Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in HarrisCounty," |
29 Nov 2005 12:43:07 PM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
29 Nov 2005 12:45:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
Spare us your baseless pronouncements. You can call it 'impossible
moral ground' all you want, but that only makes it clear that you have
control issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 12:49:05 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 01:44:16 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
you'll scare people into churches then.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 01:56:50 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
you'll scare people into churches then.
I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
department stores.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spindler of Puppies" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 03:10:47 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: >
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen.
The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free
fucking.
: >
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder
how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
:
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to
flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches
are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the
religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian? If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the
forced-birth crowd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:25:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:10:47 GMT, "Spindler of Puppies"
<misleart@ameritech.net> wrote:
So you're not xian? If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the
forced-birth crowd.
He is still a self righteous *****.
Also, he is not an atheist, this guy may not be a xtian, but he has a
god: He worships his own *****.
His sort is all too common. He demands that the woman be solely
responsible for contraception, but he will do everything in his power,
to circumvent that protection, or to prevent her using it, and
impregnate the woman. (to PROVE his manhood)
He will then assert that it is her own fault that she is pregnant, and
that if she didn't want to get pregnant, she should have been more
careful.
He will also demand that she carry to term, because it is HIS.
How he works that out, is beyond me.
His contribution is less than a millionth part of the final product,
the remainder being supplied by the woman.
But in some magical way, it is his.
He may also becoming irrational and violent (he is irrational already)
when he discovers that she is going to have the pregnancy terminated,
or has already done so, seeing it as some sort of affront to his
"manhood".
This will be followed by accusations of murdering HIS BABY, and
various other childishly emotive assertions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:21:50 AM |
|
|
Nightshade wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:10:47 GMT, "Spindler of Puppies"
<misleart@ameritech.net> wrote:
So you're not xian? If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the
forced-birth crowd.
He is still a self righteous *****.
Also, he is not an atheist, this guy may not be a xtian, but he has a
god: He worships his own *****.
His sort is all too common. He demands that the woman be solely
responsible for contraception, but he will do everything in his power,
to circumvent that protection,
*****.
or to prevent her using it,
*****.
and impregnate the woman.
That's completely false; you're just jerking off.
One of the biggest problems with the sexual revolution
is that it enabled MEN to be utterly irresponsible. It
allowed them to say, with the shakiest illogic, that
pregnancy was entirely the woman's responsibility. Men
have always wanted to ***** without consequence, but
before easily available birth control and the
overturning of laws prohibiting abortion, they
couldn't: women generally compelled men to take
responsibility by virtue of their power to say no.
The complete lack of restraint ushered in by the sexual
revolution spilled over into other facets of life as
well, based on the "if it feels good, do it" illogic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 04:04:10 PM |
|
|
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: >
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen.
The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free
fucking.
: >
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder
how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
:
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to
flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches
are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the
religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the
forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 05:50:08 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
That would be evidence that the laws of probability are valid.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
Of course, if you ever figure out that consent to sex still doesn't equate to
a consent to pregnancy, there'll be a slim ray of hope for you.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:57:13 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
That would be evidence that the laws of probability are valid.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
Of course, if you ever figure out that consent to sex still doesn't equate to
a consent to pregnancy, there'll be a slim ray of hope for you.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:02:19 PM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
That would be evidence that the laws of probability are valid.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
Of course, if you ever figure out that consent to sex still doesn't equate
to a consent to pregnancy, there'll be a slim ray of hope for you.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen
It's almost as likely as a snowfall here in July.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:30:42 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
That would be evidence that the laws of probability are valid.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
Of course, if you ever figure out that consent to sex still doesn't equate
to a consent to pregnancy, there'll be a slim ray of hope for you.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen
It's almost as likely as a snowfall here in July.
Does it *EVER* snow in Tx?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 10:42:03 PM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
Spindler of Puppies wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133294210.358225.64390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
: > "S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
: > > Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
: > > *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
: > Hey, when fucking really *is* consequence-free, I wonder how
: > you'll scare people into churches then.
: I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
: the gullible any time soon. In fact, the fastest growing churches are
: precisely those on the low-brow, fundie ***** part of the religious
: spectrum. The old Protestant "main line" churches - Presbyterian,
: Congregational, Disciples of Christ, etc. - are in a free-fall. I
: liken the growth of the knuckle-dragging "evangelical" and fundie
: churches to the phenomenon of Wal-Mart taking out the higher quality
: department stores.
So you're not xian?
No.
That would be evidence that the laws of probability are valid.
If not, then you're a relative rarity amongst the forced-birth crowd.
No such thing as "forced birth". Women aren't forced to become
pregnant in the first place.
Of course, if you ever figure out that consent to sex still doesn't equate
to a consent to pregnancy, there'll be a slim ray of hope for you.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen
It's almost as likely as a snowfall here in July.
Does it *EVER* snow in Tx?
Of course...just ask anyone who lives up in the Panhandle. Not a lot, in some
years, but the other years make up for that. (Just like in California, where
it snows every winter...up in the Sierras. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 03:13:48 PM |
|
|
M=E4uslich wrote:
| I don't think churches will run out of effective methods to flim-flam
| the gullible any time soon.
There's always the old line about ch-rch being a great place to meet
members of the opposite sex.
Not the Catholic Church, obviously...
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 03:02:09 PM |
|
|
....is to try to prevent the birth of more self-righteous assholes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:33:58 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Strawman/ad hominem fallacy.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:06:16 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch lied:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Strawman/ad hominem fallacy.
Neither.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:10:55 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 18:06:16 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch lied:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Strawman/ad hominem fallacy.
Neither.
It's both.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:13:12 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 18:06:16 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch lied:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Strawman/ad hominem fallacy.
Neither.
It's both.
Neither, donnie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 08:42:03 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:13:12 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 18:06:16 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote
In alt.atheism On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Strawman/ad hominem fallacy.
Neither.
It's both.
Neither,
It's both, child.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 09:05:59 PM |
|
|
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:48:31 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally. It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:19:07 AM |
|
|
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
This kind of thinking is even more dangerous than the Christers who
think every human life is precious because it's a gift from gawd.
In any event, if you don't like abortion, make it illegal. Clearly, you
know better than everyone else.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:28:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
This kind of thinking is even more dangerous than the Christers who
think every human life is precious because it's a gift from gawd.
In any event, if you don't like abortion, make it illegal. Clearly, you
know better than everyone else.
That's a possibility with a Bush Supreme Court and Catholic
representatives blackmailed by the Vatican over communion if the don't
vote the Vatican line.
But if they've any sense they won't do it:
- it gives their supporters an issue to vote for
- if they do it there will be such a backlash they will be voted out
Which still leaves the problem of religious extremists on the Supreme
Court though. Although the neocons have demonstrated that impeachment
is now a normal part of the political process and no longer the result
of high crimes and misdemeanours. They'll live to regret this.
-chib
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:24:09 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
It's the BABY that is intended to keep them together,
you colossal fuckwit! "Nature" doesn't care about two
people being together for their own emotional
satisfaction, you goddamned *****-eating
lunatic! It only "cares" about them being together to
ensure that the BABY lives to maturity.
Don't you know ANYTHING about evolutionary biology, you
dunderfuck?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:01:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:24:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
It's the BABY that is intended to keep them together,
you colossal fuckwit! "Nature" doesn't care about two
people being together for their own emotional
satisfaction, you goddamned *****-eating
lunatic! It only "cares" about them being together to
ensure that the BABY lives to maturity.
Don't you know ANYTHING about evolutionary biology, you
dunderfuck?
<sigh> You really are too fucking stupid to bother with.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 07:24:18 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:24:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
It's the BABY that is intended to keep them together,
you colossal fuckwit! "Nature" doesn't care about two
people being together for their own emotional
satisfaction, you goddamned *****-eating
lunatic! It only "cares" about them being together to
ensure that the BABY lives to maturity.
Don't you know ANYTHING about evolutionary biology, you
dunderfuck?
<sigh> You really are too fucking stupid to bother with.
<PLONK!>
Took you long enough :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:06:49 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:24:09 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
It's the BABY that is intended to keep them together,
you colossal fuckwit! "Nature" doesn't care about two
people being together for their own emotional
satisfaction, you goddamned *****-eating
lunatic! It only "cares" about them being together to
ensure that the BABY lives to maturity.
Don't you know ANYTHING about evolutionary biology, you
dunderfuck?
<sigh> You really are too fucking stupid to bother with.
<PLONK!>
Translation: you can't refute what I say, and you know you're on weak
ground to begin with, so you're chickening out and running away.
Good.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 10:22:40 AM |
|
|
In article <fbdro1t9rqcrikknis6cb553ufgje5bp6v@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
Yeah. I enjoy the hell out of sex. I've procreated and thus fulfilled
life's purpose, so I had a vasectomy. It's the OP's worst nightmare,
apparently; "consequence-free fucking." But those who haven't been
snipped shouldn't be punished for showing affection or succumbing to
blind lust.
This kind of thinking is even more dangerous than the Christers who
think every human life is precious because it's a gift from gawd.
In any event, if you don't like abortion, make it illegal. Clearly, you
know better than everyone else.
That's a possibility with a Bush Supreme Court and Catholic
representatives blackmailed by the Vatican over communion if the don't
vote the Vatican line.
But if they've any sense they won't do it:
- it gives their supporters an issue to vote for
- if they do it there will be such a backlash they will be voted out
And it won't stop abortion. Anyone who thinks it will is seriously
misguided.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
