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: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 12:14:01 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
The Chief Prevaricator lied:
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes:
Why do anti-choice people call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions. They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off. They aren't really
"pro-life," they simple say that to obscure the fact that they
want the government to restrict people's reproductive choices.
They consistently oppose sex education. They consistently
oppose making birth control devices and information available to
young people. If they merely want to reduce the number of
abortions, why would they so limit availability of the
information and the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Pretty
clearly, they want people to have unwanted pregancies and they
want to make childbearing compulsory.
It's all about control,
No.
Yes.
No.
Look at what you write. It is ALL about forcing people to do as
you say.
No, you liar. There is nothing in anything I've
written about forcing anyone to do anything. There's
only prevention: I want to prevent women from
murdering developing human children.
That's a difference that I fear is just too subtle for
you, little raymond.
It's about not letting people escape the
consequences of their freely chosen actions by killing
humans.
Q.E.D.
non sequitur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:01:46 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
The Chief Prevaricator lied:
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes:
Why do anti-choice people call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions. They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off. They aren't really
"pro-life," they simple say that to obscure the fact that they
want the government to restrict people's reproductive choices.
They consistently oppose sex education. They consistently
oppose making birth control devices and information available to
young people. If they merely want to reduce the number of
abortions, why would they so limit availability of the
information and the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Pretty
clearly, they want people to have unwanted pregancies and they
want to make childbearing compulsory.
It's all about control,
No.
Yes.
No.
Your own words make you a liar.
Look at what you write. It is ALL about forcing people to do as
you say.
No, you liar.
At least tell the truth to yourself.
There is nothing in anything I've
written about forcing anyone to do anything.
Other than this next sentence...
It's about not letting people escape the
consequences of their freely chosen actions by killing
humans.
Q.E.D.
non sequitur
Control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:55:12 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
The Chief Prevaricator lied:
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes:
Why do anti-choice people call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions. They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off. They aren't really
"pro-life," they simple say that to obscure the fact that they
want the government to restrict people's reproductive choices.
They consistently oppose sex education. They consistently
oppose making birth control devices and information available to
young people. If they merely want to reduce the number of
abortions, why would they so limit availability of the
information and the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Pretty
clearly, they want people to have unwanted pregancies and they
want to make childbearing compulsory.
It's all about control,
No.
Yes.
No.
Your own words make you a liar.
No. You've asserted, entirely without support, that
I'm seeking "control". You're wrong.
Look at what you write. It is ALL about forcing people to do as
you say.
No, you liar.
At least tell the truth to yourself.
I always tell the truth, to everyone.
There is nothing in anything I've
written about forcing anyone to do anything.
Other than this next sentence...
Nope. Nothing about forcing anyone TO DO anything.
Bad try, little ray.
It's about not letting people escape the
consequences of their freely chosen actions by killing
humans.
Q.E.D.
non sequitur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 11:28:40 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
The Chief Prevaricator lied:
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes:
Why do anti-choice people call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions. They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off. They aren't really
"pro-life," they simple say that to obscure the fact that they
want the government to restrict people's reproductive choices.
They consistently oppose sex education. They consistently
oppose making birth control devices and information available to
young people. If they merely want to reduce the number of
abortions, why would they so limit availability of the
information and the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Pretty
clearly, they want people to have unwanted pregancies and they
want to make childbearing compulsory.
It's all about control,
No.
Yes.
No.
Your own words make you a liar.
No.
Control freak.
You've asserted, entirely without support, that
I'm seeking "control". You're wrong.
Except for the fact that you want women forced to do as you say.
Look at what you write. It is ALL about forcing people to do as
you say.
No, you liar.
At least tell the truth to yourself.
I always tell the truth, to everyone.
Stop lying to yourself.
There is nothing in anything I've
written about forcing anyone to do anything.
Other than this next sentence...
Nope. Nothing about forcing anyone TO DO anything.
Other than keep a fetus alive.
It's about not letting people escape the
consequences of their freely chosen actions by killing
humans.
Q.E.D.
non sequitur
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 11:28:53 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
No. It's about not letting people escape the consequences of their
freely chosen actions by killing humans.
When did the conversation shift to Iraq?
--
--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 12:05:48 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
No. It's about not letting people escape the consequences of their
freely chosen actions by killing humans.
When did the conversation shift to Iraq?
Someone responding to me did that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 02:22:27 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life. For the
record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola, so
perhaps my position doesn't matter to you.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Stop playing stupid, little Lars. For one thing, you
really don't need to play at it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 04:22:14 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
Of course there is. They may not personally choose that name
for themselves, but the term is descriptive and you *Do* know
who he is refering to.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life.
So they're not so much "pro-life" as "pro-laws that can take
away your life."
For the record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola,
You even go so far as to call it "crapola."
Congratulations! You've proven his point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 10:48:39 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
Of course there is.
No. There are no univerally "pro-choice" people, and
no universally "anti-choice" people. People who oppose
*abortion* as a choice support innumerable other
choices, and people who support abortion as a choice
are opposed to many other choices, including choice
about what a person may do with his body.
"Pro-choice" means pro-abortion. Say it. Stop being
such a gutless coward, and SAY what the object of
choice is.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life.
So they're not so much "pro-life" as "pro-laws that can take
away your life."
I oppose the death penalty, so I see no need to offer
any justification for any part of the philosophy of
those who support it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 12:15:50 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
No. There are no univerally "pro-choice" people, and
no universally "anti-choice" people. People who oppose
*abortion* as a choice
So not only did I say that his term was descriptive, you
yourself testify to the fact that it is immediately apparent
as to which specific group he was refering to...
I'd say when a term readily (and accurately) identifies
a group to BOTH people inside & outside that group,
it's an accurate term.
And you've proven me correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 12:07:46 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
No. There are no univerally "pro-choice" people, and
no universally "anti-choice" people. People who oppose
*abortion* as a choice
So not only did I say that his term was descriptive, you
yourself testify to the fact that it is immediately apparent
as to which specific group he was refering to...
I'd say when a term readily (and accurately) identifies
a group to BOTH people inside & outside that group,
it's an accurate term.
And you've proven me correct.
Who oh why do the abortion groups always wind up with the shrieking morons?
--
--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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 02:50:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:48:39 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
Of course there is.
No. There are no univerally "pro-choice" people, and
no universally "anti-choice" people. People who oppose
*abortion* as a choice support innumerable other
choices, and people who support abortion as a choice
are opposed to many other choices, including choice
about what a person may do with his body.
"Pro-choice" means pro-abortion. Say it. Stop being
such a gutless coward, and SAY what the object of
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
The accusation cannot be taken seriously. It appears that its only
purpose is to insult people. It certainly has no other value.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 03:02:28 PM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:712so11hau7omc0nq1942v25d31nkoeuj1@4ax.com:
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
That's a faulty analogy. I know no pro-life conservative
who does not accept that abortion is sometimes necessary.
--
Oderint dum metuant
http://www.rightwingnation.com
http://www.radiobs.net/thebluestateconservatives/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 06:27:03 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:712so11hau7omc0nq1942v25d31nkoeuj1@4ax.com:
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
That's a faulty analogy. I know no pro-life conservative
who does not accept that abortion is sometimes necessary.
Hey, look, Pauline, it's the fake PhD back again to "prove" that he's
really a moron!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 07:10:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:02:28 -0600, Asmodeus
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:712so11hau7omc0nq1942v25d31nkoeuj1@4ax.com:
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
That's a faulty analogy. I know no pro-life conservative
who does not accept that abortion is sometimes necessary.
I was hoping that somebody would say that. If you accept it is
sometimes necessary, you cannot also argue that the foetus is a
person. After all you would not advocate killing a six year-old in
order to save the mother's life, so why is a foetus different?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 11:27:29 AM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:02:28 -0600, Asmodeus
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:712so11hau7omc0nq1942v25d31nkoeuj1@4ax.com:
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
That's a faulty analogy. I know no pro-life conservative
who does not accept that abortion is sometimes necessary.
I was hoping that somebody would say that. If you accept it is
sometimes necessary, you cannot also argue that the foetus is a
person. After all you would not advocate killing a six year-old in
order to save the mother's life, so why is a foetus different?
So if a woman may be forced to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't
YOU be forced to keep starving children alive?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 05:39:20 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 09:27:29 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:02:28 -0600, Asmodeus
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:712so11hau7omc0nq1942v25d31nkoeuj1@4ax.com:
Saying that pro-choice means pro-abortion is like saying that, if a
person accepts that amputations of limbs is sometimes necessary, it
means he/she is pro-amputation.
That's a faulty analogy. I know no pro-life conservative
who does not accept that abortion is sometimes necessary.
I was hoping that somebody would say that. If you accept it is
sometimes necessary, you cannot also argue that the foetus is a
person. After all you would not advocate killing a six year-old in
order to save the mother's life, so why is a foetus different?
So if a woman may be forced to keep a fetus alive, then why shouldn't
YOU be forced to keep starving children alive?
Are you aware that I am pro-choice? If so your question is odd. I
don't think a woman should be forced to keep a foetus alive. I don't
understand why you would think that was my position.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 09:59:44 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
Of course there is. They may not personally choose that name
for themselves, but the term is descriptive and you *Do* know
who he is refering to.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life.
So they're not so much "pro-life" as "pro-laws that can take
away your life."
For the record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola,
You even go so far as to call it "crapola."
Congratulations! You've proven his point.
They do give themselves away, don't they? :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 09:10:16 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:12:49 AM |
|
|
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are
temporarily on life support with an expectation of
complete recovery, or if you're under general
anesthesia for surgery. Do you lose your rights in
those instances, donnie?
What a completely stupid thing for you to say, donnie!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 08:41:19 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:12:49 GMT, "little S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> lied:
Don Kresch wrote
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
Liar.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are
temporarily on life support with an expectation of
complete recovery, or if you're under general
anesthesia for surgery.
Liar.
You said 2 completely stupid things, child. Want to try for 3?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 08:44:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:41:19 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:12:49 GMT, "little S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> lied:
Don Kresch wrote
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
Liar.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are
temporarily on life support with an expectation of
complete recovery, or if you're under general
anesthesia for surgery.
Liar.
You said 2 completely stupid things, child. Want to try for 3?
Don
I think you mean that Spazzy said 2 completely stupid things that you
saw. Trust me, there's lots more where that came from.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:16:36 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on life
support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if you're under
general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What hospital do *you* go to, so the rest of us can avoid it?
Do you lose your rights in those
instances, donnie?
What a completely stupid thing for you to say, donnie!
--
--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 anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:53:16 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on
life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if you're
under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human
being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident,
you stupid goddamned *****. He limited his observation
*solely* to its "actualization" (gag) and autonomy. I
pointed out another case in which a person, a human
being, has zero actualization and autonomy, and in
which we wouldn't THINK of declaring the person not to
be a rights holder.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:03:09 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on
life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if you're
under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing. Look
at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
Conversing with the mirror again?
--
--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 anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:11:40 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on
life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if you're
under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing at all, *****.
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
No, *****, it wasn't. If you're on life support in a
hospital, you're not autonomous. If you're a week-old
infant, you're not autonomous. But we don't consider
comatose patients and infants to hold anything less
than the full complement of human rights.
Face it: you don't have a coherent argument on this.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:14:37 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on
life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if you're
under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing at all, *****.
Everything, *****.
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
Yes, indeed, you are.
--
--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 anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:19:20 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if it
comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily on
life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if
you're under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing at all, *****.
Everything,
Nothing at all, stupid *****.
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was.
No, *****, it wasn't. That's why you had to snip the
rest of it:
If you're on life support in a hospital, you're not
autonomous. If you're a week-old infant, you're not
autonomous. But we don't consider comatose patients
and infants to hold anything less than the full
complement of human rights.
Lack of autonomy clearly is not the defining quality.
You're too stupid, and too dishonest, to do this.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:24:01 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if
it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily
on life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if
you're under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing at all, *****.
Everything,
Nothing at all, stupid *****.
Everything, stupid *****.
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was. If you don't want your posts snipped, I suggest you
not do it yourself.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
Yes, you are.
--
--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 anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:26:04 AM |
|
|
stupid lying ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid lying ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid lying ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid lying ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
little donnie lied:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:22:27 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people,
Yes there are.
Nope.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue, and if
it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it isn't *a* human.
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
Neither are you if you're in a car accident and are temporarily
on life support with an expectation of complete recovery, or if
you're under general anesthesia for surgery.
You are inside someone else's body for those events?
What the ***** does that have to do with anything, *****?
Everything, *****.
Nothing at all, *****.
Everything,
Nothing at all, stupid *****.
Everything,
Nothing at all, stupid *****.
Nothing. Look at what the stupid ***** wrote:
And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being.
He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident, you stupid
goddamned *****.
That was covered under autonomous.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was.
No, *****, it wasn't.
Yes, *****, it was.
No, ***** it wasn't:
If you're on life support in a hospital, you're not
autonomous. If you're a week-old infant, you're not
autonomous. But we don't consider comatose patients
and infants to hold anything less than the full
complement of human rights.
Lack of autonomy clearly is not the defining quality.
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
