Mothers 4 Murder <murdering@the.mill> wrote:

Isn't it interesting how men will pretend to be all interested in
defending women's rights so long as their rights include the one that
lets them ***** without consequence.

It's all about sex. Anti-abortion fanatics are so twisted that they
_need_ to make sure that sex involves suffering.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:05:43 GMT, Mothers 4 Murder
<killing@the.clinic> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:08:16 GMT, Mothers 4 Murder
<killing@the.clinic> wrote:

Papa Jack wrote:

Sep 25, 2003, U.S. Newswire posted an article titled: "Life Legal
Defense Foundation: San Francisco Denies Personhood to
Women Seeking Abortions." Go to:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030925/180/5dtf0.html

__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:

According to a law scheduled to come into effect this Saturday,
women entering abortion clinics in San Francisco are not persons.
The ordinance, Section 4302 of the Police Code, was passed last
month by the Board of Supervisors to restrict the free speech
rights of sidewalk counselors seeking to educate women about the
abortion and alternatives to abortion.

In their zeal to penalize and chill pro-lifers, the supervisors,
their attorneys, and local abortion advocates paid insufficient
attention to plain English. The result is an ordinance that is
nonsensical, according to Life Legal Defense Foundation.

In defining its terms, the ordinance states that the term "person"
encompasses virtually every individual or combination of individ-
uals, but does not include "an individual seeking access to, passage
from, or services within a health care facility." ("Health care
facility" refers solely to facilities providing reproductive health
care services.)

But in defining the offense, the ordinance prohibits "a person
knowingly approach(ing) another person within eight feet of such
person unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing
a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral
protest, education or counseling with such other person." Thus, the
ordinance criminalizes uninvited approaches of anyone except individ-
uals seeking to enter or exit an abortion clinic.

"It's hilarious," says Katie Short, legal director of Life Legal
Defense Foundation. "If you walk up and hand a leaflet to someone
who is just walking down the street past an abortion clinic, you
risk three months in jail and a hefty fine. But if you approach a
woman who is actually going into the clinic, the ordinance doesn't
apply."
[...]
__________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack comments:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love it. The PARs have denied "personhood" to
unborn children for years. But, now in their
ignorance, they've denied "personhood" to women
carrying unborn children. Now that is true irony.

This is the level pro-aborts will descend to in an effort to protect
their precious right to commit murder.

Amazing. So called 'pro-lifers' have been trying to deny women their
personhood for years - now you exaggerate a situation so you can say
it's happened, and you actually have the bald-faced gall to claim to
regret it.

Isn't it interesting how men will pretend to be all interested in
defending women's rights so long as their rights include the one that
lets them ***** without consequence. Imagine what men would say if
abortion were declared illegal again. Worse, what would men say if 90%
of all women out there decided to oppose abortion. Well my guess is
that men like Adam would turn to each other and say "Well the other 10%
still believe in abortion. Let's go ***** them!"

Oooh, good comeback. You want to take away the rights of women, but
it's everybody else who's the bad man.

What are you, five? I notice that you still can't produce even one
shred of evidence for all your other claims (still waiting for that
law you promised. Still waiting for the cite that abortion was
murder).

webgiant wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:05:43 GMT,
Mothers 4 Murder <killing@the.clinic> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

Mothers 4 Murder <killing@the.clinic> wrote:

Papa Jack wrote:

Sep 25, 2003, U.S. Newswire posted an article
titled: "Life Legal Defense Foundation: San
Francisco Denies Personhood to Women Seeking
Abortions." Go to:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030925/180/5dtf0.html

[snip!]

[...]
__________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack comments:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love it. The PARs have denied "personhood"
to unborn children for years. But, now in
their ignorance, they've denied "personhood"
to women carrying unborn children. Now that
is true irony.

This is the level pro-aborts will descend
to in an effort to protect their precious
right to commit murder.

Amazing. So called 'pro-lifers' have been
trying to deny women their personhood for
years - now you exaggerate a situation so
you can say it's happened, and you actually
have the bald-faced gall to claim to regret
it.

Isn't it interesting how men will pretend to
be all interested in defending women's rights
so long as their rights include the one that
lets them ***** without consequence.

Which one is that? Plain BIOLOGY?

Men have been fucking for MILLENIA without
consequence. Abortion has gone from legal to
illegal and back to legal without affecting
the ability of men to ***** without consequence.

Men are only without consequence when society allows them to be so.

Whether or not a woman has a right to a legal
abortion, men will continue to ***** without
consequence.

Hmmm. So aside from the increasing prevelance of STDs, if society
really decided to crack down on male philandering, men will still have
no consequence?

Child support? Yes, in THEORY, this is a
consequence. In practice, however, child
support is rarely collected, and sometimes
from someone who didn't even do the original
fucking.

It is rarely collected because of two reasons: lack of significant
funding and unwillingness on the part of women to go after the father.

And there are plenty of ways to avoid the
possible consequences of fucking. Coercion,
date rape drugs, and even roll on a condom.

A condom is acceptable.

And because pregnancy is only ever a problem
to WOMEN, men have no real NEED for abortion
to be legal. If the woman wants an abortion,
for whatever reason (to keep her job, stay in
college, save her health and/or life), its
up to the woman to arrange the abortion.

Pregnancy is not a problem for those men who do not wish to take
responsibility for THEIR actions.

This is all what can be done, and what men
have done for millenia, in addition to
basic biology, to avoid becoming pregnant
and to avoid having any pregnancy become
their problem. They've always trusted in
the fact that women will jump through all
kinds of hoops to remain EQUAL to men:
EQUAL in that having sex does not result
in having to take nine months out of their
lives to bear offspring.

I think you're mistaken. Men have always trusted that women will jump
through all sorts of hoops to keep their man, no matter what those hoops
may be.

Most men are remarkably oblivious to women and
women's problems.

Granted.

Imagine what men would say if abortion were
declared illegal again.

No skin off any man's nose. Again, pregnancy
is and always has been the WOMAN'S PROBLEM.

I completely disagree. A child needs two parents, and both mates should
be involved with their little accident. You are simply trying to excuse
repugnant behavior by blaming it on biology, which, unlike in the animal
world, can be in many cases overcome by humans.

If she gets pregnant, staying pregnant is
frequently not something the woman wants to
do. A pregnancy interferes with EVERYTHING
in a woman's life. Abortion's legal status
is frequently not an issue in whether or not
a woman will obtain one or not.

Then the woman should learn to either double-click her mouse (yes, I saw
American Pie), insist of using birth control or ensuring her man gets no
love without his glove, or simply wait for a committed "sensible and
fair-minded" man to come along.

So "what men would say if abortion were
declared illegal" ("again" doesn't apply,
abortion started off legal when the U.S.A.
was founded, and has remained generally
legal ever since) is most likely: "Huh."

And then they'd go back to careless fucking.

Until things started catching up with them.

Worse, what would men say if 90% of all women
out there decided to oppose abortion.

Not gonna happen. You'd have to get rid of
compulsory education first, at least for women.

We already have compulsory education, and our high school graduates are
dumber than junior high students in private schools.

After all, name a culture which has completely,
or nearly completely, banned abortion, and
you've just named a culture which declares that
WOMEN ARE UNDESERVING OF RIGHTS.

How so? Taking away her right to commit murder does not mean they lose
their other rights.

So get rid of compulsory education for women.
Once they can't READ, they'll be ripe for the
type of culture that bans women's rights, among
them abortion.

Oh *****. How then do you explain (again I ask) that the early
feminists were pro-life?

to be a major issue in the beginning, and did not change her mind until
a MAN persuaded her to?

Repeoductive control being taken away from the
individual and being controlled by the state.
Not from men, of course, but only from women.

Gender-biased EUGENICS in action.

Well my guess is that men like Adam would
turn to each other and say "Well the other
10% still believe in abortion. Let's go
***** them!"

Or they'd just make use of the methods men
have used throughout the ages to avoid any
consequences from having sex.

Another time-tested method of 100% perfect
birth control in married couples, while having
all the sex you want, is when the husband has
sex with prostitutes. The wife remains 100%
pregnancy-free, making the method 100% perfect
birth control. The prostitutes would have to
admit to committing a crime in order to make
demands for child support, and in any case they
already belong to the vast black market into
which abortion will likely pass if it is ever
made illegal (heh).

Well you have a point, but the women still suffer when their husbands
give them the gift of herpes they got from Marsha down on the street
corner.

Yet another time-tested method of avoiding all
consequences of sex is to have sex with someone
you have power over. Blackmail and coercion
come to mind.

Fucking the maid was a classic Victorian-era
method of avoiding all consequences of sex,
and its benefit continues especially in modern
times: there's a good chance that any maid
*you* can afford will be an illegal immigrant
with forged paperwork. Say things like you
have the I.N.S. phone number, and the maid
will be stripping off her clothes and fucking
you in an instant. Then she'll go find her
own abortion if she needs one, since she'll
lose her job if she gets pregnant and can't
work.

Another classic Victorian-era custom was the
concept of "accidental smothering". When a
maid got pregnant, often from fucking the
master of the house, and was unable to locate
an abortion provider, she'd continue to term
within the house. If she happened to be
working for a master who was sympathetic,
she would give birth. Then to save the child
from the horrors of the orphanages and the
workhouses, one day she'd be in mourning
because, since she couldn't afford a crib,
she had "accidentally smothered" her child
while they slept together in the same bed.

Of course, this is entirely false. A woman
has to be drunk or drugged in order to
"accidentally smother" a child she is
sleeping with in the same bed.

Um, you are wrong here, dude. There are legit cases of parents
smothering their babies, which is why they're told not to sleep with
them in bed.

Of course, this same anti-abortion culture
thought that Victorian men shouldn't have
to put up with any mess on the wedding
night. So parents from upper class families
would hire "deflowering" services to have
their daughters' hymens broken, anywhere
from age 9 to age 13. The guys in the
"deflowering" service didn't use tools and
certainly weren't doctors. They used their
own penises to accomplish the "deflowering",
or legalized child rape. Yes, this sometimes
resulted in a very early pregnancy, but you
never blamed the deflowering service for
"doing their jobs."

Yet another example of how an anti-abortion
culture frequently views women as second-class
citizens. The Victorian period was anti-abortion
and anti-women. When a culture says it respects
women so much that it won't let them have any
freedoms, chances are its also anti-abortion.

So when a culture forbids abortion but allows women every other freedom,
what does that make it?

Yet another method of avoiding consequences of
sex is to have sex only with women in some class
of "undesireables". The usual form of this
is legally called "rape", but usually it never
goes to trial. The victim remains mute because
who is going to believe the word of an
"undesireable" over the word of an "upstanding
member of the community"?

If it goes to trial, it depends on the culture
and the victim. In Nigeria, a man who rapes a
woman away from witnesses gets away scot free,
and if the woman is unable to produce at least
two male witnesses, she in turn is charged with
"making a false accusation of rape" which
carries the death penalty. This is also the
culture which engages in clitorindectomies; and
sews women's vaginas shut, to be ripped open on
the wedding night.

Here in America, a man who chooses his victim
carefully can use her past sexual history and
any past history he has with the victim to
argue "consensual sex". Then he uses the
techniques used by all the men who avoid child
support, to avoid child support.

Men have never had to deal with consequences of
sex unless they felt like doing so. They took
the basic biological difference and ran with it.