| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2007 08:28:46 PM |
| Object: |
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890601/posts
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise on Abortion if Elected
President
Life News ^ | 9/3/07 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 09/03/2007 12:57:48 PM PDT by wagglebee
Portsmouth, NH (LifeNews.com) -- Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend and told voters
that the she won't soften her hard-core pro-abortion views if she's
elected president. That could cause her problems as a recent poll
showed extreme pro-abortion views are a turnoff to women voters.
Clinton promised she would bring change as president but also vowed
she would never compromise on her pro-abortion views.
"Ultimately, to bring change, you have to know when to stand your
ground, and when to find common ground," she said. "You need to know
when to stick to principles and fight, and know when to make
principled compromises."
Clinton didn't back down from those pro-abortion views in an August
speech to leaders at Planned Parenthood.
There, she pledged continuing support for the nation's largest
abortion business and bragged of her 100 percent voting record with
that organization.
"I'm very proud of our partnership, of working together over so many
years on behalf of reproductive freedom and health care and
fundamental Constitutional rights and values," she said.
"[W]hen I'm president, I will devote my very first days in office to
reversing these ideological, anti-science, anti-prevention policies
that this administration has put into place," she said of President
Bush's pro-life policies.
Last month, the respected Polling Company firm conducted a survey with
600 women voters of both parties from August 15-20.
The poll revealed that Hillary's positions on abortion were at odds
with a majority of American women.
Some 64 percent of women voters would be less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion
ban -- a measure Clinton voted against on four occasions.
Sixty-eight percent of women voters are less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who supports taxpayer-funded abortion --
something Hillary Clinton adamantly supports.
And 73 percent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote
for a presidential candidate who voted against a law that would have
made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18
years of age across state lines to get an abortion without her
parents' knowledge.
Clinton twice voted against a Congressional bill to do just that.
"Clinton needs women voters to win, yet her extreme abortion policies
remain out of step with the majority of American women," Marjorie
Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told
LifeNews.com about the poll.
"The feminist lobby may support her radical positions, but in the real
and bigger world of women voters, Clinton's extremism fails to
translate into votes. Hillary needs more in common with women voters
than anatomy," Dannenfelser added.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
06 Oct 2007 01:55:07 AM |
|
|
On 4 Okt., 03:06, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6...@4ax.com>,
Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they becom=
e 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a =
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, an=
d there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists=
.. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses sh=
ould
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For G=
od."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricti=
ng
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.- Skjul tekst i anf=
=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
How do you restrict abortion without controlling how women use their
own bodies?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 01:20:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
True, only for those too stupid to see the obvious. Pro-Life which is
a lie, pro illegal abortions. Because those idiots that oppose legal
abortions hate personal freedom for women. And want to control their
bodies forcing them to have unwanted children, so they can enjoy the
suffering of those children. Pro-Life = hatred.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 01:29:36 PM |
|
|
In article <6gbag394lcbpj9dmqts6p8fcq54h059ff5@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
...those idiots that oppose legal
abortions hate personal freedom for women. And want to control their
bodies forcing them to have unwanted children, so they can enjoy the
suffering of those children. Pro-Life = hatred.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 01:37:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 2:20 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6...@4ax.com>,
Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
True, only for those too stupid to see the obvious. Pro-Life which is
a lie, pro illegal abortions. Because those idiots that oppose legal
abortions hate personal freedom for women. And want to control their
bodies forcing them to have unwanted children, so they can enjoy the
suffering of those children. Pro-Life = hatred.
I only wish the pro-choice movement would use you as their strategist
and poster boy.
We'd have Roe V Wade overturned in no time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 07:41:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 08:02:06 AM |
|
|
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 08:43:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:02:06 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
It was pointing out, so the only thing you could be referring to is
the obvious part.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 09:08:50 PM |
|
|
In article <jl5bg35lr86fb58i0a4egt5a1lash3frb3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:02:06 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they
become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no,
and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person
exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that
restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
It was pointing out, so the only thing you could be referring to is
the obvious part.
Care to try that again, you're not making sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Oct 2007 07:41:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:08:50 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <jl5bg35lr86fb58i0a4egt5a1lash3frb3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:02:06 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they
become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no,
and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person
exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that
restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
It was pointing out, so the only thing you could be referring to is
the obvious part.
Care to try that again, you're not making sense.
Which part didn't you understand? That you didn't claim it was
pointing out, or that you didn't claim it was obvious?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Oct 2007 08:05:48 AM |
|
|
In article <f7ccg3hfppe3bfclvlefuold2vqq7c4phr@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:08:50 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <jl5bg35lr86fb58i0a4egt5a1lash3frb3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:02:06 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they
become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when
a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no,
and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person
exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and
social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars
For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to
use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that
restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
It was pointing out, so the only thing you could be referring to is
the obvious part.
Care to try that again, you're not making sense.
Which part didn't you understand? That you didn't claim it was
pointing out, or that you didn't claim it was obvious?
Yep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Oct 2007 05:04:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:05:48 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <f7ccg3hfppe3bfclvlefuold2vqq7c4phr@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:08:50 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <jl5bg35lr86fb58i0a4egt5a1lash3frb3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:02:06 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <vpn9g3hm33bd80ess0eh97ontmbrk7lj48@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:06:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <6ap7g314spvtcnnk7d68rg53o1fhpk6q8q@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fer07@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they
become
18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when
a
person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no,
and
there
is also no biological method to determine when a person
exists.
That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and
social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses
should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars
For
God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to
use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that
restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim...
Except it's not pointing out the obvious. Try again.
If it's not painfully obvious to you that forcing a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term is an act of control, you're seriously
deficient north of your clavicle.
That's not what I claimed. Try again.
It was pointing out, so the only thing you could be referring to is
the obvious part.
Care to try that again, you're not making sense.
Which part didn't you understand? That you didn't claim it was
pointing out, or that you didn't claim it was obvious?
Yep.
I guess that says it all, doesn't it?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 09:25:46 AM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pretend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Oct 2007 10:42:07 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:51:23 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:21 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:10:29 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:14 pm, wrote:
Do people magically acquire the wisdom to vote when they become 18?
Is their some kind of biological method of determining when a person
becomes legally responsible for himself? The answer is no, and there
is also no biological method to determine when a person exists. That
is, just like the other examples, determined by law and social
custom.
Well, that being case, then the pro life beliefs that fetuses should
be considered people are not "dishonest fantasies of Liars For God."
No, they're merely attempts to control women.
Yes, this is the strawman that many pro-choice people like to use.
The serial liar lies again.
You claiming that pro-choice people don't use the claim that restricting
abortion is an attempt to control women?
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
There is the whine of the pro-liar unable to cope with the truth.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
Ad hominem.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
06 Oct 2007 02:05:47 AM |
|
|
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pretend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are you
talking about?
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woman has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
08 Oct 2007 08:43:15 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 3:05 am, wrote:
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pretend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are you
talking about?
The implication that is clearly present in "anti choice" conversation,
what makes it propgandistic and intellectually dishonest, is that the
pro life people do not really care about abortion at all, and merely
use it as a pretense to control women.
That this is absurd is clearly apparent with any amount of rational
thought, as these sexist anti-choicers who want to enslave women have
absolutely nothing to say about women voting, or driving, or getting
an education, or having careers, or owning property, or associating
with whoever they want. Those are the things that really matter in
controlling someone.
However, when called out on this, I have yet to see a pro choice
person say anything other than "preventing abortion controls a woman's
body, so if you make abortion illegel you are controlling a woman's
body." Note the lack of any hint of motivation being there. When
grandstanding on their soapboxes, it's all about these sexist fascists
wanting to enslave and control women, but when pressed to back up
these claims then it is suddenly all about literal dictionary
definitions.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woman has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
Yes it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
08 Oct 2007 03:44:31 PM |
|
|
On 8 Okt., 15:43, wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:05 am, wrote:
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pretend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are you
talking about?
The implication that is clearly present in "anti choice" conversation,
what makes it propgandistic and intellectually dishonest, is that the
pro life people do not really care about abortion at all, and merely
use it as a pretense to control women.
It is clearly present in the concept. If you want to stop abortion
you will have to control the bodies of women.
That this is absurd is clearly apparent with any amount of rational
thought, as these sexist anti-choicers who want to enslave women have
absolutely nothing to say about women voting, or driving, or getting
an education, or having careers, or owning property, or associating
with whoever they want. Those are the things that really matter in
controlling someone.
I see. It wouldn't matter to you if somebody controlled what you did
with your body?
However, when called out on this, I have yet to see a pro choice
person say anything other than "preventing abortion controls a woman's
body, so if you make abortion illegel you are controlling a woman's
body." Note the lack of any hint of motivation being there.
Note that the statement is completely true.
When
grandstanding on their soapboxes, it's all about these sexist fascists
wanting to enslave and control women, but when pressed to back up
these claims then it is suddenly all about literal dictionary
definitions.
It is all about the fact that, in order to stop abortions, you will
have to control what women do with their bodies.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woman has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
Yes it does.-
You admit it? How odd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Oct 2007 01:07:02 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 4:44 pm, wrote:
On 8 Okt., 15:43, wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:05 am, wrote:
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwanted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pretend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are you
talking about?
The implication that is clearly present in "anti choice" conversation,
what makes it propgandistic and intellectually dishonest, is that the
pro life people do not really care about abortion at all, and merely
use it as a pretense to control women.
It is clearly present in the concept. If you want to stop abortion
you will have to control the bodies of women.
That this is absurd is clearly apparent with any amount of rational
thought, as these sexist anti-choicers who want to enslave women have
absolutely nothing to say about women voting, or driving, or getting
an education, or having careers, or owning property, or associating
with whoever they want. Those are the things that really matter in
controlling someone.
I see. It wouldn't matter to you if somebody controlled what you did
with your body?
However, when called out on this, I have yet to see a pro choice
person say anything other than "preventing abortion controls a woman's
body, so if you make abortion illegel you are controlling a woman's
body." Note the lack of any hint of motivation being there.
Note that the statement is completely true.
When
grandstanding on their soapboxes, it's all about these sexist fascists
wanting to enslave and control women, but when pressed to back up
these claims then it is suddenly all about literal dictionary
definitions.
It is all about the fact that, in order to stop abortions, you will
have to control what women do with their bodies.
My mistake. I mistook your question for intellectual honesty. I see
now I was wrong. Nevermind - go on about your biased and willfully
ignorant propaganda as regularly scheduled. I didn't mean to
interrupt you with any truth or reality. Sorry about that.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woman has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
Yes it does.-
You admit it? How odd.
It's not odd at all. I am honest and unashamed of my beliefs.
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Oct 2007 09:19:48 AM |
|
|
On 11 Okt., 20:07, wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:44 pm, wrote:
On 8 Okt., 15:43, wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:05 am, wrote:
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more like =
"the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unwan=
ted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandist.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when c=
alled
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and pre=
tend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct, =
it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are y=
ou
talking about?
The implication that is clearly present in "anti choice" conversation,
what makes it propgandistic and intellectually dishonest, is that the
pro life people do not really care about abortion at all, and merely
use it as a pretense to control women.
It is clearly present in the concept. If you want to stop abortion
you will have to control the bodies of women.
That this is absurd is clearly apparent with any amount of rational
thought, as these sexist anti-choicers who want to enslave women have
absolutely nothing to say about women voting, or driving, or getting
an education, or having careers, or owning property, or associating
with whoever they want. Those are the things that really matter in
controlling someone.
I see. It wouldn't matter to you if somebody controlled what you did
with your body?
However, when called out on this, I have yet to see a pro choice
person say anything other than "preventing abortion controls a woman's
body, so if you make abortion illegel you are controlling a woman's
body." Note the lack of any hint of motivation being there. =20
Note that the statement is completely true.
When
grandstanding on their soapboxes, it's all about these sexist fascists
wanting to enslave and control women, but when pressed to back up
these claims then it is suddenly all about literal dictionary
definitions.
It is all about the fact that, in order to stop abortions, you will
have to control what women do with their bodies.
My mistake. I mistook your question for intellectual honesty. I see
now I was wrong. Nevermind - go on about your biased and willfully
ignorant propaganda as regularly scheduled. I didn't mean to
interrupt you with any truth or reality. Sorry about that.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen t=
o not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim" =
yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woman =
has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
Yes it does.-
You admit it? How odd.
It's not odd at all. I am honest and unashamed of my beliefs.
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselste=
gn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
15 Oct 2007 12:57:51 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 10:19 am, wrote:
On 11 Okt., 20:07, wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:44 pm, wrote:
On 8 Okt., 15:43, wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:05 am, wrote:
On 4 Okt., 16:25, wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:57 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <46b2f3hk9uc4jveprnk9320jqaip6fe...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
snip
Pointing out the obvious is not making a claim, it's more lik=
e "the
sun will rise again tomorrow". Forcing a woman to bring a unw=
anted
child into the world is indeed controlling the woman's life.
Yes, this is the fallback position of the pro choice propagandi=
st.
They know full well the implications of what they say, but when=
called
out on it, they fall back on absolute literal definitions and p=
retend
those implications aren't there. So, while technically correct=
, it is
still intellectual dishonesty.
If it is true, what is dishonest about it? What implications are=
you
talking about?
The implication that is clearly present in "anti choice" conversati=
on,
what makes it propgandistic and intellectually dishonest, is that t=
he
pro life people do not really care about abortion at all, and merely
use it as a pretense to control women.
It is clearly present in the concept. If you want to stop abortion
you will have to control the bodies of women.
That this is absurd is clearly apparent with any amount of rational
thought, as these sexist anti-choicers who want to enslave women ha=
ve
absolutely nothing to say about women voting, or driving, or getting
an education, or having careers, or owning property, or associating
with whoever they want. Those are the things that really matter in
controlling someone.
I see. It wouldn't matter to you if somebody controlled what you did
with your body?
However, when called out on this, I have yet to see a pro choice
person say anything other than "preventing abortion controls a woma=
n's
body, so if you make abortion illegel you are controlling a woman's
body." Note the lack of any hint of motivation being there. =20
Note that the statement is completely true.
When
grandstanding on their soapboxes, it's all about these sexist fasci=
sts
wanting to enslave and control women, but when pressed to back up
these claims then it is suddenly all about literal dictionary
definitions.
It is all about the fact that, in order to stop abortions, you will
have to control what women do with their bodies.
My mistake. I mistook your question for intellectual honesty. I see
now I was wrong. Nevermind - go on about your biased and willfully
ignorant propaganda as regularly scheduled. I didn't mean to
interrupt you with any truth or reality. Sorry about that.
Now show
your self righteous bigotry by claiming she could have chosen=
to not
get pregnant.
Interesting how "pointing out the obvious is not making a claim=
" yet
somehow, pointing out that a woman did not have to have sex is a
claim.
No, it is also a fact. It ignores, however, the fact that a woma=
n has
a right to have sex but no obligation to be pregnant.
Yes it does.-
You admit it? How odd.
It's not odd at all. I am honest and unashamed of my beliefs.
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rsels=
tegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
15 Oct 2007 10:28:59 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
16 Oct 2007 01:48:16 PM |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2007 03:28:59 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
Patrick needs to learn to distinguish between just law and legalized
slavery. The fact that the law allowed whites to own blacks didn't
make blacks "subject to law" but not "subject to slavery".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
18 Oct 2007 10:00:00 AM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 2:48 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2007 03:28:59 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do supp=
ort
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8r=
selstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
Patrick needs to learn to distinguish between just law and legalized
slavery. =20
Explain how a law against smoking marijuana is "just a law" and a law
against having an abortion is "legalized slavery."
The fact that the law allowed whites to own blacks didn't
make blacks "subject to law" but not "subject to slavery".
--
Al, there's a difference between a law which *enforces* slavery and
the slavery itself.
Roe V Wade was not The Emancipation Proclamation.
Face it, the whole slavery thing is pure propaganda. There is
absolutely no *actual* difference between banning abortion and
existing laws against what you can do with your body. And nobody can
ever justify it except by resorting to more propaganda. So produce
some real live evidence that banning abortion is equivalent to
reducing women to the status of chattel. But make sure your proof
inherently distinguishes abortion from any of a dozen other
restrictions on our freedoms which people take for granted.
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of r=
eligion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434- Hide qu=
oted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
18 Oct 2007 09:41:29 AM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 11:28 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do suppo=
rt
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rs=
elstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
That which I wish to force on women is a law. So I will add you to
the list of people who needs to learn the difference between rule of
law and slavery.
--
Ray Fischer =20
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
18 Oct 2007 12:17:58 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
That which I wish to force on women is a law.
The law preventing slaves from escaping their servitude?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
18 Oct 2007 12:22:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 18, 1:17 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice peop=
le
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beli=
efs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me want=
ing
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do su=
pport
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anf=
=F8rselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
That which I wish to force on women is a law.
The law preventing slaves from escaping their servitude?
Nonresponsive. I'll take that to mean you have nothing which actually
backs up your absurd claims.
--
Ray Fischer =20
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
18 Oct 2007 10:08:32 PM |
|
|
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice people
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my beliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me wanting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
That which I wish to force on women is a law.
The law preventing slaves from escaping their servitude?
Nonresponsive.
You certainly are.
I'll take that to mean you have nothing which actually
backs up your absurd claims.
And the pro-liar runs away yet again. What was that you were saying
about logic being facts over personal opinion? Apparently you don't
think it should apply to you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
22 Oct 2007 10:23:06 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
As I said, the characterizations of pro lifers by pro choice p=
eople
are nothing but fantasy and rhetoric. I do not lie about my b=
eliefs
or hide them.
That means I will not accept your biased blathering about me w=
anting
to enslave women.
But it also means I will not sugarcoat the fact that what I do=
support
is, yes, a restriction of people's freedoms.- Skjul tekst i an=
f=F8rselstegn -
In that case the characterization was correct.
I think you need to learn to distinguish between being subject to =
rule
by law and being subject to slavery.
Slavery is forced servitude, much like the forced servitude you wish
to impose on pregnant women.
That which I wish to force on women is a law.
The law preventing slaves from escaping their servitude?
Nonresponsive.
You certainly are.
I'll take that to mean you have nothing which actually
backs up your absurd claims.
And the pro-liar runs away yet again.
First there needs to be something to run away from. Your response did
not make any point from which I would be running away.
What was that you were saying
about logic being facts over personal opinion? Apparently you don't
think it should apply to you.
Say something which requires a logical response, and I will provide
one. "The law preventing slaves from escaping their servitude?"
makes no point except to restate what you already said. And I already
answered it the first time.
So again, I reiterate that you apparently have nothing backing up your
claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
