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 02:50:19 AM |
|
|
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins
Your name is *****, you stupid *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 02:54:20 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins
Your name is *****, you stupid *****.
WAAH WAAH WAAH WAAAH!!!!!!!!
--
--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 03:09:19 AM |
|
|
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins
Your name is *****,
Your name is *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 03:25:18 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
My name doesn't begin with "s." Yours does, however. ;-)
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins with "s."
Your name is *****,
No, it's Gaia, *****.
Your name is *****.
Do you have a speech impediment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 03:28:44 AM |
|
|
Gaia wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
My name doesn't begin with
You stupid *****.
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins with "s."
Your name is *****,
No, it's Gaia,
It's *****.
Your name is *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 03:41:46 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Gaia wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
My name doesn't begin with
You stupid *****.
You're right--it doesn't begin with "You Stupid *****."
Excellent observation. ;-)
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins with "s."
Your name is *****,
No, it's Gaia,
It's *****.
You're right, "It's *****"--my name is Gaia.
Excellent Observation!
Your name is *****.
Do you have a speech impediment?
I guess "It's *****" does...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 03:33:02 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Gaia wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
My name doesn't begin with "S."
You stupid *****.
No, my name is not "You stupid *****." It's Gaia.
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins with "s."
Your name is *****,
No, it's Gaia,
It's *****.
No, it's Gaia; however, your name begins with "s," so may I assume it's
*****, slutty, or stupid *****? ;-)
Your name is *****.
Do you have a speech impediment?
Where's the answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 03:36:43 AM |
|
|
Gaia wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Gaia wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
My name doesn't begin with "S."
You stupid *****.
No, my name is
You stupid *****. Just shut up.
S. Maizlich wrote:
stupid ***** lied:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--*****-- lied:
Your name begins with "s."
Your name is *****,
No, it's Gaia,
It's *****.
No, it's Gaia;
No, it isn't. No one gives a ***** what your name is.
You *are* a stupid ***** and a stupid *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 10:45:09 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, *****?
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.
Not true. the original non-sniped quote is
"And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights. "
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.
Becuse that person does not "exist within the confines of a being who
has rights. "
You are too stupid for this, *****. Too stupid by far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 11:06:27 AM |
|
|
Jack 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, *****?
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.
Not true. the original non-sniped quote is
"And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights. "
The fucking liar stated two distinct things. The lack
of autonomy is not fundamentally due to where the fetus
is, you fucking moron. The fetus a day before birth
and the newborn baby a day after birth are EQUALLY
lacking in autonomy. A 30 year old adult in a coma
also is EQUALLY lacking in autonomy.
It is clearly NOT autonomy which determines if an
entity holds rights. Get your head out of your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 11:37:31 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Jack 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, *****?
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.
Not true. the original non-sniped quote is
"And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights. "
The fucking liar stated two distinct things.
You claimed "He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident,"
that is clearly not true.
The lack
of autonomy is not fundamentally due to where the fetus
is, you fucking moron.
That is correct, he did not say it was.
The fetus a day before birth
and the newborn baby a day after birth are EQUALLY
lacking in autonomy. A 30 year old adult in a coma
also is EQUALLY lacking in autonomy.
But a "30 year old adult in a coma" is not
"within the confines of a being who has rights"
nor is he not an "actualized human being"
It is clearly NOT autonomy which determines if an
entity holds rights.
He did not claim that autonomy ALONE determines
if an entity holds rights. The original post listed three conditions.
1) actualized human being.
2) autonomous human being.
3) existing within the confines of a being who has rights
I will grant that you have shown that #2 is not
sufficient by itself. Would you care to address
when all 3 conditions are met.
Get your head out of your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 11:48:54 AM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Jack 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, *****?
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.
Not true. the original non-sniped quote is
"And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights. "
The fucking liar stated two distinct things.
You claimed "He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident,"
that is clearly not true.
The lack
of autonomy is not fundamentally due to where the fetus
is, you fucking moron.
That is correct, he did not say it was.
The fetus a day before birth
and the newborn baby a day after birth are EQUALLY
lacking in autonomy. A 30 year old adult in a coma
also is EQUALLY lacking in autonomy.
But a "30 year old adult in a coma" is not
"within the confines of a being who has rights"
nor is he not an "actualized human being"
It is clearly NOT autonomy which determines if an
entity holds rights.
He did not claim that autonomy ALONE determines
if an entity holds rights. The original post listed three conditions.
1) actualized human being.
2) autonomous human being.
3) existing within the confines of a being who has rights
I will grant that you have shown that #2 is not
sufficient by itself. Would you care to address
when all 3 conditions are met.
#1 is pschyobabble; "actualized" will mean whatever the
speaker/writer wants it to mean. #3 is an absurd
tautology: the o.p. simply waves his hand and declares
that an unborn human being, presumably up to childbirth
itself, has no rights. It's meaningless.
The only meaningful thing he said was #2, and I've
dispensed with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 12:23:47 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Jack wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Jack 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, *****?
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.
Not true. the original non-sniped quote is
"And a fetus isn't an actualized, autonomous human being. It
exists within the confines of a being who has rights. "
The fucking liar stated two distinct things.
You claimed "He didn't say *anything* about where it is resident,"
that is clearly not true.
The lack
of autonomy is not fundamentally due to where the fetus
is, you fucking moron.
That is correct, he did not say it was.
The fetus a day before birth
and the newborn baby a day after birth are EQUALLY
lacking in autonomy. A 30 year old adult in a coma
also is EQUALLY lacking in autonomy.
But a "30 year old adult in a coma" is not
"within the confines of a being who has rights"
nor is he not an "actualized human being"
It is clearly NOT autonomy which determines if an
entity holds rights.
He did not claim that autonomy ALONE determines
if an entity holds rights. The original post listed three conditions.
1) actualized human being.
2) autonomous human being.
3) existing within the confines of a being who has rights
I will grant that you have shown that #2 is not
sufficient by itself. Would you care to address
when all 3 conditions are met.
#1 is pschyobabble; "actualized" will mean whatever the
speaker/writer wants it to mean. #3 is an absurd
tautology: the o.p. simply waves his hand and declares
that an unborn human being, presumably up to childbirth
itself, has no rights. It's meaningless.
The only meaningful thing he said was #2, and I've
dispensed with it.
"Actualized" is problematic. It is clear (at least to me)
that once a person is born they are an
"actualized human being". It is less clear when
they are not "actualized". It is, IMO, the true reason for
the abortion controversy. At what point are you a
"real" person and not just a blob of tissue. I can not
bring my self to assign personhood (or "actualized
human being" or whatever " psychobabble" label
you care to use) to a fertilized egg or other "entity"
from the early stages of pregnancy however later stages,
especially late in the pregnancy I am more inclined to
agree that the fetus deserves the "personhood" label and
has rights. Where the dividing line between "person"
and "non-person" is is a matter of philosophy and/or
religion (not science) so I doubt there will ever be a consensus.
#3 is not so easily dismissed. Just because it is an
essential part of pregnancy does not mean it can be
ignored. Even you must admit that there is a
woman involved in a pregnancy and that she
has rights. For example, many (most?) pro-lifers will agree
that a rape victim has the right to have an abortion.
Unless you believe in no abortion under ANY circumstances
you also recognize that the woman has rights.
The question is not then "who has rights and who doesn't"
but who's rights take precedence. That is far from
a black and white issue.
I'm disappointed, not a single insult in your last reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 02:27:42 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life. For the
record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola, so
perhaps my position doesn't matter to you.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Stop playing stupid, little Lars. For one thing, you
really don't need to play at it.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of GodŽ -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
First Church of Electro-Baptism ***Atheist #1965*** One Short Circuit to Jesus
Jesus *was* my co-pilot ... but we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 02:30:56 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
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.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being, unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
lump of meaningless cells.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 12:38:55 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being, unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
lump of meaningless cells.
To quote my friend Stix:
"We are still using the dictionary definition of responsible and
responsibility, right?
Responsibility: (n) 1. the state or position of being responsible. 2.
a person or thing for which one is responsible.
Responsible: (adj) 1. having control or authority over. 2. being
accountable for one's actions and decisions. 3. involving decision and
accountability. 4. being the agent or cause (of some action). 5.
rational and accountable for one's own actions.
Ergo: if the content of her womb is her responsibility, SHE has
control or authority over it and SHE is accountable for her actions
and decisions regarding it - WHATEVER she decides to do with it."
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 01:59:21 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
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.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being, unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
lump of meaningless cells.
To quote my friend Stix:
"We are still using the dictionary definition of responsible and
responsibility, right?
No. Your wastrel friend "Stix" (huh) mistakenly or
perhaps willfully stupidly believes that dictionaries
somehow "prove" some philosophical point. Tell "Stix"
he's a stupid *****, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
01 Dec 2005 08:40:13 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:59:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being, unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
lump of meaningless cells.
To quote my friend Stix:
"We are still using the dictionary definition of responsible and
responsibility, right?
No.
Then you're special pleading, and you've lost the debate.
Wanna try again?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 02:38:57 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<4rdjf.7488$wf.4762@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on houston.general:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life. For the
record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola, so
perhaps my position doesn't matter to you.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is.
Liar.
It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being,
So do most cells in the body. We now have the technology
to clone people.
unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
So, howcome you are shirking your responsibility by not cloning
yourself?
lump of meaningless cells.
That is exactly what a fetus is.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of GodŽ -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
First Church of Electro-Baptism ***Atheist #1965*** One Short Circuit to Jesus
"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." --Woody Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 10:45:31 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner lied again:
In our last episode,
<4rdjf.7488$wf.4762@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on houston.general:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner lied:
Why do anti-choice people
No such people, little lars.
call themselves "pro-life"? You don't
see them protesting executions.
I think they feel people who have been sentenced to
death have forfeited their right to life. For the
record, and if it makes you feel any better, little
Lars, I am vehemently and adamantly and unalterably
opposed to the death penalty. However, it has nothing
to do with some "reverence for life" crapola, so
perhaps my position doesn't matter to you.
They aren't camping out with
Cindy Sheehan. They clearly are not "pro-life" when it comes to
living persons. And for that matter, they have no problem with
having a tumor or a wart cut off.
A tumor or a wart isn't *a* life. It's living tissue,
and if it comes from a human it's human tissue, but it
isn't *a* human.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is.
Liar.
That wasn't an intelligent response.
It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being,
So do most cells in the body.
No, they don't.
unless the woman,
wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
So, howcome you are shirking your responsibility by not cloning
yourself?
I don't have any responsibility to clone myself. There
is no human being living within me. Remember, little
Lars, that a human being contains DNA from TWO people.
lump of meaningless cells.
That is exactly what a fetus is.
No, clearly it's more than that. But your delusion is
shared by millions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 10:54:29 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied again:
In our last episode,
<4rdjf.7488$wf.4762@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, the lovely and
talented S. Maizlich broadcast on houston.general:
Lars Eighner lied:
In our last episode,
<7jdjf.7483$wf.7337@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, the lovely
and talented S. Maizlich broadcast on alt.atheism:
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.
Exactly!! And neither is a fetus.
Yes, it certainly is.
Liar.
That wasn't an intelligent response.
Do these words appear at the top of each of your posts?
"Lars Eighner lied:"
"Lars Eighner lied again:"
It has all the DNA needed to grow into complete human being,
So do most cells in the body.
No, they don't.
unless the woman, wanting to shirk responsibility, flushes it out like a
So, howcome you are shirking your responsibility by not cloning
yourself?
I don't have any responsibility to clone myself. There is no human
being living within me.
Your tissue can be cloned into a new person, so yes you do.
Remember, little Lars, that a human being
contains DNA from TWO people.
Your cells do too, and they can be cloned.
lump of meaningless cells.
That is exactly what a fetus is.
No, clearly it's more than that. But your delusion is shared by millions.
--
--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: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: miserable underclass |
30 Nov 2005 12:11:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being
So does a cyst.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:43:05 PM |
|
|
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to
grow into complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:16:38 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
--
--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 01:40:09 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:42:32 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
Irrelevant. You will one day become a corpse; should we be allowed to
treat you as such?
--
--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 02:52:53 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
Irrelevant. You will one day become a corpse; should we be allowed to
treat you as such?
But today I *am* a living human being, so the answer is obviously no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:57:06 PM |
|
|
Jeez, are you still talking?
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
Irrelevant. You will one day become a corpse; should we be allowed to
treat you as such?
But today I *am* a living human being, so the answer is obviously no.
But you *will become* a corpse, like a fetus *will become* a baby. If we
must treat a fetus as a baby, why can I not treat you as a corpse?
--
--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: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 07:23:34 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Jeez, are you still talking?
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the
ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells
necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
Irrelevant. You will one day become a corpse; should we be allowed to
treat you as such?
But today I *am* a living human being, so the answer is obviously no.
But you *will become* a corpse, like a fetus *will become* a baby. If we
must treat a fetus as a baby, why can I not treat you as a corpse?
There are no guarantees that any fetus *WILL* become a baby. Yes, *IF*
everything goes just right and nothing happens to change the constant
healthy condition then a baby could be the result of a pregnancy, but
not necessarily, OTOH, he (she?) *WILL* become a corpse one day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 07:34:29 PM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Jeez, are you still talking?
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:56 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Yes, it certainly is. It has all the DNA needed to grow into
complete human being
So does a cyst.
False.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2960
Definition of Dermoid cyst of the ovary
Dermoid cyst of the ovary: A bizarre tumor, usually benign, in the
ovary
that typically contains a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth,
bone, thyroid, etc.
A dermoid cyst develops from a totipotential germ cell (a primary
oocyte) that is retained within the egg sac (ovary). Being
totipotential, that cell can give rise to all orders of cells
necessary
to form mature tissues and often recognizable structures such as
hair,
bone and sebaceous (oily) material, neural tissue and teeth.
But that cyst will always be only a cyst.
Irrelevant. You will one day become a corpse; should we be allowed to
treat you as such?
But today I *am* a living human being, so the answer is obviously no.
But you *will become* a corpse, like a fetus *will become* a baby. If
we must treat a fetus as a baby, why can I not treat you as a corpse?
There are no guarantees that any fetus *WILL* become a baby. Yes, *IF*
everything goes just right and nothing happens to change the constant
healthy condition then a baby could be the result of a pregnancy, but
not necessarily, OTOH, he (she?) *WILL* become a corpse one day.
Hey, good point! So I actually have *MORE* grounds to treat her as a
corpse than she does to treat a fetus as a baby!
--
--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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
