On May 2, 12:14 am,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 30, 7:57 pm,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:39 pm,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:37 am,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 7:59 pm,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:22 pm,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 10:00 pm,

yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:

On Apr 25, 6:46 pm, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:

yarr...@aol.com wrote:

On Apr 24, 3:21 pm, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814?maxtoshow...

Yes, again. No established link.

So what does that prove? That folks who claimed that there was were
wrong. There is no link between shoplifting and cancer either. What
does that prove? That shoplifting is morally right? It proves nothing
that pro-choice side is trying to prove.

When we pro-choice say that that anti-choicers lie to
support their claims, this study supports our that NO
properly done study has ever supported the ABC link, no
matter how loudly the fiction is shouted.

So, pro-lifers lie...so do pro-choicers.

The anti-abortion position _depends_ upon lies. Without lies it
completely falls apart.

For one thing...pro-lifers
aren't against choices...that in itself is a lie.

No, it's a pro-lie strawman.

The whole point
is that I just 2 days ago read an article in my local paper from a Dr.
Joseph Dipoala who is a physician in private practice and his view on
the matter pretty much lines up with what has been historically true.

According to pro-liars.

He stated that from 1850 until 1970 the fetus was considered by
science to be a human life

Pro-liar *****.

and that is what led to the prohibition of
abortion in the United States.

Another lie. Abortion was banned because it was dangerous.

In the mid 19th Century, a movement began to tighten abortion

[...]

The above is fromhttp://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

Why should I believe some pro-liar?

Leseee....because the arguments presented are reasonable and based on
valid historical data? Duh!

Upon rereading your cite I see that nothing in it supports your claim.
Your statements were the usual pro-liar *****.

You keep insisting that I am perfect

Liar.

Right...you insist that I am a perfect liar.

Another outright lie.

I noticed that you didn't
provide the information I requested.

I noticed first that you're a liar. When an ***** starts off by
lying about what I write then I'm not inclined to go any further.

The truth of the matter is that you have no idea what you are writing
about.

"Declare victory".

Run along, pro-liar.

Nice of you to

Are you _still_ whining because you got caught lying, *****?

You never mentioned what the lie was...did you? You sort of have to
offer the "truth" to contrast it against or else we can't tell that
you're not lying.
I noticed that you didn't bother to address the issue that you think
everyone but you is a liar anyways. We can take that to be true since
you never even bothered to contest that claim and the supporting
argument out of which it arose.

It seems that you would rather talk about anything, including lying,
rather than address the real topic under discussion here and you have
time and time again, switched subjects away from that main topic. But
no doubt what I just posted here is a lie too...well, according to you
it is. Do you know how easy it is to simply call someone a liar. No
effort is needed. But to do the intellectual legwork that proves
something to be a lie...now that takes work, which you have shown
little to no interest in performing. I suspect you've got a kind of
cushy life..doncha? Nice little expensive house and expensive
car(maybe a SUV...HUMMER). Yep...can't expect to get much work out of
folks like you. You're used to creampuffs for breakfast and maybe a
couple of illegals for maids. Yup...gave you just what you
wanted...something else to whine about rather than talk about the real
subject here. Why don't you prove me right and go off tangent on the
maids and house etc...that way you don't have to deal with the real
subject...go ahead.
Well, you could also talk about how it is the woman's body...well,
guess what? A woman, generally speaking, doesn't have a penis...and
that growing child inside her does when it is a boy...so, you can't
say that it is part of the woman...it ain't. When you say that a woman
can do anything she wants with her body, even if we ignore the fact
there are two bodies involved, you are dead wrong. The goverment has
all sorts of laws that restrict what women can do with their bodies.
When you claim that I am interested in taking away her right to
choice, you are yet again wrong. The only choice taken away is for
them to kill the developing child and that is a choice no one should
have the right to make. No one should have the right to kill someone
simply because they are in the way and can't defend themselves. The
self defense issue doesn't stand up either...because I don't have the
right to kill someone because they, without intending to, gave me the
flu. Neither does it give the woman the right to chose to destroy the
life of the unborn simply because of the uncomfortable side-effects of
pregnancy. All of this flies in the face of reason. The viability
defense doesn't work either...a person on life support isn't
viable...he's just as dependent as the unborn for his life support and
yet, we are not allowed to kill them both...just one(good old double
standard). Then there was that old stand-by that I shot down some
couple of years ago...it doesn't have an independent circulatory
system...neither do conjoined twins and that doesn't make them any
less two distinct individuals or human beings with all the rights to
protection of their lives. It might be the reason I don't hear that
defense anymore. Then there is that business of ...well, the law and
society say that it is a human being at the time of birth. So what? I
didn't ask to find out what the feelings of society were...I asked
what it is that the unborn is. So, all I have seen so far is very bad
arguments and sidestepping the issue by you and the rest of the
opposition to life. As I stated before, you have yet to address a
single issue I have raised and emerge the victor. Heck, I'm even
rooting for you to and you just can't manage it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -