Science > Abortion > Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"The Chastening of Lesbos" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2005 09:59:49 PM |
| Object: |
Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"? Is a pro-lifer a person who believes
the fetus is a human being, and that abortion therefore is murder? If so,
can a person be a rapist simply by virtue of what they *believe* rather
than what they actually do? Is a pro-lifer simply a person who thinks
abortion should be criminalized independant of the humanity of the fetus--
in which case the term 'pro-lifer' would be something of a misnomer? If it
is the belief in the necessity of legislative action that characterizes
the pro-lifer, and even if I concede that these people are "worse than
rapists," then how do we deal the as yet unsettled question of whether
abortion might still be murder?
Most pro-lifers are not policemen or judges; these people are in no
position to pass or enforce laws. They are everyday people who water their
lawns and watch TV and go to work and happen to believe abortion is
murder. How can these people rape, force, and coerce women when they are
in no special position to do so?
Most pro-lifers do not believe legislative action is the only possible
action; many- like myself- do not even see illegalization as a
particularly decisive fait accomplis. What about pro-lifers who hand out
literature, organizations that air PSAs telling people what abortion
involves, and trying to persuade them not to have abortions... is this
rape? Many pro-lifers (in spite of what Ray says) are involved in
charities giving resources to young mothers with unplanned pregnancies...
is this rape?
If you answered "no" to these questions, perhaps the statement
"pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way" or "pro-lifers are
worse than rapists" requires some qualification.
The desired outcome for a pro-lifer is a non-event-- a woman *not* having
an abortion, and this outcome might be achieved through persuasion or fear
of ultimate punitive actions or not getting pregnant in the first place.
Don't pro-choicers always make a point of how abortions existed before RvW
and will continue even if abortion is once more made illegal? Obviously,
since women would still be having abortions, absent is the element of
being physically subdued present in something like forced abortion in
China or forced sexual intercourse. Actually, even if abortion is made
illegal, the punitive system in place to "prevent" it is no different from
that "preventing" men from forcibly inserting their penises into a women's
vaginas. Are we raping the rapists?
It is not through the actions of law, or desires of pro-lifers, that a
woman becomes pregnant, and neither can pro-lifers or cops or judges or
politicians "force" an embryo to grow and develop and be born. This is
nature, this is the reality of corporeal existance independant of anyone's
wishes or agendas. The force, the coercion can only be from the
abortionist inserting his instruments into the woman's body to rend the
fetus. An abortionist who *isn't there* cannot coerce a woman, nor- for
the greater span of human history- can he do so with surgical technologies
that haven't yet been invented, acting from an institutional authority
that doesn't yet exist.
You
believe you are in the all knowing, yet you can't make the connection
between the desire of controlling somebody's body (and mind) through a
violent act and through the vicious legislation you seek to prevent
women from having a say as to what happens to her body. Do you know
what NO implies? Not YES, dumbass. It means NO.
Oh dear, you'll be flossing chunks of scenery from between your teeth for
days to come!
Only women have to abide by laws that could potentially contradict their
desires? Of course not, but this whole "no means no" rape analogy taps
into an already familiar cultural subtext of female victimization, so we
are to assume it is to be held to a different standard.
June Gill has summized the connection between the two succinctly. Read
it and *think.*
If condescention solved anything, this issue would have been long since
solved. If you seriously believe that my interests are in "oppressing"
women, then you are not debating me, you are debating a voodoo doll, an
effigy of me-- essentially, you are forefeiting real discussion. The
discussion only begins when we take the argument for what it is-- abortion
is the taking of human life.
Sincerely,
Your #1 rapist,
Robert Caponi xoxoxox
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
| User: "carl jones" |
|
| Title: Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
15 Jan 2005 11:43:38 PM |
|
|
"The Chastening of Lesbos" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-0801051537480001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
.
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"? Is a pro-lifer a person who believes
the fetus is a human being, and that abortion therefore is murder?
A pro-life fanatic, Becky would put it, is a person who believes abortion is
murder and won't condone an abortion for any reason.
Most pro-lifers are not policemen or judges; these people are in no
position to pass or enforce laws. They are everyday people who water their
lawns and watch TV and go to work and happen to believe abortion is
murder. How can these people rape, force, and coerce women when they are
in no special position to do so?
By picketing outside of abortion clinics, called "mills" and not allowing
women to get the health care they need and deserve.
Carl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "carl jones" |
|
| Title: Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
15 Jan 2005 11:56:10 PM |
|
|
"The Chastening of Lesbos" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-0801051537480001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
If condescention solved anything, this issue would have been long since
solved. If you seriously believe that my interests are in "oppressing"
women, then you are not debating me, you are debating a voodoo doll, an
effigy of me-- essentially, you are forefeiting real discussion. The
discussion only begins when we take the argument for what it is-- abortion
is the taking of human life.
I don't agree with everything you say, but this is a brilliant post.
Carl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
10 Jan 2005 06:41:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
12 Jan 2005 05:08:20 PM |
|
|
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every
way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where? You said I wanted to oppress women and that I was worse than a
rapist, and now you're trying to play footsie with me!?! If there was any
conviction behind that statement, you'd want to defend it after I wrote an
in-depth article explaining why it *isn't* rape, but you're not. All
you're succeeding in doing is cheapening the accusation of 'rape.' Here it
is again, if you actually want to make an argument instead of just
throwing out substanceless broadsides.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"? Is a pro-lifer a person who believes
the fetus is a human being, and that abortion therefore is murder? If so,
can a person be a rapist simply by virtue of what they *believe* rather
than what they actually do? Is a pro-lifer simply a person who thinks
abortion should be criminalized independant of the humanity of the fetus--
in which case the term 'pro-lifer' would be something of a misnomer? If it
is the belief in the necessity of legislative action that characterizes
the pro-lifer, and even if I concede that these people are "worse than
rapists," then how do we deal the as yet unsettled question of whether
abortion might still be murder?
Most pro-lifers are not policemen or judges; these people are in no
position to pass or enforce laws. They are everyday people who water their
lawns and watch TV and go to work and happen to believe abortion is
murder. How can these people rape, force, and coerce women when they are
in no special position to do so?
Most pro-lifers do not believe legislative action is the only possible
action; many- like myself- do not even see illegalization as a
particularly decisive fait accomplis. What about pro-lifers who hand out
literature, organizations that air PSAs telling people what abortion
involves, and trying to persuade them not to have abortions... is this
rape? Many pro-lifers (in spite of what Ray says) are involved in
charities giving resources to young mothers with unplanned pregnancies...
is this rape?
If you answered "no" to these questions, perhaps the statement
"pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way" or "pro-lifers are
worse than rapists" requires some qualification.
The desired outcome for a pro-lifer is a non-event-- a woman *not* having
an abortion, and this outcome might be achieved through persuasion or fear
of ultimate punitive actions or not getting pregnant in the first place.
Don't pro-choicers always make a point of how abortions existed before RvW
and will continue even if abortion is once more made illegal? Obviously,
since women would still be having abortions, absent is the element of
being physically subdued present in something like forced abortion in
China or forced sexual intercourse. Actually, even if abortion is made
illegal, the punitive system in place to "prevent" it is no different from
that "preventing" men from forcibly inserting their penises into a women's
vaginas. Are we raping the rapists?
It is not through the actions of law, or desires of pro-lifers, that a
woman becomes pregnant, and neither can pro-lifers or cops or judges or
politicians "force" an embryo to grow and develop and be born. This is
nature, this is the reality of corporeal existance independant of anyone's
wishes or agendas. The force, the coercion can only be from the
abortionist inserting his instruments into the woman's body to rend the
fetus. An abortionist who *isn't there* cannot coerce a woman, nor- for
the greater span of human history- can he do so with surgical technologies
that haven't yet been invented, acting from an institutional authority
that doesn't yet exist.
You
believe you are in the all knowing, yet you can't make the connection
between the desire of controlling somebody's body (and mind) through a
violent act and through the vicious legislation you seek to prevent
women from having a say as to what happens to her body. Do you know
what NO implies? Not YES, dumbass. It means NO.
Oh dear, you'll be flossing chunks of scenery from between your teeth for
days to come!
Only women have to abide by laws that could potentially contradict their
desires? Of course not, but this whole "no means no" rape analogy taps
into an already familiar cultural subtext of female victimization, so we
are to assume it is to be held to a different standard.
June Gill has summized the connection between the two succinctly. Read
it and *think.*
If condescention solved anything, this issue would have been long since
solved. If you seriously believe that my interests are in "oppressing"
women, then you are not debating me, you are debating a voodoo doll, an
effigy of me-- essentially, you are forefeiting real discussion. The
discussion only begins when we take the argument for what it is-- abortion
is the taking of human life.
Sincerely,
Your #1 rapist,
Robert Caponi xoxoxox
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: To all the pro-lifers who have come this far - keep it up! |
12 Jan 2005 06:55:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:08:20 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every
way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where?
A-B-O-V-E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: playing footsie with a rapist |
12 Jan 2005 09:45:31 PM |
|
|
In article <lmhbu0tg1ihjmi4ml63e3i5rmt8c29te1m@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:08:20 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where?
A-B-O-V-E.
If you're talking about "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in
every way...", that's E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N. "The equivalent of rapists
in every way are equivalent of rapists in every way" is a tautology,
innit? I'm trying to find out what is the defining criterion for what we
call "pro-lifers", and how that *by necessity* makes them the equivalent
of rapists (it's a Socratic argument; I'm trying to separate the essential
from the contingent in the hopes of illuminating the discussion.) Please
read my post again and THINK (as you so condescendingly implored me to do
the first time.) READ AND REPLY TO MORE THAN THE FIRST LINE.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In article <mnaqt0d6t8f5r976f576mj6kn84l3vngt0@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:16:58 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <009pt0ds9cf9pmfppbp221adp8hd6tvns5@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:02:38 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
[...]
She also said "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way"...
So have a number of us. Because it's true.
Perhaps it might be more persuasive...
For a smart man, you sure are dumb. You sit there on what you believe
to be this pristine pedastal of morality -- meanwhile, you're refusing
to afford an ounce of empaphy for the women you desire to oppress.
As Paul Anderson says, "stop lying about my motives!"
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"? Is a pro-lifer a person who believes
the fetus is a human being, and that abortion therefore is murder? If so,
can a person be a rapist simply by virtue of what they *believe* rather
than what they actually do? Is a pro-lifer simply a person who thinks
abortion should be criminalized independant of the humanity of the fetus--
in which case the term 'pro-lifer' would be something of a misnomer? If it
is the belief in the necessity of legislative action that characterizes
the pro-lifer, and even if I concede that these people are "worse than
rapists," then how do we deal the as yet unsettled question of whether
abortion might still be murder?
Most pro-lifers are not policemen or judges; these people are in no
position to pass or enforce laws. They are everyday people who water their
lawns and watch TV and go to work and happen to believe abortion is
murder. How can these people rape, force, and coerce women when they are
in no special position to do so?
Most pro-lifers do not believe legislative action is the only possible
action; many- like myself- do not even see illegalization as a
particularly decisive fait accomplis. What about pro-lifers who hand out
literature, organizations that air PSAs telling people what abortion
involves, and trying to persuade them not to have abortions... is this
rape? Many pro-lifers (in spite of what Ray says) are involved in
charities giving resources to young mothers with unplanned pregnancies...
is this rape?
If you answered "no" to these questions, perhaps the statement
"pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in every way" or "pro-lifers are
worse than rapists" requires some qualification.
The desired outcome for a pro-lifer is a non-event-- a woman *not* having
an abortion, and this outcome might be achieved through persuasion or fear
of ultimate punitive actions or not getting pregnant in the first place.
Don't pro-choicers always make a point of how abortions existed before RvW
and will continue even if abortion is once more made illegal? Obviously,
since women would still be having abortions, absent is the element of
being physically subdued present in something like forced abortion in
China or forced sexual intercourse. Actually, even if abortion is made
illegal, the punitive system in place to "prevent" it is no different from
that "preventing" men from forcibly inserting their penises into a women's
vaginas. Are we raping the rapists?
It is not through the actions of law, or desires of pro-lifers, that a
woman becomes pregnant, and neither can pro-lifers or cops or judges or
politicians "force" an embryo to grow and develop and be born. This is
nature, this is the reality of corporeal existance independant of anyone's
wishes or agendas. The force, the coercion can only be from the
abortionist inserting his instruments into the woman's body to rend the
fetus. An abortionist who *isn't there* cannot coerce a woman, nor- for
the greater span of human history- can he do so with surgical technologies
that haven't yet been invented, acting from an institutional authority
that doesn't yet exist.
You
believe you are in the all knowing, yet you can't make the connection
between the desire of controlling somebody's body (and mind) through a
violent act and through the vicious legislation you seek to prevent
women from having a say as to what happens to her body. Do you know
what NO implies? Not YES, dumbass. It means NO.
Oh dear, you'll be flossing chunks of scenery from between your teeth for
days to come!
Only women have to abide by laws that could potentially contradict their
desires? Of course not, but this whole "no means no" rape analogy taps
into an already familiar cultural subtext of female victimization, so we
are to assume it is to be held to a different standard.
June Gill has summized the connection between the two succinctly. Read
it and *think.*
If condescention solved anything, this issue would have been long since
solved. If you seriously believe that my interests are in "oppressing"
women, then you are not debating me, you are debating a voodoo doll, an
effigy of me-- essentially, you are forefeiting real discussion. The
discussion only begins when we take the argument for what it is-- abortion
is the taking of human life.
Sincerely,
Your #1 rapist,
Robert Caponi xoxoxox
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: playing footsie with a rapist |
13 Jan 2005 12:30:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:45:31 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <lmhbu0tg1ihjmi4ml63e3i5rmt8c29te1m@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:08:20 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where?
A-B-O-V-E.
If you're talking about "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in
every way...",
You didn't read the entire message, or anybody else's, for that
matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: playing footsie with a rapist |
13 Jan 2005 10:11:32 PM |
|
|
In article <defdu0l5e9607iat79nkpvcerdjnhmju35@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:45:31 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <lmhbu0tg1ihjmi4ml63e3i5rmt8c29te1m@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:08:20 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this
question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where?
A-B-O-V-E.
If you're talking about "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in
every way...",
You didn't read the entire message, or anybody else's, for that
matter.
You don't have a point or you would have made it by now. *****.
Dawn: "So, are you still going to rape me?"
Brandon "What time is it?"
Dawn: "I don't know. I don't have to be home yet though."
Brandon "Nah, there's not enought time."
- 'Welcome to the Dollhouse'
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: playing footsie with a rapist |
14 Jan 2005 12:14:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:11:32 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <defdu0l5e9607iat79nkpvcerdjnhmju35@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:45:31 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <lmhbu0tg1ihjmi4ml63e3i5rmt8c29te1m@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:08:20 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
In article <vst4u0teng9kua7vabffgsoaq9n0053s3e@4ax.com>, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:59:49 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
To avoid equivocation,- before we can evaluate the merits of the
statement "pro-lifers are rapists"- you must answer this
question-- what
is your definition of "pro-lifer"?
I provided my answer (above). You should have bothered to read it.
Where?
A-B-O-V-E.
If you're talking about "Pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists in
every way...",
You didn't read the entire message, or anybody else's, for that
matter.
You don't have a point...
And you do...atop your head!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
