| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2005 10:10:08 PM |
| Object: |
House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10877880.htm
House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony
PIERRE, S.D. - Abortion should be a crime in South Dakota if states are
given the right to outlaw the medical procedure, a House panel
recommended Friday.
.
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 10:52:37 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108181408.684791.28720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
Sure thing, IBen.
After all, your predictive powers have proven to be the equal of your
intellectual capabilities.
LC~ It's hard to be less than zero, try as "J" might.
"why is it that most people who are against abortion are people who you
wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
From: (Jon Young)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion
Subject: george carlin said it best
Date: 17 Oct 2003 19:47:28 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310171847.7e13d84@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 11:28:56 AM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108181408.684791.28720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
LC~"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking
experience."
From: "Loose Cannon" <loose.can...@juno.com>
Subject: Re: ACLU is against us too,this sucks
Date: 2000/05/23
Message-ID: <8gfglf$ov3$1@nw001t.infi.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 626554461
References: <8geu6m$mgq$1@xring.cs.umd.edu>
Organization: InfiNet
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Jonathan,
Yup, amazing isn't it? I think the problem is the ACLU is plagued with
left
liberals and not composed of enough true Libertarians. Hence, they
can't
come to an agreement on the 2nd and have chosen to ride the fence. I
used
to think the ACLU was a valuable organization but now I see it as the
left
liberal loony loft that it is.
L.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 11:39:07 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108315735.999607.29520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snipped IBen's incoherent nonsense>
Is this the quote and message ID you're looking for?:
"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking experience."
~Kinky troll "Asswipe/IBenGetiner/Jon Young", a big fan of Steely Dan.
From: (Jon Young)
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Subject: best done with help
Date: 5 Oct 2003 18:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310051700.31b4eb95@posting.google.com>
LC~ Run, IBen, run!
God doesn't want us to play God. love
Him,learn Him, live Him, but mind your own business or suffer the
wrath of God. thankyou."
From: (Jon Young), bigtime hypocrite.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Subject: sosom and gomorrah. the forgotten lesson
Date: 10 Oct 2003 20:19:10 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310101919.19a3c490@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
11 Feb 2005 11:08:22 PM |
|
|
Every day, another step towards J. Young's death.
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108181408.684791.28720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
:
:
: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10877880.htm
:
: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony
:
: PIERRE, S.D. - Abortion should be a crime in South Dakota if states
are
: given the right to outlaw the medical procedure, a House panel
: recommended Friday.
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
12 Feb 2005 07:26:48 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 20:10:08 -0800, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> let us all know that:
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
...and another step towards being in violation of the 13th
Amendment.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
12 Feb 2005 10:20:55 AM |
|
|
That's what we need to do. To revert back to the good old days when
abortions ( and the maiming and killing )of thousand were accomplished via
coat hangers and charlatans. And good sincere doctors risked their freedom
and professional practice by trying to help needy women.
Why don't we also reinstitute Prohibition. This would make booze more
economical by eliminating the alcohol taxes and create some interesting and
exciting personalities like Al Capon?!
Get religion out of politics! A woman has the right to make decisions about
her own body without interference from religious fanatics.
--
Bill
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:kc1s011qumvv93q1l744p1aa55pb8j65mj@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 20:10:08 -0800, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> let us all know that:
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
...and another step towards being in violation of the 13th
Amendment.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
12 Feb 2005 10:36:32 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:H1qPd.31198$Th1.1716@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
That's what we need to do. To revert back to the good old days when
abortions ( and the maiming and killing )of thousand were accomplished
via coat hangers and charlatans. And good sincere doctors risked their
freedom and professional practice by trying to help needy women.
Why don't we also reinstitute Prohibition. This would make booze more
economical by eliminating the alcohol taxes and create some
interesting and exciting personalities like Al Capon?!
Get religion out of politics! A woman has the right to make decisions
about her own body without interference from religious fanatics.
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a chance be
imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing educated women
could afford to continue doing business in a locale so hostile to women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 02:31:30 PM |
|
|
Oh boy, this post has the pro-choicers coming out in their full
doctrinaire, unimaginative way!
In article <kc1s011qumvv93q1l744p1aa55pb8j65mj@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 20:10:08 -0800, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> let us all know that:
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
...and another step towards being in violation of the 13th
Amendment.
Pro-life laws are slavery? Tee hee hee, that clever and bombastic and
over-the top! Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain- if pro-life
laws are indeed slavery- what makes all the other laws that prevent you
from harming another *not* slavery.
In article <H1qPd.31198$Th1.1716@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
That's what we need to do. To revert back to the good old days when
abortions ( and the maiming and killing )of thousand were accomplished via
coat hangers and charlatans. And good sincere doctors risked their freedom
and professional practice by trying to help needy women.
Why don't we also reinstitute Prohibition. This would make booze more
economical by eliminating the alcohol taxes and create some interesting and
exciting personalities like Al Capon?!
Get religion out of politics! A woman has the right to make decisions about
her own body without interference from religious fanatics.
I love how pro-choicers instantly, automatically beatify abortionists as
"good sincere doctors", or wax on about their "compassion" or "having
their hearts in the right places," while knowing nothing else about them.
(What, did you pick this up from that mawkish slice of propaganda "The
Cider House Rules"?) I also like how you then go on to compare them- by
implication- to Al Capone.
And then you throw the startlingly original "A woman has the right to
make decisions about her own body without interference from religious
fanatics" at us. If you think abortion is an esssentially a religious
issue, you never really understood the issue in the first place.
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a chance be
imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing educated women
could afford to continue doing business in a locale so hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed". Hey
Keegan, did you know that not only are women not any more pro-choice than
men, many studies have them being *more* pro-life than men. And yet you
dismiss the beliefs of half of them in pursuing your "pro-woman" cause.
Perhaps if you think all of these women are "hostile to women", you never
understood the issue in the first place.
From an L.A. Times article in today's paper: "Support for abortion stood
at two-thirds of students in the early '90s; now it's just more than
half." These laws are not the top-down edicts of a dictatorship, they are
a reflection of the popular will. If you are really concerned about the
future of "abortion rights," perhaps it's time to start understanding the
issue.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 10:31:10 PM |
|
|
"The Chastening of Lesbos" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
Oh boy, this post has the pro-choicers coming out in their full
doctrinaire, unimaginative way!
In article <kc1s011qumvv93q1l744p1aa55pb8j65mj@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 20:10:08 -0800, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> let us all know that:
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
...and another step towards being in violation of the 13th
Amendment.
Pro-life laws are slavery? Tee hee hee, that clever and bombastic and
over-the top! Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain- if pro-life
laws are indeed slavery- what makes all the other laws that prevent you
from harming another *not* slavery.
In article <H1qPd.31198$Th1.1716@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
That's what we need to do. To revert back to the good old days when
abortions ( and the maiming and killing )of thousand were accomplished
via
coat hangers and charlatans. And good sincere doctors risked their
freedom
and professional practice by trying to help needy women.
Why don't we also reinstitute Prohibition. This would make booze more
economical by eliminating the alcohol taxes and create some interesting
and
exciting personalities like Al Capon?!
Get religion out of politics! A woman has the right to make decisions
about
her own body without interference from religious fanatics.
I love how pro-choicers instantly, automatically beatify abortionists as
"good sincere doctors", or wax on about their "compassion" or "having
their hearts in the right places," while knowing nothing else about them.
(What, did you pick this up from that mawkish slice of propaganda "The
Cider House Rules"?) I also like how you then go on to compare them- by
implication- to Al Capone.
And then you throw the startlingly original "A woman has the right to
make decisions about her own body without interference from religious
fanatics" at us. If you think abortion is an esssentially a religious
issue, you never really understood the issue in the first place.
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a chance
be
imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing educated women
could afford to continue doing business in a locale so hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed". Hey
Keegan, did you know that not only are women not any more pro-choice than
men, many studies have them being *more* pro-life than men. And yet you
dismiss the beliefs of half of them in pursuing your "pro-woman" cause.
Perhaps if you think all of these women are "hostile to women", you never
understood the issue in the first place.
From an L.A. Times article in today's paper: "Support for abortion stood
at two-thirds of students in the early '90s; now it's just more than
half." These laws are not the top-down edicts of a dictatorship, they are
a reflection of the popular will. If you are really concerned about the
future of "abortion rights," perhaps it's time to start understanding the
issue.
It's always been understood. The so-called 'pro-lifers' (the ones
who don't give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born)
are generally ultra-conservative men in political power and using
the issue as a way to control women. They prey on the ignorance
and fears of the fundamentalist men and their even more ignorant
(due to even less education than the men) women. In other words,
they use the powerless and the ignorant to gain more power for
themselves. And, now that they've been busily destroying our
education system and taking over the media for decades, they are
also affecting the young and ignorant.
The Religious Right , the so-called 'Moral Majority', may have lost
the first battle 30 years ago, but they are damned close to winning
the war, unless something is done to stop them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 12:32:09 PM |
|
|
In article <M7CdnWNjguMRtI3fRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
It's always been understood. The so-called 'pro-lifers' (the ones
who don't give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born)
are generally ultra-conservative men in political power and using
the issue as a way to control women.
Errr... most pro-lifers are not in political power, and most of them are women.
If "it's always been understood" that they're using the issue to control
women, perhaps it is this unsound premise that keeps derailing the
discussion (Don't you joyless alt.atheism blowhards always make a point
about how you refuse to believe in things without "objective proof"?)
The Religious Right , the so-called 'Moral Majority', may have lost
the first battle 30 years ago, but they are damned close to winning
the war, unless something is done to stop them.
You only "won" by a top-down decree from the SCOTUS. Perhaps the reason
you're losing is because of all the things that have "always been
understood" that just ain't so.
PS: Why the about-face, my adowable little China doll?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001319.htm
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
17 Feb 2005 06:57:36 PM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <M7CdnWNjguMRtI3fRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
It's always been understood. The so-called 'pro-lifers' (the ones
who don't give a damn what happens to the b aby once it is born)
are generally ultra-conservative men in political power and using
the issue as a way to control women.
Errr... most pro-lifers are not in political power,
and most of them are women.
When have you shown that most women are anti-choice?
If "it's always been understood" that they're using the issue to
control
women, perhaps it is this unsound premise that keeps derailing the
discussion (Don't you joyless alt.atheism blowhards always make a
point
about how you refuse to believe in things without "objective proof"?)
I wonder why Captain America didn't flag this blatant
example of bigotry?
The Religious Right , the so-called 'Moral Majority', may have lost
the first battle 30 years ago, but they are damned close to winning
the war, unless something is done to stop them.
You only "won" by a top-down decree from the SCO TUS.
Only? This isn't a pure democracy, dear.
It is a republic. That fact, and The Supreme
Court, are two of the things that stand in the
way of the tyranny of the majority to impose their
unconstitutional whims on the minority.
Funny that the SC makes decisions on most
things but when it comes to Roe v. Wade it
becomes a "decree." I guess you aren't above
using "code words" yourself when it seems to your
advantage. (BTW, the Roe v. Wade decision
was 7 to 2 with 6 republican--appointed justices
and one democrat voting for, and one republican
and one democrat appointee voting against. So
much for the mythical "liberal" supreme court))
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 03:39:46 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"The Chastening of Lesbos" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
Oh boy, this post has the pro-choicers coming out in their full
doctrinaire, unimaginative way!
In article <kc1s011qumvv93q1l744p1aa55pb8j65mj@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 20:10:08 -0800, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> let us all know that:
Every day, another step towards overturning Roe v Wade.
...and another step towards being in violation of the 13th
Amendment.
Pro-life laws are slavery? Tee hee hee, that clever and bombastic and
over-the top! Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain- if pro-life
laws are indeed slavery- what makes all the other laws that prevent you
from harming another *not* slavery.
In article <H1qPd.31198$Th1.1716@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
That's what we need to do. To revert back to the good old days when
abortions ( and the maiming and killing )of thousand were accomplished
via
coat hangers and charlatans. And good sincere doctors risked their
freedom
and professional practice by trying to help needy women.
Why don't we also reinstitute Prohibition. This would make booze more
economical by eliminating the alcohol taxes and create some interesting
and
exciting personalities like Al Capon?!
Get religion out of politics! A woman has the right to make decisions
about
her own body without interference from religious fanatics.
I love how pro-choicers instantly, automatically beatify abortionists as
"good sincere doctors", or wax on about their "compassion" or "having
their hearts in the right places," while knowing nothing else about them.
(What, did you pick this up from that mawkish slice of propaganda "The
Cider House Rules"?) I also like how you then go on to compare them- by
implication- to Al Capone.
And then you throw the startlingly original "A woman has the right to
make decisions about her own body without interference from religious
fanatics" at us. If you think abortion is an esssentially a religious
issue, you never really understood the issue in the first place.
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a chance
be
imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing educated women
could afford to continue doing business in a locale so hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed". Hey
Keegan, did you know that not only are women not any more pro-choice than
men, many studies have them being *more* pro-life than men. And yet you
dismiss the beliefs of half of them in pursuing your "pro-woman" cause.
Perhaps if you think all of these women are "hostile to women", you never
understood the issue in the first place.
From an L.A. Times article in today's paper: "Support for abortion stood
at two-thirds of students in the early '90s; now it's just more than
half." These laws are not the top-down edicts of a dictatorship, they are
a reflection of the popular will. If you are really concerned about the
future of "abortion rights," perhaps it's time to start understanding the
issue.
It's always been understood. The so-called 'pro-lifers' (the ones
who don't give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born)
are generally ultra-conservative men in political power and using
the issue as a way to control women.
Haha. What a mindless bigot. Talk about projection...
For one thing, most conservatives (i.e. fairly regular, normal people)
believe it's better that mothers should raise children rather than the
daycare centers.
The other thing is that women are more anti-abortion than men are. How's
that for a "fly in your ointment", feminist?
You're just a typically stupid self-righteous feminist. You're literally
the dumbest group of people who have a voice in society.
They prey on the ignorance
and fears of the fundamentalist men and their even more ignorant
(due to even less education than the men) women. In other words,
they use the powerless and the ignorant to gain more power for
themselves. And, now that they've been busily destroying our
education system and taking over the media for decades, they are
also affecting the young and ignorant.
teehee. What rubbish.
The Religious Right , the so-called 'Moral Majority', may have lost
the first battle 30 years ago, but they are damned close to winning
the war, unless something is done to stop them.
It's the states that lost 30 years ago. Those advocating the reversal of
Roe v Wade believe the states should make their own laws, be they pro-
OR anti-abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
17 Feb 2005 05:14:21 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"The Chastening of Lesbos" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
[...]
From an L.A. Times article in today's paper: "Support for
abortion stood
at two-thirds of students in the early '90s; now it's just more
than
half." These laws are not the top-down edicts of a dictatorship,
they are
a reflection of the popular will. If you are really concerned
about the
future of "abortion rights," perhaps it's time to start
understanding the
issue.
It's always been understood. The so-called 'pro-lifers' (the ones
who don't give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born)
are generally ultra-conservative men in political power and using
the issue as a way to control women.
Haha. What a mindless bigot. Talk about projection...
Amusingly ironic.
For one thing, most conservatives (i.e. fairly regular, normal
people)
believe it's better that mothers should raise children rather than
the
daycare centers.
How would you know what "most conservatives"
believe? I think you mean most neo-conservatives--aka
right wing socialists, aka Big Government Republicans-
-like yourself who think it is just fine to impose
government control over the lives of others to enforce
what you approve of and prohibit what you disapprove
of. Doesn't matter to you if you or your fellow BGR's
can rationally defend your positions or not.
And abortion is a perfect example of this. You can't
even begin to defend your position that a
zygote/embryo/fetus is a person from the mythical
moment of conception. So surprise! You don't even
try. Instead you merely pretend that you don't have to,
that it is a given, when in fact that is the very issue
in dispute!
Ask someone like you what characteristics, what
attributes, what features a zygote has in common with
a person and the result is a blank stare and a quick
change of subject. Isn't that amazing?
The other thing is that women are more anti-abortion than men are.
Show me where most women say they are anti choice,
dufus.
How's
that for a "fly in your ointment", feminist?
You're just a typically stupid self-righteous feminist. You're
literally
the dumbest group of people who have a voice in society.
He says, obliviously committing the ad hominem logical
fallacy. What a crackup!
They prey on the ig norance
and fears of the fundamentalist men and their even more ignorant
(due to even less education than the men) women. In other words,
they use the powerless and the ignorant to gain more power for
themselves. And, now that they've bee n busily destroying our
education system and taking over the media for decades, they are
also affecting the young and ignorant.
teehee. What rubbish.
Good "argument." LOL!
The Religious Right , the so-called 'Moral Majority', may have lost
the fir st battle 30 years ago, but they are damned close to
winning
the war, unless something is done to stop them.
It's the states that lost 30 years ago. Those advocating the reversal
of
Roe v Wade believe the states should make their own laws, be they
pro-
OR anti-abortion.
Speaking of rubbish, this is a flat out lie. There is only
the Constitution and freedom of choice vrs anti-abortion
laws which are unconstitutional. The first anti-abortion
laws date to the mid 19th century and they had nothing to
do with "protecting unborn children," They were
ostensibly to protect the health of pregnant women and
actually about midwives cutting in on the turf of doctors,
i.e.: doctors felt they should be the only ones to practice
abortion. But before this, and at common law, abortion,
before quickening was never considered "murder," was never
a felony, and was not even a crime in this country
or in England. The Catholic church didn't even prohibit
early term abortion until 1868, when apparently "God"
finally got around to telling the pope it was a sin. But hey,
don't let a little thing like your own ignorance of the subject
inhibit you.
It is a crack up to hear a BGR saying "the states should
decide" when the same BGRs support an administration
that steamrolls state laws concerning elections, drugs, the
environment and more. What a flaming hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 02:50:55 PM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 02:59:21 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither. I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
13 Feb 2005 03:09:52 PM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in news:tagutcow-
1302050836430001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imposed. certainly no state housing companies employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are "imposed".
do you want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither. I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
try to express yourself with more clarity in the future, particularly if
you are writing of your paranoia or misrepresenting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
14 Feb 2005 06:26:50 AM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
tagutcow@earthlink.net (The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1302050808530001@user-0c 992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <Xns95FB761BDB272keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
i doubt that even the s. dakota bill you reference has much of a
chance be imp osed. certainly no state housing companies
employing
educated women could afford to continue doing business in a
locale so
hostile to women.
Nota bene: Laws are passed, but anti-abortion laws are
"imposed".
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will
not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
15 Feb 2005 10:37:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business will
not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective at me knowing nothing else but that I'm
pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to you!
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic retard
who composes sentences like "just go back in tghis thread to the first
post where you lied you can tell which one that was by my response which
commented on your lie." Whenever I back him into a corner, he just quotes
the top line and pretends like he addressed my point, or starts playing
his favorite retard-o game-- "you deleted the relevant text. restore the
text and I will comment on your misrepresentations."
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c." that is obligatory in
describing pro-lifers? And is it possible they do this because they're
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
15 Feb 2005 10:43:09 AM |
|
|
(The Chastening of Lesbos) wrote in
news:tagutcow-1502050415000001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business
will not suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective at me knowing nothing else but that
I'm pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to
you!
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic
retard
my questions really unsettled you, eh?
hey, maybe if you call me names, you can distract some of the less acute
readers from the substance of the conversation.
have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 03:02:52 AM |
|
|
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <1108384010.166233.84510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
The Chastening of Lesbos wrote:
In article <Xns95FCA1394DD27keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, "james
g.
keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
do yo u want to argue that the law will pass? or that business
will not
suffer if it does?
I was arguing neither.
You weren't arguing, period and he didn't accuse you of
offering an argument. He was inviting you to do so.
He's obviously an optimist.
Yeouch! You aim this invective
LOL! "Invective?" My goodness, what in the above
do you consider "invective?"
at me knowing nothing else but that I'm
pro-life! You're rarin' for a fight and I'm not gonna give it to you!
Suddenly this is about me and not what you said, huh.
Fancy that.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Keegan is a fucking autistic
retard
who composes sentences like "just go back in tghis thread to the
first
post where you lied you can tell which one that was by my response
which
commented on your lie." Whenever I back him in to a corner, he just
quotes
the top line and pretends like he addressed my point, or starts
playing
his favorite retard-o game-- "you deleted the relevant text. restore
the
text and I will comment on your misrepresentations."
I was simply commenting on silly pro-choice code
language.
And it is enough that you pin the label (silly pro-choice)
"code language" to automagically make it true. How
convenient for you!
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
This is called "shifting the burden of proof." But I am
curious how you get all this out of one use of the word
"imposed" by someone you call a "fucking autistic retard."
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the
language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c."
"They"? Frankly, I think anti-abortionists are in no
position to decry the use of words for their connotative
power: In this regard, abortion as "murder" comes to
mind, as does "partial birth abortion."
that is obligatory in describing pro-lifers?
So you took the word "imposed" personally then?
And is it possible they do this because they're
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chastening of Lesbos" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
16 Feb 2005 11:59:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1108544572.754938.243550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Okay, give me a rational reason why gun laws are passed, budgets are
passed, environmental regulations are passed, but abortion laws are
"imposed."
This is called "shifting the burden of proof." But I am
curious how you get all this out of one use of the word
"imposed" by someone you call a "fucking autistic retard."
I don't even know what you're talking about. I make no statement
requiring proof. I asked a question and then I clarified my question.
And, yes, fucking autistic retards can internalize the verbal obsessions
of political movements without understanding the intentions behind them.
In fact, they're usually especially good at internalizing this code
language.
Do you think it can be because they don't want to abandon the
language of
"force, control, coercion, imposition, &c."
"They"? Frankly, I think anti-abortionists are in no
position to decry the use of words for their connotative
power: In this regard, abortion as "murder" comes to
mind, as does "partial birth abortion."
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder. Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 01:32:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:59:07 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-1602050536250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
Sorry. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the
right to call it something is clearly is not.
Murder is a specific term with a specific meaning, and requires an
illegal act. Since abortion is legal it clearly cannot be murder.
You can call a duck a horse but that does not mean you can expect
anyone to pay much attention when you swear you shot a flying horse.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
So? Perhaps he knows a more efficient way to accomplish whatever he
wishes to accomplish.
Nothing in the term 'inefficient' would preclude it from being used
properly and correctly in just about any descriptive context.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder.
No, personally I have no consideration for anyone who wishes to use a
term incorrectly and to describe something it's basic definition
precludes it from being simply because someone wished to wring some
propaganda value from it or create guilt by association through it's
improper use.
Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
No, it is the termination of a pregnancy. The effect on the fetus is
an irrelevant and unimportant side effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 01:56:42 PM |
|
|
In article <58dk11himh81rqklc2f170akf41tvnsc1n@4ax.com>, Attila
<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:59:07 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-1602050536250001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
We use the word "murder" to describe abortion because that's what we
believe abortion is. You make it sound like we're getting some implication
in sideways when in fact that is THE singular thrust of the argument.
Sorry. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the
right to call it something is clearly is not.
Murder is a specific term with a specific meaning, and requires an
illegal act. Since abortion is legal it clearly cannot be murder.
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed. Anytime using
commonly accepted definitions weakens your argument, it is time to
wonder if your argument makes any sense.
You can call a duck a horse but that does not mean you can expect
anyone to pay much attention when you swear you shot a flying horse.
There's a t.aer who claims he's personally opposed to abortion because
it's "inefficient"-- yet he is not a pro-lifer.
So? Perhaps he knows a more efficient way to accomplish whatever he
wishes to accomplish.
Nothing in the term 'inefficient' would preclude it from being used
properly and correctly in just about any descriptive context.
trying to carve out a moral niche for abortion- to give it a special,
privileged position- realizing that the "choice" to kill another
human
being is the operative principle of no other law?
No it isn't. I know of no law that offers any such choice.
Probably because there isn't one (in the US anyway).
y
Well then perhaps you can imagine the consternation of people who
consider abortion murder.
No, personally I have no consideration for anyone who wishes to use a
term incorrectly and to describe something it's basic definition
precludes it from being simply because someone wished to wring some
propaganda value from it or create guilt by association through it's
improper use.
Stop with the feminist code-speak and discuss
what abortion *is*- the active killing of a living, complete, human
organism.
No, it is the termination of a pregnancy. The effect on the fetus is
an irrelevant and unimportant side effect.
The word "feminist" is another word they view as derogatory so they use
it even where it doesn't fit. It is like calling liberals
"socialists." When the truth doesn't work for you - change the
"truth."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 04:24:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 08:48:13 PM |
|
|
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 10:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 11:09:25 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 09:26:33 AM |
|
|
In article <D4SdnRR7aIsMIIffRVn-gA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Are the lies getting to the point where you can't remember them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
21 Feb 2005 11:14:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: House panel approves measure to make abortion a felony |
22 Feb 2005 07:55:25 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:srfl11hmodjjj8696alepsj70a5eboaka5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:09:25 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:15el11pjfr4duafm6kj8fl7960j81nftg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:48:13 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <npnk11hc876rt202vtnff243jk827shp1f@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But then it wouldn't have the propaganda effect for which the
pro-life
are so famous. It is like Osprey's "pro-abortion." Sure - they
could
use reality, but then their ***** is exposed.
Do you expect anything else from those who want you to think that _The
Silent Scream_ is reality?
LOL! True. Osprey also tried to push that "President Clinton is a
murderer argument" once.
I must have missed that one. Who was Clinton supposed to have
"murdered"?
Yea, I missed that too. Who did Clinton murder?
Boy, how soon you forget your stupid rumour-mongering.
http://tinyurl.com/4kgxr
(Cue up Bobby's weak-***** denials).
Where in that post did I say Clinton killed those people? Those people's
death's are questionable, which was the point of the posting. Nowhere did I
say Clinton himself murdered those people. He may have had something to do
with their deaths, he may not have. Their deaths are questionable and all
have one thing in common. They were all closely related to Clinton.
But getting back to the issue..nowhere did I say Bill Clinton himself
murdered anyone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
