| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Karengrl" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2004 06:35:27 AM |
| Object: |
Tests for gay babies |
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
.
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
15 Nov 2004 01:54:18 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419892df$0$27545$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4195528e$0$27548$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
The other Donald wrote:
[snip]
On that basis I think you should be looking at imposing abortion on
homosexual children of 'homophobic' mothers as a matter of principle
frankly. I mean, we've already had people on this board expressing the
view that disabled people should never have been born because of their
quality of life, so I hardly think we can make an exception for these
poor souls.
Let's get this straight: I have never said that disabled people should
never
have been born. What I have said is that in many instances it would
have
been better if they had never been born. If you can't differentiate
between
the two statements then I suggest you take a remedial English course.
If a
pregnant woman discovers that the foetus she is carrying has a gross
abnormality then it is entirely up to her to decide whether to abort or
to
carry to term. It is no-one else's business, and she is under no
obligation
to give any reason for her decision to anyone else.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Thanks June for that clarification.
Frankly, I do struggle to with the distinction between "some disabled
people should never have been born", and that all of them should never
have been born, simply because I'm looking at this in part from the
point of view of the choiceless disabled person for whom such a
distinction is meaningless.
I look at it from their point of view as well, and also from their parents'
and family's point of view. Maybe I've seen too many heartbreaking cases of
severely brain-damaged children abandoned to hospital or other institutional
care, rarely - if ever - to see their parents again.
Anyway, let's get back on topic!
Would you support a woman's right to choose to abort a child on the
basis of his or her predisposition to homosexuality?
Absolutely. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what her reason is, even
if I would despise her for her given reason - and she has no need to give a
reason at all - it is up to her and nobody else but her.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
15 Nov 2004 02:01:07 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
Absolutely. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what her reason is, even
if I would despise her for her given reason - and she has no need to give a
reason at all - it is up to her and nobody else but her.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Yeah June. At least you're completely, not partially morally bankrupt.
There's some consistency there.
Oh. and the disctinction between gassing Jews and standing by whilst
they're gassed when you could do something about it is *enormous*. But
you knew that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
15 Nov 2004 10:02:18 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41990d33$0$27541$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
Absolutely. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what her reason is,
even
if I would despise her for her given reason - and she has no need to
give a
reason at all - it is up to her and nobody else but her.
Yeah June. At least you're completely, not partially morally bankrupt.
There's some consistency there.
Morally bankrupt am I? Let's just compare our morality, shall we? I'm not
the one demanding that others have to endure what I'm not prepared to endure
myself - you are. How moral is that? I help people out when I can because
I want to, not because I'm trying to notch up some Brownie points with a
mythical being who might hurt me for eternity. Which is the more moral?
I'm not the one trying to tell people how they ought to live their lives
because of my unsubstantiated beliefs - you are. How moral is that?
Oh. and the disctinction between gassing Jews and standing by whilst
they're gassed when you could do something about it is *enormous*. But
you knew that.
I don't see the relevance of that, but I'd like to know what you think
anyone could have done about it. Britain declared war on Germany to try to
prevent that. Not enough for you? Considering Ireland's record during the
war, I'd advise you not to go there.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
15 Nov 2004 09:21:25 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Yeah June. At least you're completely, not partially morally bankrupt.
Whereas you're moral because you consider women to be your slaves whom
you can force to suffer and die for what you want. You treat women
like animals because you're "moral".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 10:40:12 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> writes:
The other Donald wrote:
Im 12 weeks pregnant and I definately dont want a gay baby no way. Can
you imagine having a quear as a daughter or a son?? Thank god theres
abortion so we can choose, but whats the point of abortion if you cant
tell whether your babies a quear???
Indeed.
Pregnant and abysmally stupid is no way to go through life.
The right to exercise choice is not stupidity. Get a life.
Her posts indicate that she's as stupid as a box of rocks. Stupid people
like her raise stupid kids, and just imagine how shitty of a life her child
would have knowing that his/her mother was a bigot that detested their
existence for a genetic predisposition that she gave them.
On that basis I think you should be looking at imposing abortion on homosexual
children of 'homophobic' mothers as a matter of principle frankly. I mean,
we've already had people on this board expressing the view that disabled
people should never have been born because of their quality of life, so I
hardly think we can make an exception for these poor souls.
Unfortunately for your non sequitur argument, Donald's pro-choice, and like
me, would rather leave that choice up to the pregnant woman. Quit whining
because you can't intimidate anyone into letting *your* conscience be their
guide.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 01:25:05 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41954b98$0$27534$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
Hi,
Can anybody actualy help me here!!
Try <alt.psychiatry>.
I thought that some people knew about abortions and could help.
Im 12 weeks pregnant and I definately dont want a gay baby no way. Can
you imagine having a quear as a daughter or a son?? Thank god theres
abortion so we can choose, but whats the point of abortion if you cant
tell whether your babies a quear???
Indeed.
Pregnant and abysmally stupid is no way to go through life.
The right to exercise choice is not stupidity.
Hey, you're coming around. Congratulations.
Get a life.
Got a great one. Thanks for asking.
I read once that there was a test for being a quear, or that people
were born quears so they must be able to tell. I would be happy to
spend lots of money on a test if there was one so if anyone can help
they can email me or if they know anyone who can help me can they also
email me.
Send me "lots of money". I will then be glad to inform you as to whether
to abort your potentially "quear" fetus.
Very helpful.
If you want to continue and take this half-wit troll seriously, be my guest.
"Karen" shouldn't have to provide all the laughs.
HTH. HAND.
LC~ "Karen" wanders in to Usenet with big issues on her mind. Such as it
is.
"Age is a very high price to pay for maturity."~Tom Stoppard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 01:20:25 PM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
Indeed.
Pregnant and abysmally stupid is no way to go through life.
The right to exercise choice is not stupidity.
Hey, you're coming around. Congratulations.
No, I was being ironic. Why are you being so rude to Karen, a woman whe
merely wants to exercise choice? It's almost as though you don't respect
her.
Get a life.
Got a great one. Thanks for asking.
Yes, I'm sure....
If you want to continue and take this half-wit troll seriously, be my guest.
"Karen" shouldn't have to provide all the laughs.
Oh, Karen is just the first in the trickle of demands for abortion on
the grounds of "sexual orientation" that will wipe out homosexuality as
we understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Karen is Caldwel's sockpuppet -Caldwel needs a life |
13 Nov 2004 06:21:19 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4196609f$0$3035$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
Indeed.
Pregnant and abysmally stupid is no way to go through life.
The right to exercise choice is not stupidity.
Hey, you're coming around. Congratulations.
No, I was being ironic. Why are you being so rude to Karen, a woman whe
merely wants to exercise choice? It's almost as though you don't respect
her.
Get a life.
Got a great one. Thanks for asking.
Yes, I'm sure....
Why don't you get one, instead of making up imaginary friends to play with
and 'defend' on Usenet.
You fucking loser.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 01:46:24 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4196609f$0$3035$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
Indeed.
Pregnant and abysmally stupid is no way to go through life.
The right to exercise choice is not stupidity.
Hey, you're coming around. Congratulations.
No, I was being ironic.
You need to try a new schtick. That one ain't working.
Why are you being so rude to Karen, a woman whe merely wants to exercise
choice? It's almost as though you don't respect her.
See, now THAT'S funny.
Get a life.
Got a great one. Thanks for asking.
Yes, I'm sure....
If you want to continue and take this half-wit troll seriously, be my
guest.
"Karen" shouldn't have to provide all the laughs.
Oh, Karen is just the first in the trickle of demands for abortion on the
grounds of "sexual orientation" that will wipe out homosexuality as we
understand it.
Well then Nostradumbass, I guess that's the way God wants it.
Another mystery to ponder.
LC~ Beginning to forget which one was the troll.
"To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease."~Lao-tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 01:46:46 PM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
choice? It's almost as though you don't respect her.
See, now THAT'S funny.
Get a life.
You clowns sit there pontificating about "choice" and "freedom" and when
someone comes along with a serious choice dillemma you can't even bring
yourselves to throw her a bone, not a crumb of comfort, not a word of
support. All you do is insult her intelligence, and even having written
an extensive list of reasons why she would want to abort a homosexual
child, you continue to insult her. Show some respect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 06:18:15 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419666cd$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
choice? It's almost as though you don't respect her.
See, now THAT'S funny.
Get a life.
You clowns sit there pontificating about "choice" and "freedom" and when
someone comes along with a serious choice dillemma you can't even bring
yourselves to throw her a bone, not a crumb of comfort, not a word of
support. All you do is insult her intelligence, and even having written
an extensive list of reasons why she would want to abort a homosexual
child, you continue to insult her. Show some respect.
***** you.
There was no dilemma. No matter what was said or asked of your sockpuppet
'Karen,' all that was returned is *****.
There was no legitimate question, only a stupid, ficticious premise and
strawman 'arguments' in which you, under your sockpuppet Karen, went off on
your irrelevant tirades in an attempt to gather some sort of evidence to
substantiate your fucked up opinion.
Here's a clue for you, dumbass: when you lie in an attempt to 'prove your
position,' you are admitting that you're fully aware as to how full of *****
you really are.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 02:03:44 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419666cd$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
choice? It's almost as though you don't respect her.
See, now THAT'S funny.
Get a life.
You clowns sit there pontificating about "choice" and "freedom" and when
someone comes along with a serious choice dillemma you can't even bring
yourselves to throw her a bone, not a crumb of comfort, not a word of
support. All you do is insult her intelligence, and even having written an
extensive list of reasons why she would want to abort a homosexual child,
you continue to insult her. Show some respect.
Is this another of your attempts at "irony"?
If it is, please stop.
LC~ Starting to think either Mike isn't dealing from a full deck, or hasn't
read all the followups from "Karen".
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."~ Soren Kierkegaard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
13 Nov 2004 06:13:02 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419666cd$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
This Karengrl is obviously a troll, and I believe also a sockpuppet of
Michael Caldwel. Caldwel spends too much time defending her patent *****
by lying about the rest of us.
I suspected it by his second post, but I checked header information just to
make certain.
My NNTP-Posting-Host is: 70.112.194.100
Adam's is: 69.195.79.151
.....*BUT*
Karen and Caldwel's both have the same: 82.70.132.246.
You are such a fucking loser and a liar Caldwel, and you have proven my
words to be absolutely correct.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
13 Nov 2004 06:25:11 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419666cd$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
This Karengrl is obviously a troll, and I believe also a sockpuppet of
Michael Caldwel. Caldwel spends too much time defending her patent *****
by lying about the rest of us.
Um, Donald, I've never defended Karen's position. I find it morally
reprehensible and your defense of it obnoxious. I can't be held
responsible for the plumbing of the internet either. I find your desire
to "prove" Karen to be a fraud to be the last resort of a man who has
nothing to say to a woman who wants to abort her homosexual child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Home Skoold" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
14 Nov 2004 11:14:53 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4196a80e$0$3035$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
The other Donald wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:419666cd$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
This Karengrl is obviously a troll, and I believe also a sockpuppet of
Michael Caldwel. Caldwel spends too much time defending her patent
*****
by lying about the rest of us.
Um, Donald, I've never defended Karen's position.
I didn't claim that you "defended Karen's position." I said, as is blatantly
obvious, that you defend her *****.
Here is one of many posts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22tests+for+gay+babies%22&hl=en&lr=&selm=4194cb34%240%2427547%24db0fefd9%40news.zen.co.uk&rnum=1
This is even more humorous when you take into account that both you and your
sockpuppet believe the same untrue *****.
Your sockpuppet, Karen, asks if there's a test to determine if her baby will
be a homosexual. You essentially said, "Yes, there is."
You presented the above scenario so that you can make claims that there are
tests that can determine this, and go off on your tirade of ignorance. You
presented this entire load of *****, and you continually misquote us and
distort our replies to try to manufacture 'evidence' in a pitiful attempt at
gathering 'proof' of the ***** caricatures you've conjured up. Your
charade is even more laughable when you made up 'Karen' to ask a question on
Usenet that is more appropriate to be asked of a doctor.
There are no tests of the sort, not for homosexuality or any of the other
traits you mentioned. Only a complete dumbass would even imply that 'Jew' is
a genetic encoding of some sort.
The icing on the cake is where you state there is a 'gay gene' and give a
vague reference to "them" that Karen should 'contact.'
I find it morally
reprehensible and your defense of it obnoxious.
I've defended nothing, especially not some tripe you've said through your
sockpuppet.
Spare me your feigned indignity. You're a classless moron, and the puchline
to a shitty joke.
I can't be held
responsible for the plumbing of the internet either.
It is the 'plumbing of the internet' that has exposed your game.
I find your desire
to "prove" Karen to be a fraud to be the last resort of a man
No fucktard. Karen is nothing more than your sockpuppet. There was no
"desire to prove." There was a stench, and I figured out what it was: there
is no Karen. There is only *you*, posing as another poster to give you a
reason to talk about your boogeyman-***** of gay babies.
Right now, as a test, I created another user to see if the NNTP comes back
as the same as my user 'the Other Donald.'
I'll bet 'Home Skool'd' has NNTP posting host of: 70.112.194.100, due to the
fact that it was sent through my modem.
who has
nothing to say to a woman who wants to abort her homosexual child.
I had plenty to say, starting with the fact that 'Karen' was, at best just a
troll and a completely stupid one at that, or, at worst your sockpuppet.
'Karen' is nothing more than you sockpuppet.
There is no 'Karen,' only you making up new users and 'arguing' a ficticious
premise.
You are pitiful. You are such a fucking loser and a liar Caldwel, and you
have proven my
words to be absolutely correct.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
14 Nov 2004 12:58:42 PM |
|
|
Home Skool'd wrote:
There is no 'Karen,' only you making up new users and 'arguing' a ficticious
premise.
You are pitiful. You are such a fucking loser and a liar Caldwel, and you
have proven my
words to be absolutely correct.
Karen may have been my sockpuppet, but she was no straw man.
The significance of this will completely escape all you amoral and
immoral "pro-choicers", abortion fanatics and sociopaths out there, but
eugenics is here. On the basis of subjective and essentially arbitrary
judgements about "quality of life" and other such meaningless
non-metrics, we are, one way or another, preventing people from entering
the gene pool.
Furthermore, we have gone in the direction of "choice", where we make
the mad and completely fallacious assumption that what a parent deems
best for a child must be in the best interests of the child. Including,
perversely, killing him or her.
Simultaneously, we are told that many aspects of behaviour, from
criminality to studiousness to courage and, yes, sexuality are
genetically predetermined.
It is especially important to the agenda of the left that homosexuality
is genetically predetermined, because it is very much on that premise
that we are forced not to consider it a psychiatric disorder or wilfully
deviant behaviour, and embrace it as equal to heterosexuality.
So, unless the left have been telling us a whole pile of lies about
homosexuality, which I'm sure they haven't, and as long as scientific
progress continues at the frantic pace it has been, it's really only a
matter of time before the "gay gene" is detectable.
And then. Yes. Well, whilst some people on the left might want consider
being a homosexual to be a good thing, others aren't so enthralled. Many
parents reject their children outright on the basis of their
homosexuality. "Oh, oh, if only they hadn't been born!" they cry. You
see parents always know what is best for their children.
Let's hope then, that homosexuality is merely a matter of wilful choice.
For their sakes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Caldwel admits to making sockpuppets |
14 Nov 2004 02:11:33 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4197ad0d$0$27545$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Home Skool'd wrote:
There is no 'Karen,' only you making up new users and 'arguing' a
ficticious
premise.
You are pitiful. You are such a fucking loser and a liar Caldwel, and
you
have proven my
words to be absolutely correct.
Karen may have been my sockpuppet,
How pathetic.
Sockpuppet --n. :[Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over your hand and
talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In Usenet parlance, a pseudo
through which the puppeteer posts follow-ups to their own original message
to give the appearance that a number of people support the views held in the
original message.
but she was no straw man.
It absolutely *WAS* a strawman, among other things:
**Strawman -The image invoked by the fallacy is that of a fight between a
human opponent and a straw dummy dressed to look like a real opponent. When
the straw man is knocked down, the human opponent claims victory. A
straw-man argument is a summary of an opponent's position that is
intentionally weak or easy to refute. By defeating an artificial,
constructed version of someone else's argument, a speaker can claim
"victory," even though he or she has not really dealt with the points that
are at issue.
**Strawman, also -The Straw Man fallacy is a rhetorical technique that
caricatures the opponent's position to make it easier to attack.
(this one is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm )
**Red Herring -The "red herring" fallacy is an argument that is not really
related to the question at issue, but which is thrown into the debate in an
attempt to move the discussion away from the point of stasis.
**Slipery Slope fallacy -The slippery slope fallacy is an attempt to divert
attention away from a question at issue by arguing that a certain decision,
if made, would set in motion a series of increasingly severe consequences.
These consequences are then presented as the consequences of the question at
hand, rather than as the consequences of a series of future decisions that
may or may not be made.
**Argumentum ad misericordiam -This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as
Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for
the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
(http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)
**Argumentum ad nauseam -This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is
more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more
often it is heard.
(http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)
All from http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/fallacies.htm ,
unless noted otherwise.
.....and....
In regard to your sockpuppet:
Bigot -(yours specifically) -a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to
his or her own opinions and prejudices, as where you say, "I hate quears and
a I dont want a quear baby. If you loved youre babies would you want them to
be fagots?????" when posing as Karen.
Lie -to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Delusion -2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or
propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or
persons or objects outside the self
Talking to yourself -see schizophrenia: a psychotic disorder characterized
by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the
level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality
expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in hallucinations and
delusions), and conduct -- called also dementia praecox
(all from www.m-w.com )
The significance of this will completely escape all you amoral and
immoral "pro-choicers", abortion fanatics and sociopaths out there, but
eugenics is here. On the basis of subjective and essentially arbitrary
judgements about "quality of life" and other such meaningless
non-metrics, we are, one way or another, preventing people from entering
the gene pool.
Like I said, all you did is come up with a ***** scenario in a futile
attempt at trying to make an argument where there was none. You've distorted
our words and obfuscated, and based this entire charade on a complete lie.
This lie is due to your incompetence and insistence that your *****
position of "pro-choicers" has any merit whatsoever outside your fucked up
mind.
It should be noted explicitly that the 'gay baby' issue is solely the rhealm
of the religious nuttter.
Rest of irrelevant tripe snipped. Liars with sockpuppets have nothing to say
worth listening to.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
14 Nov 2004 06:59:31 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> writes:
Home Skool'd wrote:
There is no 'Karen,' only you making up new users and 'arguing' a ficticious
premise.
You are pitiful. You are such a fucking loser and a liar Caldwel, and you
have proven my
words to be absolutely correct.
Karen may have been my sockpuppet, but she was no straw man.
No, "she" was just some of your intestinal output, and as such, got all the
respect "she" deserved...just like you're now reaping what you've sown.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
15 Nov 2004 05:04:03 AM |
|
|
Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:
Karen may have been my sockpuppet, but she was no straw man.
No, "she" was just some of your intestinal output, and as such, got all the
respect "she" deserved...just like you're now reaping what you've sown.
Hey Pat!
Do YOU think that homosexuality is genetically predisposed??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Karengrl is a sockpuppet-troll of Caldwel |
15 Nov 2004 07:17:26 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> writes:
Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:
Karen may have been my sockpuppet, but she was no straw man.
No, "she" was just some of your intestinal output, and as such, got all the
respect "she" deserved...just like you're now reaping what you've sown.
Hey Pat!
Do YOU think that homosexuality is genetically predisposed??
I already answered that. Do your own detective work. (You have barely eight
hours of articles to sift through.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zinnic" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
17 Nov 2004 12:25:56 PM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411121442.704ead56@posting.google.com>...
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote in message news:<Wf4ld.24788$KJ6.15667@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Karengrl" < > wrote in message
news:bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK?
Play a Liza Minelli album. If the baby starts kicking wildly, you've got a
gay one.
I dont want a gay or lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
<sniff, sniff>
Nice try, troll. Not.
Karen
LC~ Thinks Karen should hope for 10 toes and 10 fingers, and let it go at
that.
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain." ~Friedrich
von Schiller
Hi,
Can anybody actualy help me here!! I thought that some people knew
about abortions and could help.
Im 12 weeks pregnant and I definately dont want a gay baby no way. Can
you imagine having a quear as a daughter or a son?? Thank god theres
abortion so we can choose, but whats the point of abortion if you cant
tell whether your babies a quear???
I read once that there was a test for being a quear, or that people
were born quears so they must be able to tell. I would be happy to
spend lots of money on a test if there was one so if anyone can help
they can email me or if they know anyone who can help me can they also
email me.
Thanks everybody
Karen
I read once that there was a test for criminality. Check that out too
because it is even harder to imagine having a queer criminal as a
daughter or a son!
Zinnic
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 06:20:02 PM |
|
|
Karengrl wrote:
I read once that there was a test for being a quear, or that people
were born quears so they must be able to tell. I would be happy to
spend lots of money on a test if there was one so if anyone can help
they can email me or if they know anyone who can help me can they also
email me.
Thanks everybody
Karen
Karen,
I think that your unborn child has every right not to be killed, even if
they are likely to be a homosexual, which you don't know. Nobody really
knows why people want to practice homosexual behaviour - there are lots
of possible reasons.
I think that you should just hope for the best, and love your child
unconditionally.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karengrl" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 02:59:22 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<41955555$0$27534$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
Karengrl wrote:
I read once that there was a test for being a quear, or that people
were born quears so they must be able to tell. I would be happy to
spend lots of money on a test if there was one so if anyone can help
they can email me or if they know anyone who can help me can they also
email me.
Thanks everybody
Karen
Karen,
I think that your unborn child has every right not to be killed, even if
they are likely to be a homosexual, which you don't know. Nobody really
knows why people want to practice homosexual behaviour - there are lots
of possible reasons.
I think that you should just hope for the best, and love your child
unconditionally.
Michael
Shut the ***** up alright!!! youre not a woman youre a typical man and
a typilcal prolifer trying to control women and stop them having there
reproductive rites. If i dont like gays and I dont want a gay or lesbo
baby then thats my choice but I dont what thats got to do with you.
its my body OK you weirdo control freak.
I dont like quears theres enough quears in the world without me having
a quear and anyway its not a baby until its born so shut the fucj up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Vierstra" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 11:31:33 PM |
|
|
Why want kill baby because think it gay, you shouldn't kill a baby no
matter what. why want hate a baby because think gay, I will say don't
have any baby because you will always will worry about it and no ways a
doctor till when born be gay or staight. If a doctor kill it and will
never know how loving Daughter or Son will be, this way I don't have
kid's today because this reason people like you hate gays. Don't have
shame thinking this ways and one day have a dreams about child that kill
because think it is gay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 09:03:35 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK?
Play a Liza Minelli album. If the baby starts kicking wildly, you've got a
gay one.
How very instructive. This woman doesn't want a homosexual baby - that's
her choice. Don't get all pro-life on her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 09:24:27 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4194d2e7$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK?
Play a Liza Minelli album. If the baby starts kicking wildly, you've got
a gay one.
How very instructive. This woman doesn't want a homosexual baby - that's
her choice.
Tell you what, Mikey: If you want to waste your moronic platitudes on an
*obvious* troll, be my guest.
Adds to the entertainment value.
Don't get all pro-life on her.
No worries there.
LC~ Thinks Mike isn't sharp enough to realize trolls are for taunting.
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the depths
of ignominy."~Patrick O'Brian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 09:27:36 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
How very instructive. This woman doesn't want a homosexual baby - that's
her choice.
Tell you what, Mikey: If you want to waste your moronic platitudes on an
*obvious* troll, be my guest.
Adds to the entertainment value.
I can't see the trolling personally. Parents want their children to be
all manner of things, and sometimes seems to stop at nothing. Why
should sexual orientation be any different? This is just one more
problem that abortion can resolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 09:58:01 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4194d889$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
How very instructive. This woman doesn't want a homosexual baby - that's
her choice.
Tell you what, Mikey: If you want to waste your moronic platitudes on an
*obvious* troll, be my guest.
Adds to the entertainment value.
I can't see the trolling personally.
Obviously.
Parents want their children to be
all manner of things, and sometimes seems to stop at nothing. Why should
sexual orientation be any different? This is just one more problem that
abortion can resolve.
So, you've come over to the pro-choice side?
LC~ Yeah, right.
"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light"~Stanley Kubrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 10:06:27 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
I can't see the trolling personally.
Obviously.
Parents want their children to be
all manner of things, and sometimes seems to stop at nothing. Why should
sexual orientation be any different? This is just one more problem that
abortion can resolve.
So, you've come over to the pro-choice side?
LC~ Yeah, right.
"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light"~Stanley Kubrick
I think that if you're going to defend the woman's right to choose
you're going to have to accept that when medical technology inevitably
provides increasing amounts of information about the unborn child, and
their propensity to develop certain traits, some women will start making
choices that will expose the hypocricy and double standards of the
'pro-choice' movement.
Most people agree that neither nature or nurture are complete
determinants of human traits, rather that one reinforces the other. For
example, we now 'screen' embryos that _might_ develop colonic cancer -
we can't say they definitely will.
The alternative to the idea that homosexuality is not at least partially
genetic, and consequently detectable, is that homosexuality is a choice
made by people that they can reject.
Take your pick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 10:32:11 AM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4194e1a8$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Loose Cannon wrote:
I can't see the trolling personally.
Obviously.
Parents want their children to be
all manner of things, and sometimes seems to stop at nothing. Why should
sexual orientation be any different? This is just one more problem that
abortion can resolve.
So, you've come over to the pro-choice side?
LC~ Yeah, right.
"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light"~Stanley Kubrick
I think that if you're going to defend the woman's right to choose you're
going to have to accept that when medical technology inevitably provides
increasing amounts of information about the unborn child, and their
propensity to develop certain traits, some women will start making choices
that will expose the hypocricy and double standards of the 'pro-choice'
movement.
What "hypocrisy" would that be?
Most people agree that neither nature or nurture are complete determinants
of human traits, rather that one reinforces the other. For example, we now
'screen' embryos that _might_ develop colonic cancer - we can't say they
definitely will.
The alternative to the idea that homosexuality is not at least partially
genetic, and consequently detectable, is that homosexuality is a choice
made by people that they can reject.
Take your pick.
What's the "pick"?
I am "pro-choice". That means I support the woman's right to choose whether
to carry a pregnancy to term. WHY she chooses to abort is not my concern.
Simple, eh?
LC~ Cutting to the chase.
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an
equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on
themselves."~ Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cleopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 11:13:23 PM |
|
|
(Karengrl) wrote in message news:<bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>...
Hi,
Can anyone help me? I'm pregnant and I want my baby but
as long as its not gay. Are there any tests I can do
on the baby to make sure its OK? I dont want a gay or
lesbian baby it would be too much and I want an
abortion if it is.
Karen
Actually, dear child, most of the abortovorkians in here are keen on
even partial birth abortions, so if it comes out and cries with a
lisp, or looks like Michael Moore, give the doctor the go ahead.
Better yet, conceal a pair of scissors in your surgical cap and do it
yourself if the doc wimps out on you. Not to worry about the murder
thing - just tell 'em your a pro-choice kinda gal. You know, your body
and all. You got a winner here and I say go for it!
Cleopatra
PS - If you're really concerned about having a gay child, and most of
us can appreciate your plight, why not remain abstinent for a few
years until this crowd *fixes* things to where you can off children up
to five years - you know, the *parasite* gambit extended out just a
wee bit. At five you'd be able to tell and VOILA! - problem solved!
This gang thinks of everything, do they not? What a bunch of cut ups!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
