| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 11:35:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:22:05 GMT, Craig Chilton
<> spake thusly:
To all: Check the links in my signature. :)
PHONY-Pastor Dave wrote:
More libel, Craig?
See below.
<moronic swill flushed>
...abortion...
... is an action of SELF-DEFENSE on the part of a woman
who has found herself faced with an unwanted (and totally
unnecessary and curable) medical condition which -- if allowed
to run its course, has the potential to RUIN her well-being, both
short-term and long-term... DISRUPT her current and long-term
plans, and DESTROY countless of her future opportunities.
By accessing this harmless remedy, she is able to immediately
and completely UNDO that potentially horrendous disruption to
her life and well-being, and put her life BACK on track, as though
the ill-timed pregnancy had never happened in the first place.
And in the process, immediately RESTORE her full range of future
opportunities to PRE-ill-timed-pregnancy levels
And interestingly, the vast majority of women who access this
remedy go on to HAVE children later, when the timing is far
better... thus enabling her to INSTEAD bear a child into a far
better environment, and which she is more likely to love.
There is NO good reason to DENY **any** girl or woman
who desires it ready and unfettered access to this hugely-
beneficial and life-restoring remedy.
(And, PHONY-pastor, if you delete ONE WORD of the above
in any response post, that is your right. Just as it will be MY right
to immediately RESTORE it, intact, in *my* response to that.)
The above -- and the SIG of this post -- serve as a total
INDICTMENT of every hateful, bigoted, doltish and ignorant
Anti-Choicer in existence.
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
GOD'S "WIN-WIN-WIN" SITUATION
God is omniscient and omnipotent. That means that He has
always KNOWN everything *about* everything, past present and
future. And that He may freely INTERACT, uniquely, with any
person, group, or all humanity, however and whenever He
chooses.
Trillions (indeed, even octillions) of years ago, God KNEW
just *which* human entities (from sperm and ova on, inclusive)
would be born, and which ones would NOT, for whatever
reason. In the case of Jeremiah, He interacted BEFORE
Jeremiah reached the womb -- while Jeremiah was STILL at
the sperm-and-ovum stage! (Jer. 1:5). In THAT case, at least,
the soul had been instilled at the sperm-and-egg stage -- the
stage at which God communicated with Jeremiah.
So it's VERY possible that God instills ALL souls at that
stage... since God ALREADY knows which of them will later
become people, and which ones will not. And if He chooses
to instill souls in ALL of those, then heaven must be a VERY
populated place. And any potential people that happened to
have been aborted then got a FREE pass to heaven. And missed
the RISK that is faced by all of us here on earth.
And then, there also is the very REAL possibility that God
chooses to instill souls ONLY in the entities that He KNOWS,
beforehand, *will* be BORN. Then there are NO free passes
to heaven. But that's no loss to the QUINTILLION human
entities, daily, that never knew the difference.
Any way you look at it, it's a "win-win" situation for God.
Which makes it no great surprise that He never said so much
as ONE SINGLE WORD against abortion. Since abortion is a
highly-valuable REMEDY that enables millions of women to put
their lives BACK on track, and gives them another chance to
pursue their full ranges of future opportunities, the availability of
it is FAR more in line with God's COMPASSION (and the
compassion that Jesus commanded us to show to others), than
it would be for women to be FORCED to carry-to-term against
their will, and see many of their opportunities and their well-being
destroyed. (Particularly since God ALSO was/is well-aware that
MOST women who DO obtain abortions go on later to HAVE
children, by choice, when the timing is better, and the circum-
stances and prospects for long-term stable family environments
are far more favorable.)
For God, the status quo is "win-win-win" -- all the way!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
27 Sep 2005 11:46:04 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l5tij1lqeh89816c8d4dt83oa71c3mr88f@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:22:05 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:
To all: Check the links in my signature. :)
PHONY-Pastor Dave wrote:
More libel, Craig?
No, you certainly are a fake and a liar.
....and a piece of dogshit to boot.
I read your links where you claim Craig has some sort of affinity for young
girls, and you base it on the lie-by-distortion technique prevalent in posts
by christian trash like yourself.
Craig used the term "stimulate." You, obviously trying to cover up some sort
of perversion, extrapolated out by applying the modifier "sexually" when you
replied with your inane tripe, though it must be noted that you weren't even
man enough to actually put the words in your post, only alluded to such
activity.
If that's how you pseudo-christians sleep at night, then feel free to do it.
We still see it for the dishonesty that it is.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
27 Sep 2005 07:56:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:46:04 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l5tij1lqeh89816c8d4dt83oa71c3mr88f@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:22:05 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:
To all: Check the links in my signature. :)
PHONY-Pastor Dave wrote:
More libel, Craig?
No, you certainly are a fake and a liar.
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
...and a piece of dogshit to boot.
Such intelligence!
I read your links where you claim Craig has some sort of affinity for young
girls, and you base it on the lie-by-distortion technique prevalent in posts
by christian trash like yourself.
So quoting Craig's own words is "distortion"?
<chuckle>
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
27 Sep 2005 09:35:54 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ggqjj1dcakmk6t6p24dtg8ro8jr7n4ere7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:46:04 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:l5tij1lqeh89816c8d4dt83oa71c3mr88f@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:22:05 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:
To all: Check the links in my signature. :)
PHONY-Pastor Dave wrote:
More libel, Craig?
No, you certainly are a fake and a liar.
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
You distort people's words by snipping context and substituting your own.
That makes you a liar and a fraud.
...and a piece of dogshit to boot.
Such intelligence!
Thanks. I only had your own words on which to base my conclusion.
And since I'm certain that you're a profanity sniveler, it just reinforces
my point that you people aren't worth killing. You think nothing of posting
lie after lie, but your panties bunch up as soon as you hear a poopie word.
You certainly *are a piece of work....and not the type anyone of any
character would put their name on.
I read your links where you claim Craig has some sort of affinity for
young
girls, and you base it on the lie-by-distortion technique prevalent in
posts
by christian trash like yourself.
So quoting Craig's own words is "distortion"?
Typical dishonesty-snip by the known liar....but I repeat myself. We've
already covered this, and you left out the You only partially quoted
him, and embellished the statements based on your own desire to have sexual
relations with children.
The reason you snip posts in this manner, as you did mine, is because to
leave my words in the message would have you posting the proof of your
dishonesty. Here they are, restored, for proper context.
"Craig used the term 'stimulate.' You, obviously trying to cover up some
sort of perversion, extrapolated out by applying the modifier "sexually"
when you replied with your inane tripe, though it must be noted that you
weren't even man enough to actually put the words in your post, only alluded
to such activity."
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Show the quote or context where Craig
stated "sexually stimulate" or simply admit you're a liar that is grasping
for straws as you watch your ego and pride crushed like the pathetic *****
that it is.
<chuckle>
He who laughs last is probably the butt of the joke. That would be you.
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
The existence of the procedure in the context you claim....
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
The procedure in the context that you claim does not exist. Therefore, your
argument is nothing more than a strawman based on lies, lies that you do not
hesitate in repeating while hiding behind your pathetic crust of
christianity and veneer of piety.
That makes you a Liar for Christ.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
The procedure in the context that you claim does not exist. Therefore, your
argument is nothing more than a strawman based on lies, lies that you do not
hesitate in repeating while hiding behind your pathetic crust of
christianity and veneer of piety.
That makes you a Liar for Christ.
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
The procedure in the context that you claim does not exist. Therefore, your
argument is nothing more than a strawman based on lies, lies that you do not
hesitate in repeating while hiding behind your pathetic crust of
christianity and veneer of piety.
That makes you a Liar for Christ.
By the way....posting the same bogus information numerous times and acting
as though it is "five questions" simply shows your dishonesty is matched
only by your incompetence.
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
It is nothing more than a way to lie about science and medicine based on the
motive that once you morons get something like this passed, you can continue
down your path of control, taking further steps to impose your ignorance and
impotence onto others: namely the women that you detest so vehemently, that
have the gall to think for themselves.
That doesn't mean there's a shred of legitimacy to the bill. It is *****
and lies from the word 'go.' The "fallacy of equivocation" would also apply.
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
Doesn't take place, liar.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
Further lies snipped. You are a liar, and you fucking well know it.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
28 Sep 2005 03:18:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:35:54 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
You distort people's words by snipping context and substituting your own.
That makes you a liar and a fraud.
No context is needed when someone says flat out that they
enjoy seeing naked young girls.
Now stop dodging the issue.
To all: Check the links in my sig! :)
Anyway, back to the point. :)
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
28 Sep 2005 04:05:07 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6ckkj15av1rgoggke9mnclb2ga64rbs0oe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:35:54 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
You distort people's words by snipping context and substituting your own.
That makes you a liar and a fraud.
No context is needed when someone says flat out that they
enjoy seeing naked young girls.
He said nothing of the sort. Your words are not a quote.
Context DOES account for something, not to mention properly quoting someone.
Your so-called 'interpretation' is actually a misrepresentation of Craigs
reply to your absurdly prudish and imbecillic remark.
I read through the posts, and see the remarks he made that you insist on
embellishing. He does *NOT* say that he enjoys seeing young girls naked. You
obviously couldn't quote the fucking alphabet, and it is apparent that your
tactic is to spin his words to mean what you want them to.
Chanting the same lie time and again does not make it true, much like
snipping posts to distort their meaning does not give your argument even a
hint of legitimacy.
Now stop dodging the issue.
Quit lying about people. I addressed your ***** head-on. You continue to
snip posts because you are a liar, and then pretend that your nonsense
wasn't debunked.
Go play with your Sky Pixie, you fucking freak.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
28 Sep 2005 07:57:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:05:07 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6ckkj15av1rgoggke9mnclb2ga64rbs0oe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:35:54 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahoooY.com> spake thusly:
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
You distort people's words by snipping context and substituting your own.
That makes you a liar and a fraud.
No context is needed when someone says flat out that they
enjoy seeing naked young girls.
He said nothing of the sort. Your words are not a quote.
If you want to play stupid, go ahead.
To all: Check the links in my sig! :)
Anyway, back to the point. :)
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to USENET AKA 'SUENET' |
27 Sep 2005 10:23:59 PM |
|
|
Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
"The other Donald"
To all: Check the links in my signature. :)
PHONY-Pastor Dave wrote:
More libel, Craig?
No, you certainly are a fake and a liar.
Is that why I documented what I did with the links
in my signature?
You only documented the fact that you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
