.
[[[ READERS: See what I mean about his being a TROLL? ]]]
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
More from peer-reviewd and meticulously-conducted STUDIES,
Will you present one?
It would make this post too long. I'll post one separately.
...some of which I've included in many of my past posts. That's
REALITY. RRR cult loons hate it, but TOUGH. Hate is what they
are all about.
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
With all due respect; do you tour the country promoting abortion?
Nope.
Unlike what you have done above.
What I did above was DEBUNK the disinformation and lies being
spewed by loathsomely hateful and control-freakish bigots, by
presenting most (and possibly even ALL) of the relevant FACTS about
abortion. Women now have the ability to weigh BOTH the lies
of the RRR cult **and** the TRUTH. And make their OWN choice
as to which option to choose -- better-informed. So that they can
experience their most-desired ultimate outcome.
But I've done radio interviews all over the country in defense
of women's right to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and the
remedy of safe and legal abortion, unimpeded.
How do you defend a woman's right to choose carrying-to-term?
Show me someone who's *loony* enough to ATTACK that right
(as the RRR cultists are *loony* enough to attack abortion), and
I'll tell you.
(What a TROLL!!)
On two occasions, I debated Anti-Choice activist on Chicago
radio, and made mincemeat of him both times. Since Anti-Choicers
have NO FACTS on their side, doing that is a piece of cake!
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton <>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
07 May 2004 09:12:01 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:40baee2a.24597734@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
...as is his USUAL modus operandi, asked a few
one-liner TROLLISH questions about things that are
OBVIOUS to almost everyone who has a working brain.
(This is a heads-up on that for the readers on that.)
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence
occur, the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSIBLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any
womb, innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities,
which are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire
to gestate it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses.
But NEVER babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any baby
that a someone tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus
that could be heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that
emanating from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
<Dictionary bullcrap flushed. I deal with *reality*,
not the sterile definitions of lexicographers.>
I see. Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are born?
Total separation of the fetus from the woman.
Let me rephrase: Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are totally
separated from the woman?
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far
too much in stories relating to perversion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are
representitive of the gay community. They are not only
representitive, they are the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED
America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their
partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
Nice straw man. The burden of proof rests with the claimant. And guess what;
I am NOT the claimant.
CLUE: You won't come up with any. And that's why the hateful
and moronic loons of the RRR cult are so desperate to push through
a BIGOTRY Amendment with which to pollute and poison the document
that guarantees our liberties. (Which *fortunately* will NEVER pass!)
Several could probably be brought into play in defense of that
right.
Name one.
See above.
I did see above; and what I saw was your straw man argument.
But the beauty of this is the fact that even the hatemongering
BIGOTS of the RRR cult know this. Or they wouldn't be so desperately
(and vainly) seeking to infuse the pollution of a Bigotry Amendment
into the Constitution. (Funnier than hell! Those sociopathic losers
LOST before they even started. Americans will **never** pass such
a loathsome amendment... and same-sex marriage will be a reality in
less than 2 weeks!)
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
(I **LOVE** to see bigots *proving* themselves to be as
ABJECTLY ignorant and trollish as you do! ROTFL!!!!)
To answer your trollish question, medical science has known
for decades that reproductive-process entities lack sufficient brain
archictecture for consciosness until the 3rd trimester.
Who says this "brain archictecture" is the ONLY way to
experience conscious awareness; and what about the OTHER
two thirds of the gestation?
Medical science.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
And... that is the part of gestation PRIOR to
the aforementioned brain architecture.
[strike: "...and what about the OTHER two thirds of the gestation?" Your "up
until the 7th month of gestation" statement escaped me.]
[[[ READERS: See what I mean about his being a TROLL? ]]]
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
More from peer-reviewd and meticulously-conducted STUDIES,
Will you present one?
It would make this post too long.
I see.
I'll post one separately.
...some of which I've included in many of my past posts. That's
REALITY. RRR cult loons hate it, but TOUGH. Hate is what they
are all about.
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of
women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
With all due respect; do you tour the country promoting abortion?
Nope.
Unlike what you have done above.
What I did above was DEBUNK the disinformation and lies being
spewed by loathsomely hateful and control-freakish bigots, by
presenting most (and possibly even ALL) of the relevant FACTS about
abortion.
Infested with opinion. You also promoted abortion.
Women now have the ability to weigh BOTH the lies
of the RRR cult **and** the TRUTH. And make their OWN choice
as to which option to choose -- better-informed.
"Better-informed" with more opinion.
So that they can
experience their most-desired ultimate outcome.
Easily done WITHOUT the opinion.
But I've done radio interviews all over the country in defense
of women's right to CHOOSE between carrying-to-term and the
remedy of safe and legal abortion, unimpeded.
How do you defend a woman's right to choose carrying-to-term?
Show me someone who's *loony* enough to ATTACK that right
(as the RRR cultists are *loony* enough to attack abortion), and
I'll tell you.
YOU made the claim. So again, I ask how do you do so?
(What a TROLL!!)
On two occasions, I debated Anti-Choice activist on Chicago
radio, and made mincemeat of him both times. Since Anti-Choicers
have NO FACTS on their side, doing that is a piece of cake!
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton < >
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
07 May 2004 10:11:18 AM |
|
|
In article <OSMmc.11920$A27.2560@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
news:40baee2a.24597734@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
...as is his USUAL modus operandi, asked a few
one-liner TROLLISH questions about things that are
OBVIOUS to almost everyone who has a working brain.
(This is a heads-up on that for the readers on that.)
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Jon Young <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Every time one of these type of perverted incidence
occur, the liberals...
TRANSLATION: sensible and **truthful** people...
Sensible people would never advocate the murder of innocent
babies in their mothers wombs.
Of COURSE not! All **SENSIBLE** people have the basic
intelligence to know that there has never BEEN a baby in any
womb, innocent OR guilty. Only mere reproductive-process entities,
which are *worthless* when *unwanted* by a host having no desire
to gestate it, can be found there. Zygotes, embryoes and fetuses.
But NEVER babies, since ALL babies have been BORN. Any baby
that a someone tried to stuff BACK into a womb would raise a ruckus
that could be heard from a mile away. Second only in volume to that
emanating from the woman. (In addition, see SIG.)
<Dictionary bullcrap flushed. I deal with *reality*,
not the sterile definitions of lexicographers.>
I see. Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are born?
Total separation of the fetus from the woman.
Let me rephrase: Precisely WHAT determines that all babies are totally
separated from the woman?
I guess that would be the word "separated."
Webster¹s Concise Electronic Dictionary
12 sense(s) for ³separated²
1. sep·a·rate
€ (verb) [sep·a·rat·ed; sep·a·rat·ed; sep·a·rat·ing; sep·a·rates]
set or keep apart
become divided or detached
€ (adjective)
not connected or shared
distinct from each other
You Anti-Choicers are PROFOUNDLY-ignorant losers.
Truthful people would admit that gays are represented far
too much in stories relating to perversion.
People sensible and mature enough to be truthful probably
wouldn't give a rat's ***** about slanderous "stories."
...can't wait to deny that the [people] involved are
representitive of the gay community. They are not only
representitive, they are the face of gay America.
As **you** are the face of IGNORANT and BIGOTED
America?
No.
Outright LIE. You are on record as an opponent of same-sex
marriage. Which is 100% HARMLESS. Thus, you have proven
yourself to be a bigot.
But I do believe that babies have a right to be born.
Wrong. Since ALL babies have already BEEN born. And
reproductive-process entities (which include the Stage 1 ones,
gametes), have and deserve absolutely NO rights. That would
be as absurd as giving "rights" to **bricks**.
Gays should not be subjected to harrassment but also not
afforded any special privileges.
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their
partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not "special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
Nice straw man.
WRONG.
The burden of proof rests with the claimant. And guess what;
I am NOT the claimant.
Then you obviously know NOTHING about the Constitution or logic. The
Constitution is mean to limit government. It doesn't grant rights. It
allows the government to restrict rights. If the Constitution doesn't
restrict that right, you have that right. Therefore, the onus is on
YOU.
CLUE: You won't come up with any. And that's why the hateful
and moronic loons of the RRR cult are so desperate to push through
a BIGOTRY Amendment with which to pollute and poison the document
that guarantees our liberties. (Which *fortunately* will NEVER pass!)
Several could probably be brought into play in defense of that
right.
Name one.
See above.
I did see above; and what I saw was your straw man argument.
Claiming a "straw man" is just another way of running from battle. His
argument makes sense, and you know it. That is why you turn tail and
run, yelling, "straw man, straw man!"
But the beauty of this is the fact that even the hatemongering
BIGOTS of the RRR cult know this. Or they wouldn't be so desperately
(and vainly) seeking to infuse the pollution of a Bigotry Amendment
into the Constitution. (Funnier than hell! Those sociopathic losers
LOST before they even started. Americans will **never** pass such
a loathsome amendment... and same-sex marriage will be a reality in
less than 2 weeks!)
(It's always AMAZING to me that people who are hateful
enough to be seeking to pollute and poison the Constitution with
a Bigotry Amendment are too damned DENSE to figure that out!)
I also believe that the so called liberals are truly the bigots.
Fine. Then show us a social liberal who OPPOSES treating
people FAIRLY, and then we might believe you. For that single
case, at least.
Any one who dissents from their views is automatically
subjected to a barrage of unparrelled verbal abuse.
Yeah. Gee. Isn't that strange? The same thing happened to the
slave owners... the chauvinists who sought to keep women from
getting the vote, the segregationists, and the Ku Klux Klan. For the
SAME reasons. What a... uh... "coincidence?" Nope. A clear
PATTERN of abjectly-ignorant, unconscionable, sociopathic, and
hateful bigotry.
You don't see conservatives resorting to name calling and
character assasination.
Yeah. They've NEVER said such things as: "*****-lover,"
"Northern agitator," "abortetorium," "baby-killer," etc., etc. etc..
Right. Want to buy a nice bridge, loser?
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
How do you know this; did the fetus tell you so?
(I **LOVE** to see bigots *proving* themselves to be as
ABJECTLY ignorant and trollish as you do! ROTFL!!!!)
To answer your trollish question, medical science has known
for decades that reproductive-process entities lack sufficient brain
archictecture for consciosness until the 3rd trimester.
Who says this "brain archictecture" is the ONLY way to
experience conscious awareness; and what about the OTHER
two thirds of the gestation?
Medical science.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
ROFL!!! Once again, Chris tries to impress and falls on his face.
"Argumentum ad verecundiam," or "Appeal to Authority" to those who are
not so insecure about their intellectual abilities, relates to a
PERSON. Furthermore, it is usually valid, at least when used
inductively.
An example would be "Darwin believed in Evolution." THAT is a
"Argumentum ad verecundiam." (It appeals to the admiration of a
person, Darwin.) And it is valid as an argument because we can infer
that Darwin is an authority on the subject since he studied the subject
and concluded it was sound.
A true "Argumentum ad verecundiam" would be saying something like
"Astrology must be legitimate because Darwin believed in it." (He
didn't, but that is irrelevant for this example.) Note we are speaking
of a person, Darwin, and we are using his éclat as an argument for an
area in which he knew no more than anyone else.
If you are wrong, admit it. Don't hide behind areas of philosophy that
you don't understand. You look foolish, as above, when you do so. It
is a complex subject and you hack it to pieces.
And... that is the part of gestation PRIOR to
the aforementioned brain architecture.
[strike: "...and what about the OTHER two thirds of the gestation?" Your "up
until the 7th month of gestation" statement escaped me.]
More feigned confusion?
[[[ READERS: See what I mean about his being a TROLL? ]]]
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
Which poll did you get this information from?
More from peer-reviewd and meticulously-conducted STUDIES,
Will you present one?
It would make this post too long.
I see.
Doubtful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
08 May 2004 11:33:43 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:070520040811182158%VoteKerry@dbarnes.com...
In article <OSMmc.11920$A27.2560@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40baee2a.24597734@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the
CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their
partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not
"special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the
supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
Nice straw man.
WRONG.
The burden of proof rests with the claimant. And guess what;
I am NOT the claimant.
Then you obviously know NOTHING about the Constitution or logic. The
Constitution is mean to limit government. It doesn't grant rights. It
allows the government to restrict rights. If the Constitution doesn't
restrict that right, you have that right. Therefore, the onus is on
YOU.
Exactly. And the Constitution specifically states this in the Ninth
Amendment.
It is beyond belief that the homophobe you're arguing with is named Chris.
He is a disgrace to all who are named Chris!
--
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
09 May 2004 06:42:47 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:Hwinc.8637$536.1814388@attbi_s03...
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:070520040811182158%VoteKerry@dbarnes.com...
In article <OSMmc.11920$A27.2560@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40baee2a.24597734@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING
any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the
CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry their
partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not
"special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the
supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
Nice straw man.
WRONG.
The burden of proof rests with the claimant. And guess what;
I am NOT the claimant.
Then you obviously know NOTHING about the Constitution or logic. The
Constitution is mean to limit government. It doesn't grant rights. It
allows the government to restrict rights. If the Constitution doesn't
restrict that right, you have that right. Therefore, the onus is on
YOU.
Exactly. And the Constitution specifically states this in the Ninth
Amendment.
It is beyond belief that the homophobe you're arguing with is named Chris.
What does the term "homophobe" mean to you?
He is a disgrace to all who are named Chris!
--
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Donald Spitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
09 May 2004 07:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message
news:Qpznc.13428$A27.6954@fed1read06...
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:Hwinc.8637$536.1814388@attbi_s03...
"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:070520040811182158%VoteKerry@dbarnes.com...
In article <OSMmc.11920$A27.2560@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40baee2a.24597734@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:18:03 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> ...
No problem, since no gay person I've ever met is SEEKING
any.
In the case of marriage, for instance, they seek only for the
CESSA-
TION of the DENIAL of their consitutional right to marry
their
partner
of choice, regardless of the partner's gender. That's not
"special."
It is ALREADY their right, under the U.S. Constitution -- the
supreme
law of the land.
Which Amendment?
No. Going on the principle that innocence is applicable
until
guilt is proven, YOU tell me just WHERE in the Constitution there
is
ANYTHING that would DENY access to marriage by same-sex
couples.
Nice straw man.
WRONG.
The burden of proof rests with the claimant. And guess what;
I am NOT the claimant.
Then you obviously know NOTHING about the Constitution or logic. The
Constitution is mean to limit government. It doesn't grant rights.
It
allows the government to restrict rights. If the Constitution doesn't
restrict that right, you have that right. Therefore, the onus is on
YOU.
Exactly. And the Constitution specifically states this in the Ninth
Amendment.
It is beyond belief that the homophobe you're arguing with is named
Chris.
What does the term "homophobe" mean to you?
Proves beyond a doubt that all homosexuals are sick sex perverts.
--
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I know I am a sinner.
I believe you died on the cross to take away my
sins. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart
and be my Lord and my Savior, and take away my sins.
http://www.ArmyofGod.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Lovers Climb Tree, Then Have Sex |
09 May 2004 11:03:14 PM |
| | | | | | | | | | |
