| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 09:27:45 AM |
| Object: |
Roe v Wade for Men |
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 04:37:48 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 11:25:52 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:09:18 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44110de0$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
Criminal negligence deserves punishment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:16:29 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:1214cadk67joub8@news.supernews.com:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44110de0$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's
holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
Criminal negligence deserves punishment.
Having consensual sex is not "criminal negligence" you degenerate anti-
choice moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
11 Mar 2006 02:54:09 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
Criminal negligence deserves punishment.
And you think that sex is criminal negligence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
12 Mar 2006 04:41:04 PM |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2006 20:54:09 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
alt.atheism
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
Criminal negligence deserves punishment.
And you think that sex is criminal negligence.
I'm sorry, but *thought* and dooche are diametric opposites.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 09:55:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1214cadk67joub8@news.supernews.com>, says...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44110de0$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch < > wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
We alreday know that you have a need to punish sex.
Criminal negligence deserves punishment.
The negligent condom break that created you was a severe misfortune and
we are actively working on punishing the parties involved, once your
mother remembers all the dudes who might have banged her prior to your
birth.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 08:44:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1211bhs82p6t388@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
Doing nothing is not a policy. It's lack of a policy. Saying to
abstain is worthless because it's saying "don't sin". So your brilliant
insight is "if you don't sin then you won't sin." It's nothing but a
mindless tautology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:08:20 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7a95dbb0968e6b9896af@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <1211bhs82p6t388@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
Doing nothing is not a policy.
Do something else.
It's lack of a policy.
Silence is golden, Clint Eastwood built a fantastic career on it.
Saying to
abstain is worthless because it's saying "don't sin". So your brilliant
insight is "if you don't sin then you won't sin." It's nothing but a
mindless tautology.
You're incoherent. If you don't want babies don't *****, suck. How's that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:13:39 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <> wrote in news:1214c8jb38kbq87@news.supernews.com:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7a95dbb0968e6b9896af@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <1211bhs82p6t388@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's
holster.
Doing nothing is not a policy.
Do something else.
Mind your own business Douche.
It's lack of a policy.
Silence is golden, Clint Eastwood built a fantastic career on it.
Sounds like s plan Douche. When will you start?
Saying to
abstain is worthless because it's saying "don't sin". So your
brilliant insight is "if you don't sin then you won't sin." It's
nothing but a mindless tautology.
You're incoherent. If you don't want babies don't *****, suck. How's
that?
Mind your own business Douche. How's that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 09:52:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1214c8jb38kbq87@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7a95dbb0968e6b9896af@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <1211bhs82p6t388@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's holster.
Doing nothing is not a policy.
Do something else.
Once you say what that is, it may qualify as a policy, but not until
then.
It's lack of a policy.
Silence is golden,
I don't care if it shines out your *****. It still isn't a policy.
Clint Eastwood built a fantastic career on it.
That was the best example you could come up with. Would that all Clint's
lines could have been replaced with silence.
Saying to
abstain is worthless because it's saying "don't sin". So your brilliant
insight is "if you don't sin then you won't sin." It's nothing but a
mindless tautology.
You're incoherent.
No, the fact that you're too stupid to understand it is not the same as
the subject being incoherent.
If you don't want babies don't *****, suck.
We aren't slaves to biology, anti-aborts and cathaholics excepted.
"Fucking" does not have to lead to pregnancy. We've had decent
technology to prevent that for hundreds of years now. So your demand is
a non-starter. As for "sucking", it's not clear how you think that will
induce a pregnancy, but you're free to ***** if you want to
"research" the question in detail.
How's that?
It was pretty fucking stupid, like most of the ***** you've written thus
far.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
11 Mar 2006 06:18:02 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7bf76abc698951989881@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <1214c8jb38kbq87@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7a95dbb0968e6b9896af@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <1211bhs82p6t388@news.supernews.com>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years.
Men already have choice, the choice is to keep your ***** in it's
holster.
Doing nothing is not a policy.
Do something else.
Once you say what that is, it may qualify as a policy, but not until
then.
Try oral sex for a policy, it doesn't make babies.
It's lack of a policy.
Silence is golden,
I don't care if it shines out your *****. It still isn't a policy.
Sure it is.
Clint Eastwood built a fantastic career on it.
That was the best example you could come up with. Would that all Clint's
lines could have been replaced with silence.
That would be you.
Saying to
abstain is worthless because it's saying "don't sin". So your
brilliant
insight is "if you don't sin then you won't sin." It's nothing but a
mindless tautology.
You're incoherent.
No, the fact that you're too stupid to understand it is not the same as
the subject being incoherent.
True, but you're incoherent all the same.
If you don't want babies don't *****, suck.
We aren't slaves to biology, anti-aborts and cathaholics excepted.
"Fucking" does not have to lead to pregnancy.
Nothing else does.
We've had decent
technology to prevent that for hundreds of years now.
Then use it.
So your demand is a non-starter.
As for "sucking", it's not clear how you think that will
induce a pregnancy, but you're free to ***** if you want to
"research" the question in detail.
No thanks, try alt.homo
How's that?
It was pretty fucking stupid, like most of the ***** you've written thus
far.
I'm trying to communicate on your level, but it's difficult to get that low.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SDForrestal" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
11 Mar 2006 07:43:47 PM |
|
|
I cant agree with you more. Women have many rights to choose, but men
have to accept the choice of the woman every time. Currently, abortion
and adoption ARE options.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A Veteran for Peace" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 10:13:41 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
That's why we are challenging federal and state lawmakers to unify
behind commonsense measures to prevent unintended pregnancies & reduce
the need for abortion.
The values of freedom and personal responsibility are the basis for
Prevention First
We support guaranteeing women's access to birth control, including the
"morning after" pill,
making sure our kids receive honest, realistic sex education, and
increasing support for family-
planning services. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Join us in putting Prevention First www.ProChoiceAmerica.org
Thanks.
--
I'm unfettered,unbound,triumphant,glorious& splendid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 01:17:50 PM |
|
|
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 08:47:01 PM |
|
|
In article <T8%Pf.7$TB1.4@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Because I am not a stupid animal like you, that's why. Unlike you, I
use technology to give me control of my own life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 09:07:04 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand." I hear right-wingers use it all the time
and it seems to be a talking point, but they never explain it.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:55:59 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
"A woman's right to choose."
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 09:24:26 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
"A woman's right to choose."
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 01:31:39 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44119b24$0$29591$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details
are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining
a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is
a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
"A woman's right to choose."
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 02:23:47 PM |
|
|
In article <DrkQf.887$X7.578@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
Only because you were just told that. "Pro-life" is an even bigger
platitude, but you apparently couldn't figure that out for yourself.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
Then why are you so afraid of it, if that's all it is?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 04:24:40 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7b8e3b73571bc598987c@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <DrkQf.887$X7.578@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
Only because you were just told that. "Pro-life" is an even bigger
platitude, but you apparently couldn't figure that out for yourself.
No. What is apparent is that you failed to see where I have referred to such
things as the gay movement and pro-Choice as platitudinous, pablumesque,
irresponsibility dogmae.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
Then why are you so afraid of it, if that's all it is?
It is very boring. Didn't you read the definition of platitudes?
I do not like platitudes which are so trite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 09:45:02 PM |
|
|
In article <QZmQf.981$X7.167@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7b8e3b73571bc598987c@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <DrkQf.887$X7.578@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
Only because you were just told that. "Pro-life" is an even bigger
platitude, but you apparently couldn't figure that out for yourself.
No.
Oh, so you did figure out that "Pro-life" is an even bigger platitude.
What is apparent is that you failed to see where I have referred to such
things as the gay movement and pro-Choice as platitudinous, pablumesque,
That certainly doesn't mean that you know what the terms mean,
particularly when you try to add non-standard embellishments in the case
of "pablumesque".
irresponsibility dogmae.
The irresponsible party is you overpopulationist theocrats, and as far as
accusing others of "dogmae" <snork> you win the not so coveted "pot meets
kettle" hypocrisy award. You're clearly far more dogmatic than those you
pretend to attack.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
Then why are you so afraid of it, if that's all it is?
It is very boring.
Is that why you're so frantic and excited about it?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 10:05:40 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44119b24$0$29591$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details
are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining
a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is
a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
"A woman's right to choose."
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
Um, choice is now a platitude? Interesting.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
11 Mar 2006 06:54:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:31:39 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44119b24$0$29591$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details
are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining
a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is
a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
"A woman's right to choose."
That's not a definition. That's a platitude. Try again.
I know it's a platitude.
That is all Pro-Choice is.
Lol, no, I think you are confusing that with "Pro-life," brought to you by the
folks who support the death penalty, the invasion of Iraq and the occasional
blind eye to their fellow countryman's misery.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
09 Mar 2006 09:46:53 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand." I hear right-wingers use it all the time and
it seems to be a talking point, but they never explain it.
It doesn't mean anything. It's just any abortion. They throw the "on
demand" in there to make it look like it's somehow an entertainment product
like ordering a movie on satellite television or getting fast food. That
way they can make it sound like women are out there getting knocked up just
so they can have the fun of getting an abortion. Should tell you volumes
about their views of women.
turk
--
My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and
choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 08:56:28 AM |
|
|
<turk> wrote in message news:EYydnWYGvtcta43ZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining
a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
Pro-Choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 09:24:54 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
<turk> wrote in message news:EYydnWYGvtcta43ZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by obtaining
a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable. Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
Pro-Choice.
Another platitude. How about a real definition this time?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 01:30:19 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44119b41$0$29591$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
<turk> wrote in message news:EYydnWYGvtcta43ZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410ee52$0$944$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Johnny wrote:
"A Veteran for Peace" <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgek-DAF9C2.08134109032006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <MPG.1e79f75a9321064698986e@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I've advocated similar approaches for years. The specific details
are,
of course, debatable. I would argue that all pregnancies should be
explicitly planned by both the man and the woman, perhaps by
obtaining a
"baby permit", in much the same way that one applies for a marriage
license right now. In those cases, the parties involved would be
committing to the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, with
obvious
exceptions in the case of health and other medical complications.
Note that one inaccurate part of this article is that, while there is
a
big backlog for adoption, not all babies are equally adoptable.
Race,
sex and health of the child, for example, do seem to have an effect.
and this just in;
Americans are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose.
So, why are you for abortion on demand?
Define "abortion on demand."
Pro-Choice.
Another platitude. How about a real definition this time?
Why are you asking me? I am not the person who drafted pro-Choice, abortion
on demand, or 'a woman's right to choose'.
Why don't you ask the people who drafted these policies to define them for
you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Roe v Wade for Men |
10 Mar 2006 02:13:57 PM |
|
|
In article <nqkQf.886$X7.58@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
wxpprofessional@msn.com says...
Another platitude. How about a real definition this time?
Why are you asking me?
Because you're the one using the term, moron. You apparently can't define
"abortion on demand" and how it differs from mere "abortion", yet you
ignorantly throw it around. I'm not saying that there may not be a
definition out there written by one of the 6.5 billion people, including
myself, who are way smarter than you. But you apparently don't know what
the term means and therefore need to refrain from using it. In fact, you
need to refrain from breathing until you fucking die. The global average
IQ would jump considerably without you here to bring it down.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
