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: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 02:27:44 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:16:18 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:59:14 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:40:13 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:32:23 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Right! You *STILL* haven't refuted Whitehead! When are you going to
try? You won't; you're too smugly satisfied with your extremist
ideology to bother with a real refutation.
I already have,
You haven't.
I already have,
You haven't.
Oh, I have.
Hush, hush, Spazzy. I told you,
You conceded hours ago, if not days, that Whitehead's article and
conclusion have not been refuted. Good job.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:11:02 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
....that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well
researched, informative and lengthy article, shitstain.
Yes, I did.
ipse dixit; also false.
Then you should have no trouble at all demonstrating
I have had no trouble at all demonstrating that you have not "refuted"
Whitehead's article (which you haven't read anyway).
You only found a couple of whines from two people
whom she interviewed,
Her two primary sources
kicked themselves right in the *****.
Yes, indeed they did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:21:03 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see. Whitehead's still wrong.
Get to it, newbie! Prove your claim! Refute the data from the CDC and
the AMA or STFU.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:30:12 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:36:40 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC, the AMA, and the AGI that you just
can't seem to counter...
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:47:04 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC
The data from the CDC as reviewed by Kirby and accurately reported by
Whitehead in her article, which show that "comprehensive" sex education
does not alter teens' decision to have first sex!
Nice job! How does your foot feel with that gaping hole you shot
through it?
The researcher Douglas Kirby, of ETR Associates, a nonprofit
health-education firm in Santa Cruz, California, has been
studying sex-education programs for more than a decade.
During the 1980s he conducted a major study of the effectiveness
of sex-education programs for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and he has since completed a review for
the Centers for Disease Control of all published research on
school-based sex-education programs designed to reduce the
risks of unprotected sex. His research shows that students who
take sex education do know more about such matters as
menstruation, intercourse, contraception, pregnancy, and sexually
transmitted diseases than students who do not. (Thanks to federal
funding for AIDS education in the schools, students tend to be very
knowledgeable about the sources and prevention of HIV infection.)
But more accurate knowledge does not have a measurable impact
on sexual behavior. As it is typically taught, sex education has
little
effect on teenagers' decisions to engage in or postpone sex.
Nor, according to Kirby, do knowledge-based sex-education
programs significantly reduce teenage pregnancy. And although
teenagers who learn about contraception may be more likely to
use it, their contraceptive practices tend to be irregular and
therefore
ultimately unreliable.
Excellent: Douglas Kirby has shown, through his analysis of the CDC
data, that "comprehensive" sex education doesn't work! Far from
refuting Whitehead, he is the *SOURCE* for her conclusion!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 01:51:39 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:47:04 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC
The data from the CDC as reviewed by Kirby and accurately reported by
Whitehead in her article, which show that "comprehensive" sex education
does not alter teens' decision to have first sex!
So what?
Nice job! How does your foot feel with that gaping hole you shot
through it?
When a teenager decides to have sex is not a measure of how effective
an education program is, moron.
The researcher Douglas Kirby, of ETR Associates, a nonprofit
health-education firm in Santa Cruz, California, has been
studying sex-education programs for more than a decade.
During the 1980s he conducted a major study of the effectiveness
of sex-education programs for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and he has since completed a review for
the Centers for Disease Control of all published research on
school-based sex-education programs designed to reduce the
risks of unprotected sex. His research shows that students who
take sex education do know more about such matters as
menstruation, intercourse, contraception, pregnancy, and sexually
transmitted diseases than students who do not. (Thanks to federal
funding for AIDS education in the schools, students tend to be very
knowledgeable about the sources and prevention of HIV infection.)
But more accurate knowledge does not have a measurable impact
on sexual behavior. As it is typically taught, sex education has
little
effect on teenagers' decisions to engage in or postpone sex.
Nor, according to Kirby, do knowledge-based sex-education
programs significantly reduce teenage pregnancy. And although
teenagers who learn about contraception may be more likely to
use it, their contraceptive practices tend to be irregular and
therefore
ultimately unreliable.
Excellent: Douglas Kirby has shown, through his analysis of the CDC
data, that "comprehensive" sex education doesn't work! Far from
refuting Whitehead, he is the *SOURCE* for her conclusion!
Uh, no. Read for content and he's saying it doesn't work as well as he
thinks it could.
Of course, asking you to read for content is not really worth the
candle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 02:04:02 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:47:04 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC
The data from the CDC as reviewed by Kirby and accurately reported by
Whitehead in her article, which show that "comprehensive" sex education
does not alter teens' decision to have first sex!
So what?
So, the proponents of "comprehensive" sex education say that it
"works". It doesn't.
Nice job! How does your foot feel with that gaping hole you shot
through it?
When a teenager decides to have sex is not a measure of how effective
an education program is,
Yes, it certainly is, when the societal goal for which the education
curriculum has been implemented in the first place is to POSTPONE teen
sexual activity. "Comprehensive" sex education fails at doing what it
is supposed to do.
You fucking moron.
The researcher Douglas Kirby, of ETR Associates, a nonprofit
health-education firm in Santa Cruz, California, has been
studying sex-education programs for more than a decade.
During the 1980s he conducted a major study of the effectiveness
of sex-education programs for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and he has since completed a review for
the Centers for Disease Control of all published research on
school-based sex-education programs designed to reduce the
risks of unprotected sex. His research shows that students who
take sex education do know more about such matters as
menstruation, intercourse, contraception, pregnancy, and sexually
transmitted diseases than students who do not. (Thanks to federal
funding for AIDS education in the schools, students tend to be very
knowledgeable about the sources and prevention of HIV infection.)
But more accurate knowledge does not have a measurable impact
on sexual behavior. As it is typically taught, sex education has little
effect on teenagers' decisions to engage in or postpone sex.
Nor, according to Kirby, do knowledge-based sex-education
programs significantly reduce teenage pregnancy. And although
teenagers who learn about contraception may be more likely to
use it, their contraceptive practices tend to be irregular and
therefore ultimately unreliable.
Excellent: Douglas Kirby has shown, through his analysis of the CDC
data, that "comprehensive" sex education doesn't work! Far from
refuting Whitehead, he is the *SOURCE* for her conclusion!
Uh, no.
Uh, YES. Heh heh heh heh heh...
You fucking shitstain. You've just shot yourself in the foot at least,
and probably in the head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 02:07:27 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 12:04:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:47:04 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC
The data from the CDC as reviewed by Kirby and accurately reported by
Whitehead in her article, which show that "comprehensive" sex education
does not alter teens' decision to have first sex!
So what?
So, the proponents of "comprehensive" sex education say that it
"works". It doesn't.
Yes, it does. It may not work 'perfectly', but that doesn't mean it's
an utter failure like you keep claiming.
Nice job! How does your foot feel with that gaping hole you shot
through it?
When a teenager decides to have sex is not a measure of how effective
an education program is,
Yes, it certainly is,
No, it isn't. *Why* would be much more important.
The researcher Douglas Kirby, of ETR Associates, a nonprofit
health-education firm in Santa Cruz, California, has been
studying sex-education programs for more than a decade.
During the 1980s he conducted a major study of the effectiveness
of sex-education programs for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and he has since completed a review for
the Centers for Disease Control of all published research on
school-based sex-education programs designed to reduce the
risks of unprotected sex. His research shows that students who
take sex education do know more about such matters as
menstruation, intercourse, contraception, pregnancy, and sexually
transmitted diseases than students who do not. (Thanks to federal
funding for AIDS education in the schools, students tend to be very
knowledgeable about the sources and prevention of HIV infection.)
But more accurate knowledge does not have a measurable impact
on sexual behavior. As it is typically taught, sex education has little
effect on teenagers' decisions to engage in or postpone sex.
Nor, according to Kirby, do knowledge-based sex-education
programs significantly reduce teenage pregnancy. And although
teenagers who learn about contraception may be more likely to
use it, their contraceptive practices tend to be irregular and
therefore ultimately unreliable.
Excellent: Douglas Kirby has shown, through his analysis of the CDC
data, that "comprehensive" sex education doesn't work! Far from
refuting Whitehead, he is the *SOURCE* for her conclusion!
Uh, no.
Uh, YES. Heh heh heh heh heh...
I notice that you're too much of a chickenshit to leave my reply
(where I point out that you're wrong) in.
So, you're done until you come up with something reasonably literate
and factual. So far you've barely hit fatuous, Beavis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 02:14:01 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:04:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:47:04 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:30:12 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:11:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:59:26 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:53 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of
who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and
you're hurting, and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother
Jones" is an unbiased source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ad hominem.
"Mother Jones" is an extremist advocacy rag. They do
not practice journalism.
But you've already said that
...that "Mother Jones" is not journalism. It isn't; it's extremist
partisan advocacy. Pity you can't tell the difference.
No refutation from you, I see.
None needed - you didn't give anything for me to refute; just your
extremist ideologue's opinion.
That and the data from the CDC
The data from the CDC as reviewed by Kirby and accurately reported by
Whitehead in her article, which show that "comprehensive" sex education
does not alter teens' decision to have first sex!
So what?
So, the proponents of "comprehensive" sex education say that it
"works". It doesn't.
Yes, it does. It may not work 'perfectly', but that doesn't mean it's
an utter failure like you keep claiming.
Nice job! How does your foot feel with that gaping hole you shot
through it?
When a teenager decides to have sex is not a measure of how effective
an education program is,
Yes, it certainly is,
No, it isn't.
Yes, it certainly is. The legitimate societal goal, in pursuit of
which "comprehensive" sex education was supposedly implemented, was to
DELAY teen sex activity. It failed.
The researcher Douglas Kirby, of ETR Associates, a nonprofit
health-education firm in Santa Cruz, California, has been
studying sex-education programs for more than a decade.
During the 1980s he conducted a major study of the effectiveness
of sex-education programs for the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and he has since completed a review for
the Centers for Disease Control of all published research on
school-based sex-education programs designed to reduce the
risks of unprotected sex. His research shows that students who
take sex education do know more about such matters as
menstruation, intercourse, contraception, pregnancy, and sexually
transmitted diseases than students who do not. (Thanks to federal
funding for AIDS education in the schools, students tend to be very
knowledgeable about the sources and prevention of HIV infection.)
But more accurate knowledge does not have a measurable impact
on sexual behavior. As it is typically taught, sex education has little
effect on teenagers' decisions to engage in or postpone sex.
Nor, according to Kirby, do knowledge-based sex-education
programs significantly reduce teenage pregnancy. And although
teenagers who learn about contraception may be more likely to
use it, their contraceptive practices tend to be irregular and
therefore ultimately unreliable.
Excellent: Douglas Kirby has shown, through his analysis of the CDC
data, that "comprehensive" sex education doesn't work! Far from
refuting Whitehead, he is the *SOURCE* for her conclusion!
Uh, no.
Uh, YES. Heh heh heh heh heh...
I notice that
You notice that I'm kicking the ***** out of you. That's good.
However, the shitstain is indelible, you shitstain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 06:05:27 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and you're hurting,
and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother Jones" is an unbiased
source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well researched, informative
and lengthy article, shitstain.
That's because she didn't write one. She wrote a biased, uninformed,
badly slanted article about an atypical program.
Poor baby. Is that the best you can do?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on her mystery down payment:
1414fd53.0312122347.79901...@posting.google.com
By April of 2001, the money I had managed to save for a down payment on a
house (from my husband and I working three jobs between us) was
confiscated by the IRS.
The first year of the Bush presidency, I got money back and am now a
homeowner.
1129172027.067956.70...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I never paid a down payment on my house. The government took it
all. Fortunately, my husband is a Navy veteran, we had good credit,
and he was able to use his military benefits to get a $0 down.
1130579291.315993.196310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
We did have a down.
1130263251.632250.146780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Any amount is more than the zero I put in, you stupid crackhead.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 07:06:54 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and you're hurting,
and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother Jones" is an unbiased
source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well researched, informative
and lengthy article, shitstain.
That's because she didn't write one.
She did. You haven't read it.
She wrote a biased, uninformed,
badly slanted article
Nope. I've read it, several times. It's thoughtful, thorough,
well-researched, unbiased.
You just don't like it because you promote consequence-free fucking.
You promote irresponsibilty.
about an atypical program.
It was about much more than just the program used widely and typically
in New Jersey. You are wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 09:02:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:05:27 -0800, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and you're hurting,
and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother Jones" is an unbiased
source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well researched, informative
and lengthy article, shitstain.
That's because she didn't write one. She wrote a biased, uninformed,
badly slanted article about an atypical program.
Poor baby. Is that the best you can do?
Naw, her best is simply cutting out the evidence so she can ignore it,
then forging something in her response and trying to say you wrote it.
That's as good as it gets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sex education: what works, what doesn't |
02 Dec 2005 09:29:23 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:05:27 -0800, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:49:57 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133494793.634211.255480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v49/ai_19751435
Abstaining from sex education
National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Richard Nadler
Nothing like an unbiased source, there, buckaroo.
ad hominem
Address what he said, not your misperception of who/what he is.
Oh, ***** you,
No, ***** YOU, shitstain. You're tied up in knots, and you're hurting,
and it makes me laugh.
"Unbiased source"? Ha ha ha ha ha! As if "Mother Jones" is an unbiased
source! Ha ha ha ha ha!
You didn't refute Whitehead's excellent, well researched, informative
and lengthy article, shitstain.
That's because she didn't write one. She wrote a biased, uninformed,
badly slanted article about an atypical program.
Poor baby. Is that the best you can do?
Naw, her best
"Sexkitten?" Her best is a 50-cent ***** down at 8th and San Julian.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 09:23:19 PM |
|
|
shitstain IAAH, polemical extremist ordinaire, lied:
On 30 Nov 2005 21:10:57 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 30 Nov 2005 20:46:34 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Lars Eighner lied again:
In our last episode,
<1133405626.242024.311850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner lied:
Pro-choice people are for
sex education. Why would that be if they wanted more abortions?
Haven't you noticed, you dumb fat pillock? The more states have moved
to "comprehensive" sex education in the schools, the higher the number
of abortions!
I haven't notice it because it is just exactly the opposite of
what has happened.
No, it is EXACTLY what did happen: the more "comprehensive" the sex
education, the higher the number of abortions.
Stop *lying*, little lars.
"Comprehensive" sex education leads to more sex by
stupid teenagers, and that leads to more pregnancies and hence more
abortions. "Comprehensive" sex education teaches the moral depravity
that if a girl gets pregnant, she can easily get an abortion - and so
that's exactly what they do.
Liar.
Nope. It's exactly what happened.
Uh huh. Cite? If you don't have one, a simple "I was making ***** up"
will do.
Read any of the literature by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, beginning with
her 1994 Atlantic Monthly article.
This really isn't in serious dispute, of course; you're just taking a
***** in public. *****.
Ah, that. That would be Whitehead's terribly biased and ultimately
wrong attack on sex ed.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1995/01/kirby.html
I finally looked at the actual ONE PAGE opinion piece in the
nearly-Maoist Mother Jones, rather than relying on your sleazy citation
from it, and realized that I had seen this pile of ***** before.
It's an OPINION PIECE written *by* one of the people cited both as one
of Whitehead's sources *and* one of her critics: Douglas Kirby.
Strangely, Kirby, whose qualifications are not discussed, talks about
himself in the third person in the screed.
Your silly reliance on this piece of ***** extremist screed is very
revealing about your lack of expertise, your lack of ethics, and your
own ideologically driven extremism.
"In a balanced review of the research, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention concluded that current programs do not hasten the onset
of intercourse or increase its frequency (contrary to claims by
"abstinence-only" advocates). Overall, sex education programs modestly
increase the use of contraception; some programs reduce unprotected
sex by 40 percent or more. Some programs also help delay the onset of
intercourse and reduce the number of sexual partners."
Yeah, this is great: NOWHERE in this passage does it say *WHAT* kind
of program has which effect. So, I think the reasonable conclusion is
the same as Whitehead's: the "modest" increase in the use of
contraception may be brought about by so-called "comprehensive" sex
education, but the reduction in (unprotected) sex is brought about by
abstinence-only sex education. Unprotected sex is reduced because
sexual activity is reduced, thanks to abstinence-only.
You're still not getting the point, stupid lying *****. Whitehead never
claimed that "comprehensive" sex education hastens the onset of
intercourse or increase its frequency; what she claimed, CORRECTLY, is
that "comprehensive" sex education does NOT WORK to *reduce*
sex-related social pathologies among teenagers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:10:09 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<0omjf.7639$wf.1708@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
But YOU are the one who is wrong. Quite clearly,
pro-abortion people are embarrassed by the word; that's
why they avoid saying it as much as they can.
Liar.
Nope. It's why NARAL has completely dropped the word "abortion" from
its name.
"Pro-abortion" is simply inaccurate.
It's completely accurate.
As noted, in that case we should be called "pro-pregnancy".
Pro-choice people are for
sex education. Why would that be if they wanted more abortions?
Haven't you noticed, you dumb fat pillock? The more states have moved
to "comprehensive" sex education in the schools, the higher the number
of abortions! "Comprehensive" sex education leads to more sex by
stupid teenagers, and that leads to more pregnancies and hence more
abortions. "Comprehensive" sex education teaches the moral depravity
that if a girl gets pregnant, she can easily get an abortion - and so
that's exactly what they do.
Oh come now, you can't really be this stupid. You're trolling, right?
A small sample of the many publications on the issue:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xsteesex.htm
The evidence shows that traditional sex education, as it has been
offered in the United States, increases sexual knowledge, but it has
little or no effect on whether or not teens initiate sex or use
contraception. Consequently, traditional school sex education usually is
found to be unrelated to adolescent pregnancy or births. The most
consistent and clear finding is that sex education does not cause
adolescents to initiate sex when they would not otherwise have done so.
Pro-choice people are for birth control availability? Why would
that be if they wanted more abortions?
See above re sex education.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:48:22 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<0omjf.7639$wf.1708@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
But YOU are the one who is wrong. Quite clearly,
pro-abortion people are embarrassed by the word; that's
why they avoid saying it as much as they can.
Liar.
Nope. It's why NARAL has completely dropped the word "abortion" from
its name.
"Pro-abortion" is simply inaccurate.
It's completely accurate.
As noted, in that case we should be called "pro-pregnancy".
Pro-choice people are for
sex education. Why would that be if they wanted more abortions?
Haven't you noticed, you dumb fat pillock? The more states have moved
to "comprehensive" sex education in the schools, the higher the number
of abortions! "Comprehensive" sex education leads to more sex by
stupid teenagers, and that leads to more pregnancies and hence more
abortions. "Comprehensive" sex education teaches the moral depravity
that if a girl gets pregnant, she can easily get an abortion - and so
that's exactly what they do.
Oh come now, you can't really be this stupid. You're trolling, right?
A small sample of the many publications on the issue:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xsteesex.htm
The evidence shows that traditional sex education, as it has been
offered in the United States, increases sexual knowledge, but it has
little or no effect on whether or not teens initiate sex or use
contraception.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
READ the article, if you can; you might need to be an
Atlantic subcriber.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead is an acknowledged expert. Her
conclusion is: "comprehensive" sex education does
absolutely nothing to diminish teenaged sexual
involvement, which is ostensibly the goal (and an
unambiguously good one.) By contrast, a norms-based
abstinence curriculum does have some effect, but only
in reinforcing the behavior of already-abstinent
teenagers. She acknowledges that abstinence-only sex
education does not have a measurable effect on
teenagers who are already sexually active.
So: "comprehensive" sex education is expensive and
does little or nothing to stop or reduce teenaged
sexual activity. Abstinence-only sex education *does*
have some positive effect, although not anywhere close
to as much as people would like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:52:58 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<0omjf.7639$wf.1708@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
But YOU are the one who is wrong. Quite clearly,
pro-abortion people are embarrassed by the word; that's
why they avoid saying it as much as they can.
Liar.
Nope. It's why NARAL has completely dropped the word "abortion" from
its name.
"Pro-abortion" is simply inaccurate.
It's completely accurate.
As noted, in that case we should be called "pro-pregnancy".
Pro-choice people are for
sex education. Why would that be if they wanted more abortions?
Haven't you noticed, you dumb fat pillock? The more states have moved
to "comprehensive" sex education in the schools, the higher the number
of abortions! "Comprehensive" sex education leads to more sex by
stupid teenagers, and that leads to more pregnancies and hence more
abortions. "Comprehensive" sex education teaches the moral depravity
that if a girl gets pregnant, she can easily get an abortion - and so
that's exactly what they do.
Oh come now, you can't really be this stupid. You're trolling, right?
A small sample of the many publications on the issue:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xsteesex.htm
The evidence shows that traditional sex education, as it has been
offered in the United States, increases sexual knowledge, but it has
little or no effect on whether or not teens initiate sex or use
contraception.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
READ the article, if you can; you might need to be an Atlantic subcriber.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead is an acknowledged expert. Her conclusion is:
"comprehensive" sex education does absolutely nothing to diminish
teenaged sexual involvement, which is ostensibly the goal (and an
unambiguously good one.) By contrast, a norms-based abstinence
curriculum does have some effect, but only in reinforcing the behavior
of already-abstinent teenagers. She acknowledges that abstinence-only
sex education does not have a measurable effect on teenagers who are
already sexually active.
So: "comprehensive" sex education is expensive and does little or
nothing to stop or reduce teenaged sexual activity.
And hey, that was not what you claimed! Big surprise.
Here was your claim:
"Comprehensive" sex education leads to more sex by stupid teenagers, and
that leads to more pregnancies and hence more abortions.
"Comprehensive" sex education teaches the moral depravity that if a girl
gets pregnant, she can easily get an abortion - and so that's exactly
what they do.
Sheesh, YOUR OWN ARTICLE called you a liar. As did mine.
Abstinence-only sex
education *does* have some positive effect, although not anywhere close
to as much as people would like.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:06:33 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the
right to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between
themselves and the word "abortion" whenever they can? The answer
is obvious: they *know* there is something shameful, even evil,
about their position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political rhetoric
indicates that the left *know* that the moral position they are
advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong.
Nope. If you look around at the literature, it's obvious.
I'd like cancer surgery to be safe, legal and rare as well. Does that
mean I advocate cancer, or consider cancer shameful? No, it means I'd
rather not see people need it.
Duh.
HeLlooOO, McFly?
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:42:10 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the
right to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between
themselves and the word "abortion" whenever they can? The answer
is obvious: they *know* there is something shameful, even evil,
about their position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political rhetoric
indicates that the left *know* that the moral position they are
advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong.
Nope. If you look around at the literature, it's obvious.
I'd like cancer surgery to be safe, legal and rare as well.
The "rare" aspect of ***** Bill's admonition is that only rarely
should people choose abortion. He would prefer they choose to prevent
conception in the first place.
People don't choose to get cancer, nitwit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:52:17 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133379730.937653.26750
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the
right to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between
themselves and the word "abortion" whenever they can? The
answer
is obvious: they *know* there is something shameful, even evil,
about their position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political rhetoric
indicates that the left *know* that the moral position they are
advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong.
Nope. If you look around at the literature, it's obvious.
I'd like cancer surgery to be safe, legal and rare as well.
The "rare" aspect of ***** Bill's admonition is that only rarely
should people choose abortion. He would prefer they choose to prevent
conception in the first place.
Too bad your mother didn't "choose to prevent conception" in your case,
S. Malcontent. If she had, there might be one less idiot in the world.
People don't choose to get cancer, nitwit.
People don't _choose_ to get pregnant either, you fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:10:40 PM |
|
|
BOOB leaked:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133379730.937653.26750
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the
right to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between
themselves and the word "abortion" whenever they can? The
answer
is obvious: they *know* there is something shameful, even evil,
about their position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political rhetoric
indicates that the left *know* that the moral position they are
advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong.
Nope. If you look around at the literature, it's obvious.
I'd like cancer surgery to be safe, legal and rare as well.
The "rare" aspect of ***** Bill's admonition is that only rarely
should people choose abortion. He would prefer they choose to prevent
conception in the first place.
Too bad your mother didn't "choose to prevent conception" in your case,
S. Malcontent. If she had, there might be one less idiot in the world.
People don't choose to get cancer, nitwit.
People don't _choose_ to get pregnant either, you fool.
Actually, many people do. But the important thing, boob, is that the
overwhelming number of women who obtain elective abortions DID in fact
choose, entirely of their own volition, to *****. They chose to *****
without using any form of birth control, and they knew at the time they
made the choice that pregnancy, childbirth and a baby are often the
consequence of fucking. So in *EFFECT*, boob, they chose to get
pregnant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:18:23 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133381440.952366.151700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
BOOB leaked:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133379730.937653.26750 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it:
"the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles
between themselves and the word "abortion" whenever they
can? The
answer
is obvious: they *know* there is something shameful, even
evil, about their position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political rhetoric
indicates that the left *know* that the moral position they
are advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong.
Nope. If you look around at the literature, it's obvious.
I'd like cancer surgery to be safe, legal and rare as well.
The "rare" aspect of ***** Bill's admonition is that only rarely
should people choose abortion. He would prefer they choose to
prevent conception in the first place.
Too bad your mother didn't "choose to prevent conception" in your
case, S. Malcontent. If she had, there might be one less idiot in
the world.
People don't choose to get cancer, nitwit.
People don't _choose_ to get pregnant either, you fool.
Actually, many people do.
No, they don't, you stupid moron. Some may "try" but that is all they
can do. The rest is up to nature.
But the important thing, boob, is that the
overwhelming number of women who obtain elective abortions DID in fact
choose, entirely of their own volition, to *****.
That's not against any law. How do you think you got here, S.
Malcontent? Since both of your parents were of the same sex, it was
more difficult in your case.
They chose to *****
without using any form of birth control, and they knew at the time
they made the ch | | | | | |
