| 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: "nospam" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
23 Nov 2004 02:27:56 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
Pointing out better alternatives isn't hate.
If you had a brain you would realize that it is in fact just the
opposite. But then you're a mindless bigot whose position is literally
based on nothing more than mischaracterizations of the opposition's
position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
24 Nov 2004 09:13:33 PM |
|
|
nospam <renniggadde@anyone-know-why.org> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
Pointing out better alternatives isn't hate.
You don't point out better alternatives.
You spew hate.
If you had a brain you would realize that it is in fact just the
opposite. But then you're a mindless bigot whose position is literally
More of the usual hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 09:07:07 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
I don't hate anybody Ray. You must be confusing "sanctioning everything
that people want to do irrespective of the damage to themselves and
society" with loving people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 08:30:53 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
I don't hate anybody Ray.
Sure looks like you do.
You must be confusing "sanctioning everything
that people want to do irrespective of the damage to themselves and
society" with loving people.
You must be confusing being an arrogant, self-righteous, judgemental
hypcorite with being loving.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "nospam" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
23 Nov 2004 02:30:00 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere. The homosexual
"rights" movement, itself based on some fairly dodgy premises,
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
You hate pretty much everybody, don't you?
no
Lessee, so far the list includes gays, women who get abortions, people
who provide abortions, people who defend the liberty of women,
"liberals", Democrats ...
I don't hate anybody Ray.
Sure looks like you do.
Actually, it looks like you're a bigot who can't rationally debate any
position. IOW, you're the typical mindless leftist fundamentalist
fanatic.
You must be confusing "sanctioning everything
that people want to do irrespective of the damage to themselves and
society" with loving people.
You must be confusing being an arrogant, self-righteous, judgemental
hypcorite with being loving.
What would you know about loving, you humorless obsessive psychopath?
*****, loser.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 09:27:16 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
I don't hate anybody Ray. You must be confusing "sanctioning everything
that people want to do irrespective of the damage to themselves and
society" with loving people.
I'm surprised you haven't just plonked Ray.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:21:26 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere.
Actually, no, since most non-religious people really don't care
whether people are gay or straight.
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
There is no homosexual Illuminati plot to take over the world, Michael.
Homosexuals are people who want to have sex with people of
their own sex, nothing more, nothing less.
And why do they want to do so? Because of the vast homosexual
conspiracy to win converts?
I feel for the men and women, often young and confused, who get subsumed
into this morass, and then, realising that they actually were wrong
about themselves, feel they cannot extricate themselves without
betraying their "cultural group".
Is that somehow different from the situation that arises when people
get sucked into religious cults?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:25:06 AM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
It's not a case of "Jesus making people straight" - this is something
that applies as much in the non-religious sphere.
Actually, no, since most non-religious people really don't care
whether people are gay or straight.
I think you'll find that they do. Parents tend to, as do family members.
People who care about them might do as well.
manipulates people into painting themselves into a corner by the process
of "outing" and by the creation of a ficticious cultural , pseudo-ethnic
identity.
There is no homosexual Illuminati plot to take over the world, Michael.
Did I say there was?
Homosexuals are people who want to have sex with people of
their own sex, nothing more, nothing less.
And why do they want to do so? Because of the vast homosexual
conspiracy to win converts?
Well, there is definitely an agenda to promote homosexuality as a
lifestyle choice, as a cultural clique that will bestow instant identity
upon people who otherwise lack one.
I feel for the men and women, often young and confused, who get subsumed
into this morass, and then, realising that they actually were wrong
about themselves, feel they cannot extricate themselves without
betraying their "cultural group".
Is that somehow different from the situation that arises when people
get sucked into religious cults?
Not really. An interesting comparison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 11:45:24 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
I think you'll find that they do. Parents tend to, as do family members.
People who care about them might do as well.
And unless they accept the truth of certain verses from the Book of
Leviticus, they'll probably be supportive and accepting.
Did I say there was?
You certainly sound like you think there is - that the homosexual
agenda is to subvert the sexual identity of the country's youth, etc.
Well, there is definitely an agenda to promote homosexuality as a
lifestyle choice, as a cultural clique that will bestow instant identity
upon people who otherwise lack one.
And unlike you, I don't have a problem with that.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:11:02 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
I think you'll find that they do. Parents tend to, as do family members.
People who care about them might do as well.
And unless they accept the truth of certain verses from the Book of
Leviticus, they'll probably be supportive and accepting.
Not necessarily...
Did I say there was?
You certainly sound like you think there is - that the homosexual
agenda is to subvert the sexual identity of the country's youth, etc.
Well, there is definitely an agenda to promote homosexuality as a
lifestyle choice, as a cultural clique that will bestow instant identity
upon people who otherwise lack one.
And unlike you, I don't have a problem with that.
....I have a problem with that. I wonder why it's there, I wonder who is
driving it and why. I wonder why there's an enormous emphasis of
collaring the youngest and most vulnerable young men.
I wonder if it's a co-incidence that young homosexual men are sometimes
the most rootless people from unstable family backgrounds who neither
knew the love of a mother or a father. I wonder why sometimes it's not
only their sexuality they are confused about.
A cursory analysis of life as a homosexual paints a pretty depressing
picture. Suicide rates, substance abuse rates and serious psychiatric
disorder rates are frighteningly high, and precipitate much earlier
death. I personally think it is an act of negligence and despair to do a
number of things in respect of this field:
1: First, to turn a blind eye to the reality of it by means of a
pseudo-inclusive approach. I think that will send out the wrong message
to people.
2: To deprive people of a route back, and a mechanism of getting help
and assistance, by labelling them as gay. The problem is, that if we
send out the message that being gay is just a normal alternative to
being heterosexual, then how can we ever address psychiatric disorders
that derive from homosexual activity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 12:44:06 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Not necessarily...
No, not necessarily, but the probabilities are on my side, not yours.
I wonder if it's a co-incidence that young homosexual men are sometimes
the most rootless people from unstable family backgrounds who neither
knew the love of a mother or a father. I wonder why sometimes it's not
only their sexuality they are confused about.
The key word is "sometimes" - sometimes it's the unstable people,
sometimes it's the jocks, sometimes it's the daughter of the Vice
President, and sometimes it's the daughter of the head of the
Christian Coalition of Georgia.
A cursory analysis of life as a homosexual paints a pretty depressing
picture. Suicide rates, substance abuse rates and serious psychiatric
disorder rates are frighteningly high, and precipitate much earlier
death.
Then why are people getting seduced by the Illuminati?
1: First, to turn a blind eye to the reality of it by means of a
pseudo-inclusive approach. I think that will send out the wrong message
to people.
So what's to be done?
2: To deprive people of a route back, and a mechanism of getting help
and assistance, by labelling them as gay.
It's not any worse than all the other labels that people get stuck
with.
The problem is, that if we
send out the message that being gay is just a normal alternative to
being heterosexual, then how can we ever address psychiatric disorders
that derive from homosexual activity?
How about addressing the psychiatric disorders that derive from
fundamentalist Christianity?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 01:29:07 PM |
|
|
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
I wonder if it's a co-incidence that young homosexual men are sometimes
the most rootless people from unstable family backgrounds who neither
knew the love of a mother or a father. I wonder why sometimes it's not
only their sexuality they are confused about.
The key word is "sometimes" - sometimes it's the unstable people,
sometimes it's the jocks, sometimes it's the daughter of the Vice
President, and sometimes it's the daughter of the head of the
Christian Coalition of Georgia.
Yes it might be. I was generalizing. Of course, none of those people
necessarily come froms stable backgrounds. The truth is, you can't
generalise about the reasons people are or become homosexuals, or are
homosexuals.
A cursory analysis of life as a homosexual paints a pretty depressing
picture. Suicide rates, substance abuse rates and serious psychiatric
disorder rates are frighteningly high, and precipitate much earlier
death.
Then why are people getting seduced by the Illuminati?
Well, because I think there is a kind of "bright lights and glamour"
aspect to gay culture, at the same time a kind of denigration of
heterosexuality going on. If there ever were two cultural stereotypes
that had currency, one is the sophisticated, elegant, witty homosexual,
and the other the brutish, neanderthal heterosexual. Both are grossly
inaccurate.
1: First, to turn a blind eye to the reality of it by means of a
pseudo-inclusive approach. I think that will send out the wrong message
to people.
So what's to be done?
I don't think that the state should encourage, fund or embrace
organisations with homosexual agendas. I don't think society should give
them tacit approval. I think that is radically different from not
accepting the individual.
2: To deprive people of a route back, and a mechanism of getting help
and assistance, by labelling them as gay.
It's not any worse than all the other labels that people get stuck
with.
It's not that the label necessarily has negative connotations - it's the
act of labelling.
The problem is, that if we
send out the message that being gay is just a normal alternative to
being heterosexual, then how can we ever address psychiatric disorders
that derive from homosexual activity?
How about addressing the psychiatric disorders that derive from
fundamentalist Christianity?
Or fundamental liberalism!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Benson-Manica" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
18 Nov 2004 01:55:46 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> spoke thus:
Yes it might be. I was generalizing. Of course, none of those people
necessarily come froms stable backgrounds. The truth is, you can't
generalise about the reasons people are or become homosexuals, or are
homosexuals.
So these potentially disturbed people you're so concerned about are
within the standard deviation here.
Well, because I think there is a kind of "bright lights and glamour"
aspect to gay culture,
Which is a contradiction of the horrors you described elsewhere.
Being gay still carries an enormous social stigma, so your argument
that it's somehow appealing seems unlikely.
at the same time a kind of denigration of
heterosexuality going on. If there ever were two cultural stereotypes
that had currency, one is the sophisticated, elegant, witty homosexual,
and the other the brutish, neanderthal heterosexual. Both are grossly
inaccurate.
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" notwithstanding, I really don't buy
these supposed negative stereotypes of heterosexuals in general.
I don't think that the state should encourage, fund or embrace
organisations with homosexual agendas.
I agree, but that's only because I'm a libertarian at heart. Liberals
certainly are a bunch of whiners when it comes to "inclusiveness".
I don't think society should give
them tacit approval. I think that is radically different from not
accepting the individual.
Well, civil unions are an approval of sorts.
It's not that the label necessarily has negative connotations - it's the
act of labelling.
Labels are a fact of modern life. Nothing is going to change that.
Or fundamental liberalism!
:)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 06:15:14 PM |
|
|
I think you should abort because you are not ready to be a parent and love
your child unconditionally. When your hetrosexual child later on, lives a
life that you do not approve of, what will you do then? Stop loving him or
her?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karengrl" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 03:09:37 AM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message news:<CY-dncxzgoOEzwjcRVn-iA@comcast.com>...
I think you should abort because you are not ready to be a parent and love
your child unconditionally. When your hetrosexual child later on, lives a
life that you do not approve of, what will you do then? Stop loving him or
her?
I dont want an abortion only if its a quear. I had an abortion last
year but because the dad was a jew but I knew he was one before and I
didnt want a yid baby so we didnat need to take a test for it
Basicaly if theres a test for being a quear then what you say wont be
a problem we can make the problem not happen ion the first place by
having an abortion. This is the 21'st Century OK we have choice and we
have scientists that can help us with tests and we have abortions so
these problems dont happen. Its called progress alrighrt!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 04:03:03 AM |
|
|
I dont want an abortion only if its a quear. I had an abortion last
year but because the dad was a jew but I knew he was one before and I
didnt want a yid baby so we didnat need to take a test for it
Now "pro-lifers", tell me that wasn't a good choice for her to make last
year. One child spared from a life that
obviously.......................well, I just won't even go that route. But
I am sure all you "Pro-lifers" get the picture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 05:18:48 AM |
|
|
Rights? Where? wrote:
I dont want an abortion only if its a quear. I had an abortion last
year but because the dad was a jew but I knew he was one before and I
didnt want a yid baby so we didnat need to take a test for it
Now "pro-lifers", tell me that wasn't a good choice for her to make last
year. One child spared from a life that
obviously.......................well, I just won't even go that route. But
I am sure all you "Pro-lifers" get the picture.
Yeah, I get the picture. One less Jew to suffer anti-semitism. Clearly
better off never being born...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
12 Nov 2004 07:26:20 PM |
|
|
one more thing, do you mind if I ask how old you are? I am just trying to
understand your point of view and I am finding it hard to comprehend. I
have been pregnant 5 times and the baby sexuality was never one of my
concerns. Please ehlp me to understand your point of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karengrl" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 03:13:41 AM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message news:<3oqdnWD2Hute_wjcRVn-jg@comcast.com>...
one more thing, do you mind if I ask how old you are? I am just trying to
understand your point of view and I am finding it hard to comprehend. I
have been pregnant 5 times and the baby sexuality was never one of my
concerns. Please ehlp me to understand your point of view.
I am 22. Youve got youre concerns and Ive got mine OK youve got to
respect womens choices OK. I hate quears and a I dont want a quear
baby. If you loved youre babies would you want them to be fagots?????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 03:55:23 AM |
|
|
Why are you so defensive? I am here trying to understand your point of
view, not judge it. And I do respect a woman's right to choose. And I do
love my babies, and if my babies grow up to be gay, lesbian, I will not love
them any less. No matter who my children are when they grow up I will love
them. Nothing would ever make me stop loving my kids. Certainly not their
sexuality. May I ask why you are so homophobic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karengrl" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 03:11:08 PM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message news:<RKGdnaT7XPaNRwjcRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
Why are you so defensive? I am here trying to understand your point of
view, not judge it. And I do respect a woman's right to choose. And I do
love my babies, and if my babies grow up to be gay, lesbian, I will not love
them any less. No matter who my children are when they grow up I will love
them. Nothing would ever make me stop loving my kids. Certainly not their
sexuality. May I ask why you are so homophobic?
Anyway also its not a baby is it in abortions so its not wrong. Dont
you go on prochoice websites and read about the truth???? youre not
really prochoice are you or you wouldnt be asking about why I want an
abortion because then its like it matters becuase its a baby but its
not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 09:10:35 PM |
|
|
I AM PROCHOICE. I am more concerned that you will choose to have a baby.
There are people who are not ready to take on the challenge of raising a
child and from what you have demonstrated I believe that you are one of
those people.
I am thankful that woman such as yourself and woman such as myself have the
choice to abort for your reasons and have the choice to abort for my
reasons. At no time was I ever objecting to the fact that you were having
an abortion. I was truly trying to understand your point of view, not from
an abortion stand point but from the motherhood stand point. In my opinion,
and I stress the phrase "my opinion", I think that you should wait to have a
child.
If "pro-lifers" actually cared about the children, they would care more
about what type of life the child was born into. People who are prochoice
are the ones who care about the children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Karen is a sockpuppet of Michael Caldwel. |
14 Nov 2004 11:33:38 AM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message
news:6-6dnRmsZsUuUQvcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
I AM PROCHOICE.
You're wasting your time.
Karen is nothing more than Caldwel's sockpuppet. No matter what you say, it
will be misrepresented by either Caldwel posing as 'Karen,' or by Caldwel
himself.
It's all in Caldwel's pathetic attempt to make some sort of invalid point.
--
-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: Tests for gay babies |
14 Nov 2004 04:57:43 AM |
|
|
Rights? Where? wrote:
I am thankful that woman such as yourself and woman such as myself have the
choice to abort for your reasons and have the choice to abort for my
reasons. At no time was I ever objecting to the fact that you were having
an abortion. I was truly trying to understand your point of view, not from
an abortion stand point but from the motherhood stand point. In my opinion,
and I stress the phrase "my opinion", I think that you should wait to have a
I find your theoretical support for the abortion of children on the
grounds of their likely sexual orientation both heartwarming and
progressive. You shared your tacit approval with all of your fellow
pro-choicers.
I'm sure that you and your fellow pro-choicers will stand side by side
with the eugenicists in the search for a test for sexual orientation
which will give women some tangible and meaningful reproductive choice.
At the moment, the lottery of sexual orientation that is the conception
and birth of a child represents a failure of science to do its job properly.
Choice choice choice!!
Choice choice choice!!
Choice choice choice!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
14 Nov 2004 11:40:57 AM |
|
|
Spin spin spin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
14 Nov 2004 11:48:24 AM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message
news:S_mdnRxb-OQyBQrcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Spin spin spin.
You're wasting your time.
Karen is nothing more than Caldwel's sockpuppet. No matter what you say, it
will be misrepresented by either Caldwel posing as 'Karen,' or by Caldwel
himself.
It's all in Caldwel's pathetic attempt to make some sort of invalid point.
--
-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: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 04:31:56 AM |
|
|
Rights? Where? wrote:
Why are you so defensive? I am here trying to understand your point of
view, not judge it. And I do respect a woman's right to choose. And I do
love my babies, and if my babies grow up to be gay, lesbian, I will not love
them any less. No matter who my children are when they grow up I will love
them. Nothing would ever make me stop loving my kids. Certainly not their
sexuality. May I ask why you are so homophobic?
You are judging her. The judgement is implicit in your question.
To paraphrase many of the pro-abortion lunatics on this group, it's none
of your business why she thinks what she thinks and makes the decisions
she does. Yet they aren't lining up to tell you that, for some
inexplicable reason.
But can't you see this woman's vision? No homosexuals = no homophobia =
no problem. These are the kind of problems that science is resolving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rights? Where?" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 01:26:08 PM |
|
|
I am trying to understand her point of view. Not judging her. That is why
I am asking her questions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Karengrl" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 07:50:02 AM |
|
|
"Rights? Where?" <I_AM_WOMAN@HEAR_ME_ROAR.com> wrote in message news:<3oqdnWD2Hute_wjcRVn-jg@comcast.com>...
one more thing, do you mind if I ask how old you are? I am just trying to
understand your point of view and I am finding it hard to comprehend. I
have been pregnant 5 times and the baby sexuality was never one of my
concerns. Please ehlp me to understand your point of view.
OK then like what I said in my other email gays are six times more
likely to be child abussers than normal people. So what if I had a gay
and then I found out he was abussing kiddies and I coulsd have stopped
it by having an abortion?????
Alright also then what about aids. Fagots spread aids like rats spread
the plage, so what if he had sex with a inocent girl and made her have
aids like lots of gays do.
Also then gays are more likely to get depresed than everybody and kill
themselves about 3 times more likely than normal people. So its not
fair bringing a gay into the world. Also there more likely to be drug
users!
So theres loads of good reasons for abortions of gays.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "REP" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests for gay babies |
13 Nov 2004 04:52:55 AM |
|
|
In article <bd24af8e.0411120435.1bfef039@posting.google.com>,
(Karengrl) wrote:
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.
Wow, what an original troll! Good one.
--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
