Science > Abortion > Unborn children seen as 'test rodents" for untested chemicals
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
04 May 2007 02:06:33 PM |
| Object: |
Unborn children seen as 'test rodents" for untested chemicals |
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953§ion=Cathcom
WASHINGTON (CNS) - America is using "children as our test rodents" for
thousands of new chemicals that have never been tested for toxicity to
human life in the womb, said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, director of the
Center for Children's Health and the Environment at Mount Sinai School
of Medicine in New York.
At a daylong conference April 30 at the headquarters of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, Landrigan and other
experts highlighted the scientific, ethical and moral links between
effective clean environment policies and the life and health of the
nation's children.
As an example of the impact of a tested toxin in the environment,
Landrigan said an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 children born in the
United States each year suffer a loss of 0.2 to 24.4 IQ points because
of methylmercury that passed through the placenta when they were in
the womb.
That does not include more than 1,500 American children born each year
who are clinically classified as mentally retarded because of
methylmercury exposure in the womb, he said. Coal-burning electrical
plants, waste incinerators and plants producing chlorine gas are
responsible for most of the methylmercury found in the food chain
worldwide.
The conference, "Protecting Human Life and Caring for Creation,"
featured scientists specializing in prenatal and pediatric health,
ethicists, government officials and leaders of national Catholic
organizations engaged in environmental and pro-life work. About 60
people from across the country attended.
The gathering was jointly organized by the USCCB Department of Social
Development and World Peace and the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life
Activities, with support from the Catholic Coalition for Children and
a Safe Environment and financial support from the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment.
Landrigan told the group that of more than 80,000 new organic
synthetic chemicals introduced commercially since the 1960s 2,863
qualify as "high production volume" - more than a million pounds a
year of each one are produced in or imported into the United States.
"No basic toxicity information is publicly available for 43 percent"
of those high-volume chemicals and "full information on toxicity is
publicly available for only 7 percent," he said.
Dr. David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the
Environment at the University at Albany of the State University of New
York, described the toxic effects of polychlorinated biphenyls, or
PCBs, when a metabolized form is transmitted from the mother to the
child in her womb. Although PCBs have been banned for decades, they
remain in the environment in massive quantities and work their way up
through the food chain.
Prenatal exposure to PCBs can increase compulsive behavior and alter
gender-specific behaviors, he said, but "the most damaging thing is
the reduced ability to think."
Frederick S. vom Saal, a professor of reproductive biology at the
University of Missouri-Columbia, said that phthalates - chemicals used
to make polyvinyl chloride soft and pliable - are widely used in
cosmetics in the United States although the European Parliament has
banned such use.
Prenatal exposure to phthalates has been linked to premature birth,
inhibited genital development, low testosterone, asthma, allergies and
obesity, he said.
Although 153 of 167 government-funded studies have found such exposure
to phthalates harmful, chemical companies have produced 13 studies
that concluded they are not harmful, and the cosmetic industry uses
those studies for "the creation of scientific uncertainty" to stave
off regulation, he said. He warned the group always to check who funds
the research.
Bishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Knoxville, Tenn., who opened and closed the
conference, said the church brings the same distinctive perspective to
its concern for creation and the environment as it does to its concern
for the unborn. That perspective involves respect for the human
person, concern for the common good and a special option for the poor,
he said.
Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-
Life Activities and one of a panel of respondents reviewing the
conference at the end of the day, said that once, when he was
testifying against destroying human embryos for research before the
President's Council on Bioethics, a council member suggested a number
of embryos are lost naturally through miscarriages and using some for
experiments would not add significantly to that.
He said he responded that if one looked at air and water pollution,
smoking, alcohol, low-level radiation and other environmental toxins,
"I don't think there is such a thing as a natural loss rate any
more."
"His answer to that was, 'Well, if you're so upset about those things,
too, why isn't the Catholic Church doing something about it?'"
Doerflinger said. "I at least was able to say, 'Look at the
environmental justice project page on our Web site. You'll find out we
are trying to do something about it."
He said the incident brought home to him both the consistency of the
church's stance and the need to educate others about it.
Sister Margaret John Kelly, dean of arts and sciences at St. John's
University in New York and a Daughter of Charity, said the day's
discussions highlighted the "great urgency" of the issue and the need
to move it beyond academic discussion to wider popular education.
She said that if the European Union can require toxicity testing for
all new synthetic chemicals, as was noted in an earlier presentation,
"we certainly can do it."
"This is an issue of principles, not market," she said.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Unborn children seen as 'test rodents" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 12:36:02 PM |
|
|
I thought most born children in Catholic Heaven were seen as just
rodents...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Unborn children seen as 'test rodents" for untested chemicals |
04 May 2007 04:18:18 PM |
|
|
"J Young" < idiot extraordinare> wrote in message
That does not include more than 1,500 American children born each year
who are clinically classified as mentally retarded because of
exposure in the womb, TO CATH_LICK DOGMA!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Unborn children seen as 'test rodents" for untested chemicals |
04 May 2007 03:50:58 PM |
|
|
A victim of too many toxins in his Cheerios, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178305593.876899.71630@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
As an example of the impact of a tested toxin in the environment,
Landrigan said an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 children born in the
United States each year suffer a loss of 0.2 to 24.4 IQ points because
of methylmercury that passed through the placenta when they were in
the womb.
Didn't you say that your father worked at a thermometer factory, IBen?
LC~ That might explain it...
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."~David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
04 May 2007 04:15:50 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children". Are you a "undead person"?
That's called "foetus". Use real words next time and not some newspeak
for christian talibans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 08:20:14 PM |
|
|
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
For unto us a child is born. Before the child was born, the child was
unborn.
Are you a "undead person"?
No, he is not.
undead: (of a fictional being, especially a vampire)
technically dead but still animate.
Source: Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition.
That's called "foetus".
Use that term if it's the one you prefer, and we will
use the words we prefer.
Use real words next time and not some newspeak
for christian talibans.
The words unborn and child are real words, atheist
taliban.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 07:33:44 AM |
|
|
On 5 May 2007 18:20:14 -0700, willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
For unto us a child is born. Before the child was born, the child was
unborn
and was called a fetus.
Are you a "undead person"?
Yes. We all are. Birth is the first step on a pathway ending in
death. And once you take that first step, there is no getting off.
That pathway is called LIFE and it is up to you to decide how you live
it, how you decorate it and what you leave behind for the ones that
follow.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 06:57:47 AM |
|
|
On 5 May 2007 18:20:14 -0700, willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
For unto us a child is born. Before the child was born, the child was
unborn.
Are you a "undead person"?
No, he is not.
undead: (of a fictional being, especially a vampire)
technically dead but still animate.
Source: Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition.
That's called "foetus".
Use that term if it's the one you prefer, and we will
use the words we prefer.
Use real words next time and not some newspeak
for christian talibans.
The words unborn and child are real words, atheist
taliban.
Sure they do. A *correct* way to use them also exists. I suggest you
learn it.
And by the way, Skippy ... *you* are the ones trying to tell women
what they may or may not do with their own bodies. We're just telling
you to mind your own fucking business. Which is really more
Taliban-like?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 08:37:40 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Are you a "undead person"?
No, he is not.
Why not?
That's called "foetus".
Use that term if it's the one you prefer, and we will
use the words we prefer.
Pro-liar terrorists?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 10:43:02 PM |
|
|
On 06 May 2007 01:37:40 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Are you a "undead person"?
No, he is not.
Why not?
Depends on the definition of "dead". His heart is probably still
beating. From the neck up the situation is different.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 08:51:43 PM |
|
|
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=3DCathc=
om
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Are you a "undead person"?
No, he is not.
Why not?
Read the definition from the Oxford Dictionary, and
try to reason it out for yourself.
That's called "foetus".
Use that term if it's the one you prefer, and we will
use the words we prefer.
Pro-liar terrorists?
An apt description of yourself Ray?
--
Ray Fischer =20
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 07:38:08 AM |
|
|
On 5 May 2007 18:51:43 -0700, willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
No. A child in the womb is called DEAD. Once born, it can never
return to the fetal state. There are numerous irreversible events
that happen at birth that render a child unable to ever survive in the
environment a fetus must have to survive.
<snip>
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 05:44:07 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 7:38 am, Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
On 5 May 2007 18:51:43 -0700, willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=3DCa=
thcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
No. A child in the womb is called DEAD. =20
This statement provoked a bit of ambivalence being
at once woefully pathetic and wildly hilarious. Of
course, it is not surprising to note that feticidal
maniacs become desperate whack jobs. I am
probably wrong, but I don't know that R. Fischer
could be this fatuous. Okay, I'm most likely wrong
about Fischer.
<snip>
Tom S.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
07 May 2007 05:22:43 PM |
|
|
willow wrote:
Is it too much to ask you parse this paragraph? I understood the words ...
This statement provoked a bit of ambivalence being
at once woefully pathetic and wildly hilarious.
was there a comma missing? If not then what do you mean?
Of
course, it is not surprising to note that feticidal
maniacs become desperate whack jobs.
can you define what you mean by "feticidal maniac" and "whack job" I
want to be sure we understand each other.
I am
probably wrong, but I don't know that R. Fischer
could be this fatuous. Okay, I'm most likely wrong
about Fischer.
What does the above mean exactly? You lost me.
You are probably wrong - ok we take that at face value as you state it
yourself
I don't know that - so why not tell us what you do know? I sounds like
you're not so sure yourself
Okay, I'm most likely wrong - you;re admitting defeat
Did you have a point to make?
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
07 May 2007 05:47:27 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:22 pm, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
willow wrote:
Is it too much to ask you parse this paragraph? I understood the words ...
This statement provoked a bit of ambivalence being
at once woefully pathetic and wildly hilarious.
was there a comma missing? If not then what do you mean?
Of
course, it is not surprising to note that feticidal
maniacs become desperate whack jobs.
can you define what you mean by "feticidal maniac" and "whack job" I
want to be sure we understand each other.
I am
probably wrong, but I don't know that R. Fischer
could be this fatuous. Okay, I'm most likely wrong
about Fischer.
What does the above mean exactly? You lost me.
You are probably wrong - ok we take that at face value as you state it
yourself
I don't know that - so why not tell us what you do know? I sounds like
you're not so sure yourself
Okay, I'm most likely wrong - you;re admitting defeat
Did you have a point to make?
Obviously nothing that you are capable of understanding.
Why don't you run outside and play?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 09:16:03 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 09:49:51 PM |
|
|
On May 5, 9:16 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=3DCa=
thcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
05 May 2007 11:27:33 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
All you care about is obedience.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 12:53:56 PM |
|
|
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7ion=
=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
All you care about is obedience.
What? How about, all you care about are man hos that
plow, plant, reject and abandon that which they have
helped create by encouraging women to murder the
babies?
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 01:03:43 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
All you care about is obedience.
What? How about, all you care about are man hos that
plow, plant, reject and abandon that which they have
helped create by encouraging women to murder the
babies?
And again, all you can do is screech your hate and lies at people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 01:39:12 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=A7io=
n=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
kind. They don't pretend to care about women in order
to assuage their guilty consciences. It must be difficult
to acknowledge that you encourage the burning, dis-
memberment and sucking out of brains of the most
innocent and helpless would be members of our society.
All you care about is obedience.
What? How about, all you care about are man hos that
plow, plant, reject and abandon that which they have
helped create by encouraging women to murder the
babies?
And again, all you can do is screech your hate and lies at people.
Anyone who is interested in learning about hatred and lying has
only to look to you for inspiration.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untestedchemicals |
10 May 2007 06:32:09 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:39:12 -0700, willow wrote:
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
kind.
Correct. This is why the so-called "pro-life" people will never buy a
clue; they don't understand the concepts, let alone the terms, involved in
the discussion.
Murder is a legal term, applied to people; since abortion is legal in many
places, then by definition it cannot be murder, therefore the "pro-life"
types who persist in using the term simply show themselves not to be well
enough educated to cope with the issues - why someone who doesn't have a
clue what they're talking about feels qualified to express an opinion
isn't clear.
Of course, that brings us to "their own kind", which of course means that
the "pro-life" types argue that their kind are pieces of animate tissue
with no rights or status as persons; therefore, by their own argument, it
should be perfectly legal to lock them up, use them for medical
experiments, kill them or whatever else one feels like doing; the most
they can expect is to be treated as well as, say, a dog.
Now, personally, I wouldn't want to identify myself that way; I'd much
sooner identify myself as a person.
Of course, one can pretty much tell that the "pro-life" crowd is
intellectually bankrupt from word go; all one need do is look at the term
for them: "pro-life".
This, of course, implies that anyone who disagrees with them is anti-life,
which all but the most degenerate of them will know is complete and utter
*****. Yet they align themselves this way, solely for the emotional
appeal of the term, which is hardly a way to demonstrate their objective
basis for their position.
One can further note the intellectual bankruptcy of the group in their all
too frequently repeated bogus arguments, such as their equivocation of
abortion with murder, fetuses with persons and so forth.
Perhaps most interesting, though, is the inevitable result of their
position; if granted, it reduces women's status to little more than brood
mares, things devoid of even the rights to control or make decisions about
their own bodies. We might let that sort of thing go for animals, but not
people.
It's a wonderfully self-contradicting position to take; on the one hand,
they want to claim some sort of "equality" for the fetus - to have it
treated as a person, but at the same time, they want any concept of
equality removed from women, who should not be treated like people, but
like animals.
Welcome to the 1600s, where men were men, women were property and anyone
who had any notions of issues such as equality or choice were heretics.
--
Support the National Endowment for Creative Misogyny.- J. Falwell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 05:41:09 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 05:51:34 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D23953=
=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are. You have
managed to become quite the expert in both catagories.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 06:05:13 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 06:25:26 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 6:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D2395=
3=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanati=
cs.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
Obviously, you can't handle a grownup. Read
your puerile post, and come back when or if you
can post without being a boor.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 08:33:19 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 6:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
Obviously, you can't handle a grownup.
Obviously you're a murderer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
07 May 2007 05:44:38 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 8:33 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 6:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wro=
te:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=3D2=
3953=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fan=
atics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
Obviously, you can't handle a grownup.
Obviously you're a murderer.
Liar, hatemonger. Gee, that was easy.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
07 May 2007 08:55:03 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 8:33 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 6:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告on=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
Obviously, you can't handle a grownup.
Obviously you're a murderer.
Liar, hatemonger.
Hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
08 May 2007 05:16:27 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:55 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 8:33 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 6:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:41 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wr=
ote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail=
..com> wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> =
wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=
=3D23953=A7ion=3DCathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice =
fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
See? You have been wholly corrupted by your hate. You screech
You can actually hear screeching when you read posts? That
says a lot about your mental condition. I guess that's what
happens to some feticidal hatemongers
"murderer" at people as if it's supposed to mean something, but
all it does is show everybody that you're an irrational, lying
*****.
Read some of your own posts, then you will be in a better
position to discuss what lying and hatred are.
"I know you are but what am I?"
You're a liar. Now you're whining.
Grow up.
Obviously, you can't handle a grownup.
Obviously you're a murderer.
Liar, hatemonger.
Hypocrite.
Master hypocrite, liar and hater.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't J Young used as a 'test rodent" for untested chemicals |
06 May 2007 02:11:21 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1178476752.410803.147760@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
On May 6, 1:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 11:27 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 5, 8:37 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 4, 4:15 pm, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4 Mai, 21:06, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23953告o
n=Cathcom
Nonsense snipped.
See, J Young: nothing happened.
Use a credible source next time.
BTW, there are no "unborn children".
unborn (of a baby) not yet born.
Not yet existing, in other words.
Existing in the womb, living and growing.
Not as a child.
At least not in your pathetic, barbaric world view.
And again we see the hate that comes from you anti-choice
fanatics.
No, Ray, you have me confused with you anti-life fanatics.
More of that hate of yours.
See, civilized folks know that a woman is with child,
barbarians are either actually or pretending to be in
denial of that fact.
Civilized people don't treat women as slaves and criminals
the way you do.
Civilized people don't encourage the murder of their own
kind.
Tell that to the Bush administration and your fellow neocon wingnut goose-
stepping, bootlicking lapdog republiKKKans.
They don't pretend to care about women in order
to assuage their guilty consciences.
Whereas you dispicable anti-choice loons simply ignore the prengant women's
issues and "pretend" to care about the zefs when all you really care about
is controlling the sex and reproductive lives of people you don't even
know.
It must be difficult
to acknowledge that you encourage the burning, dis-
memberment and sucking out of brains of the most
innocent and helpless would be members of our society.
Typical anti-choice lies and deceptions. Prove that anyone in these ngs,
other than you anti-choice loons encourages such actions.
All you care about is obedience.
What? How about, all you care about are man hos that
plow, plant, reject and abandon that which they have
helped create by encouraging women to murder the
babies?
And again, all you can do is screech your hate and lies at people.
Anyone who is interested in learning about hatred and lying has
only to look to you for inspiration.
And if you are really interested in hatred and lies, you should try a
little honest self-examination and analysis. But I doubt that you are
interested.
--
Ray Fischer
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
