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: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 08:58:39 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible, crippling guilt.
Try it in person, feeb. You'll need a replacement set of ears. (Better yet,
try it around the corner of Imperial Highway and Wilmington. That'll likely
teach you a few lessons you apparently need.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 09:20:09 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in message
news:Evdjf.7491$wf.1568@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible, crippling guilt.
FOAD, *****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 12:01:39 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in message
news:Evdjf.7491$wf.1568@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible, crippling guilt.
FOAD, *****.
No, YOU *****, *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 09:09:10 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> let us all know that:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
About?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 11:59:03 AM |
|
|
In article <Evdjf.7491$wf.1568@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
There are any number of places in the world where abortion is illegal.
Why don't you move to one of them?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 06:50:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> in news message
<Evdjf.7491$wf.1568@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
Guilt, without having done anything for which to feel guilty, is a
crippling mental aberration often foisted by religions and mothers on
those they claim to love in order to control them and prevent them
from committing perfectly legitimate, albeit arbitrarily disapproved,
acts.
Liz #658 BAAWA
We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not
enough to make us love one another, - Johnathan Swift
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 07:12:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
I'm sure you do. Unfortunately, you'll need to present decent reasons
(and maybe try to make your point with something a little more
compelling than unimaginative ad-hom attacks and feebly emotive
whining) before you're worth more than a quick dismissal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 09:57:50 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
I'm sure you do. Unfortunately, you'll need to present decent reasons
(and maybe try to make your point with something a little more
compelling than unimaginative ad-hom attacks and feebly emotive
whining) before you're worth more than a quick dismissal.
Why should anyone feel "horrible, crippling guilt" over supporting
someone else's right to choose their own course? I've never had an
abortion, neither has Ray, David, Patrick (or Dale), etc, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 10:04:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:57:50 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
I'm sure you do. Unfortunately, you'll need to present decent reasons
(and maybe try to make your point with something a little more
compelling than unimaginative ad-hom attacks and feebly emotive
whining) before you're worth more than a quick dismissal.
Why should anyone feel "horrible, crippling guilt" over supporting
someone else's right to choose their own course? I've never had an
abortion, neither has Ray, David, Patrick (or Dale), etc, etc.
Neither have I, although I know some who have. I just don't feel the
need to assert that much control over everyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 01:39:02 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:57:50 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:35:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
I'm sure you do. Unfortunately, you'll need to present decent reasons
(and maybe try to make your point with something a little more
compelling than unimaginative ad-hom attacks and feebly emotive
whining) before you're worth more than a quick dismissal.
Why should anyone feel "horrible, crippling guilt" over supporting
someone else's right to choose their own course? I've never had an
abortion, neither has Ray, David, Patrick (or Dale), etc, etc.
Neither have I, although I know some who have. I just don't feel the
need to assert that much control over everyone else.
Exactly!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 01:01:41 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
"Boo-Frkity-hoo." Satisified?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Sorry, killers |
30 Nov 2005 07:45:25 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> posting the following on Wed, 30 Nov
2005 08:35:48 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Well, actually, I'm not. I want you to feel horrible,
crippling guilt.
Get used to failure then.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 05:08:59 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<1133304989.766026.39650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-. You knew that, of course.
As for compulsory childbirth: no one is in favor of that. To be in
favor of it, you'd have to be in favor of forcible impregnation, and no
one is.
People who oppose choice generally oppose choice even in cases
of rape. That is intended to encourage and reward rapists.
What is more those who oppose choice also oppose birth control
education and availability.
That's quite a slovenly little strawman you slapped together there,
lars. Why don't you dismantle it and shove the straw up your *****? Be
sure to soak it in gasoline first, then hold your ***** over an open
flame.
Yup, this is the logic of people who want government to control
the intimate details of poor people's lives.
--
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
God is real, unless declared integer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:18:02 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<1133304989.766026.39650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented S. Maizlich
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-. You knew that, of course.
As for compulsory childbirth: no one is in favor of that. To be in
favor of it, you'd have to be in favor of forcible impregnation, and no
one is.
People who oppose choice
No one generally opposes "choice", Lars. That's a lousy little
strawman, again.
Many people oppose a *particular* choice, abortion, but because you
gutless pro-abortion killers are too cowardly to specify the object of
choice when describing yourself as "pro-choice", you have come to
believe your own propaganda that you support choice -per se-, rather
than a particular choice.
That's quite a slovenly little strawman you slapped together there,
lars. Why don't you dismantle it and shove the straw up your *****? Be
sure to soak it in gasoline first, then hold your ***** over an open
flame.
Yup, this is the logic of people who want government to control
the intimate details of poor people's lives.
No one wants government to control anything, little Lars, any more than
popular support for laws against armed robbery are efforts to extend
government "control".
You really ought to give up trying to build strawmen, little Lars - you
stink at it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: cheap, miserable underclass |
29 Nov 2005 06:33:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:32 -0600, Lars Eighner
<usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
The claim that they are religious motivated is shown to be
groundless in that the Bible is very clear that the killing of a
fetus was never consider murder, but was only a cause for a
lawsuit. Moreover, the thought that a fetus is a person from
conception is simply unknown in the doctrine of any Christian
sect until relatively recently.
So, what is the real reason? The real reason is that choice
opponents want a miserable underclass who will work cheap, and
to that end they want government to control people reproductive
organs. There will, of course, always be safe abortions for the
daughters of the rich - who can travel to other countries to get
them. The point is to enforce unwant childbearing on the poor,
and this is proven in that the same people who oppose choice
also oppose making birth control information and materials to
poor students.
Yep, that about sums it up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 02:37:22 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 12:07:18 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 11:51:46 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:57:50 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Wrong.
No, I'm right.
No, you're wrong.
I am right.
Really? Then here:
is your chance and a space to prove it in. Some verifiable quotations
supporting your claim will be acceptable - anything else is merely
your admission of guilt.
No, little kid - this isn't an event for which one needs to provide
"citations" and quotes. You have committed the fallacy of reification
(go look it up).
I have shown by a careful examination of terms that consequence-free
fucking is *all* the pro-abortion crowd is after. I did this by
showing that their smokescreen, "reproductive freedom", is untenable.
But you didn't do that. You *claimed that you did, with exactly as
much intellectual authority as I have when I claim that you ***** pigs.
Your insistence that you're correct
I am correct.
See above. You have your chance to prove your claim.
I proved it several posts back. Perhaps you missed it, didn't
understand it, or ignored it. <shrug>
No, I read your little screed, and dismissed it as being basically
untenable. Since it doesn't in the least resemble any of my reasons
for being pro-choice, it is wrong, end of story.
in the face of
the evidence to the contrary
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oooh, how compelling
Yes. It is your feelings, and *ONLY* your feelings, about
self-indulgence that lead you to believe the sexual revolution - the
promotion of self-absorbed and consequence-free hedonism in sex - is a
good thing, and therefore worthy of protection. You are wrong.
I suppose asking you to show where I've ever said anything even
remotely resembling those sentiments would be just too much to
expect...
Yes, it would. I see you're back to the 'make ***** up and hope nobody
notices' school of so-called reasoning. Start a new thread when you've
got something that is more than navel-gazing and wishful thinking on
your part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 04:07:06 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 12:07:18 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 11:51:46 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:57:50 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Wrong.
No, I'm right.
No, you're wrong.
I am right.
Really? Then here:
is your chance and a space to prove it in. Some verifiable quotations
supporting your claim will be acceptable - anything else is merely
your admission of guilt.
No, little kid - this isn't an event for which one needs to provide
"citations" and quotes. You have committed the fallacy of reification
(go look it up).
I have shown by a careful examination of terms that consequence-free
fucking is *all* the pro-abortion crowd is after. I did this by
showing that their smokescreen, "reproductive freedom", is untenable.
But you didn't do that.
Yes, I did. I showed that women and even girls have full control over
the choice to become pregnant. The state neither forbids it nor
coerces it. Therefore, women have full "reproductive freedom", and the
word or concept of abortion doesn't even enter into it.
See? That was easy.
Your insistence that you're correct
I am correct.
See above. You have your chance to prove your claim.
I proved it several posts back. Perhaps you missed it, didn't
understand it, or ignored it. <shrug>
No, I read your little screed, and dismissed it as being basically
untenable.
No, it's airtight.
in the face of
the evidence to the contrary
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oooh, how compelling
Yes. It is your feelings, and *ONLY* your feelings, about
self-indulgence that lead you to believe the sexual revolution - the
promotion of self-absorbed and consequence-free hedonism in sex - is a
good thing, and therefore worthy of protection. You are wrong.
I suppose asking you to show where I've ever said anything even
remotely resembling those sentiments would be just too much to
expect...
It's laughably obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 04:54:57 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 14:07:06 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 12:07:18 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 11:51:46 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:57:50 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Wrong.
No, I'm right.
No, you're wrong.
I am right.
Really? Then here:
is your chance and a space to prove it in. Some verifiable quotations
supporting your claim will be acceptable - anything else is merely
your admission of guilt.
No, little kid - this isn't an event for which one needs to provide
"citations" and quotes. You have committed the fallacy of reification
(go look it up).
I have shown by a careful examination of terms that consequence-free
fucking is *all* the pro-abortion crowd is after. I did this by
showing that their smokescreen, "reproductive freedom", is untenable.
But you didn't do that.
Yes, I did. I showed that women and even girls have full control over
the choice to become pregnant. The state neither forbids it nor
coerces it. Therefore, women have full "reproductive freedom", and the
word or concept of abortion doesn't even enter into it.
See? That was easy.
Except that sometimes they don't have a choice, so you've shown
nothing.
Your insistence that you're correct
I am correct.
See above. You have your chance to prove your claim.
I proved it several posts back. Perhaps you missed it, didn't
understand it, or ignored it. <shrug>
No, I read your little screed, and dismissed it as being basically
untenable.
No, it's airtight.
See above. The only thing airtight is your brain, and the damage is
showing.
in the face of
the evidence to the contrary
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oooh, how compelling
Yes. It is your feelings, and *ONLY* your feelings, about
self-indulgence that lead you to believe the sexual revolution - the
promotion of self-absorbed and consequence-free hedonism in sex - is a
good thing, and therefore worthy of protection. You are wrong.
I suppose asking you to show where I've ever said anything even
remotely resembling those sentiments would be just too much to
expect...
It's laughably obvious.
Your prejudices and idiocy? Yes, they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:58:39 AM |
|
|
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 14:07:06 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 12:07:18 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 11:51:46 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:57:50 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:07 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:57:27 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> writes:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
The Chief Instigator lied:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Gaia lied:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:08:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> helpfully contributed:
Parsifal lied:
No matter how many times you'll post that "abortion = murder",
...it will have a ring of truth to it.
...be shot down
No. Abortion = murder. It is the extinguishing of human life.
So are quite a few diseases, so why aren't you obsessing on them?
Disease doesn't reflect human immorality. Abortion does.
Nice non-answer.
No, it's a perfectly good answer. You tried to equivocate between two things
that are not morally the same. If the bird flu kills you, no moral agent is
responsible. If a mentally competent woman flushes a living human being from
her uterus, it is the action of a moral agent. That's an enormous difference;
in fact, it is THE difference.
I'm happy to clear that confusion up for you.
What you need to do is accept that your "morals" are not going to be forced on
anyone else without their consent. Have fun choking on that.
Hey, Humphrey, are you opposed to "torture"? If so, why, if not as a
reflection of YOUR version of "morality"? If you don't like torture, don't
torture, but don't try to impose YOUR morality on anyone else. Isn't that
what you say about abortion?
Oh, well, you see, *his* morality concerning torture
considers the victims of it as legal persons. With a
wave of his sophist's hand, he dimisses fetuses
as...blobs of cells, I suppose.
Note again the weird legal and moral state we're in.
Against the wishes of the pro-abortion crowd, we now
have laws criminalizing violence against "unborn
persons", but only if the pregnant woman wants the
baby. Now, in one of those hobgoblins-of-small-minds
type of consistency, the pro-abortion crowd hates this
development, because they see it as the camel's nose
under the tent, which of course it is. But this puts
them in the position of saying that if a woman *wants*
the child, she and her child enjoy no particular legal
protection; but if the woman *doesn't* want it, she
magically acquires some special legal protections!
The pro-abortion crowd are on simply impossible moral
ground, and for NOTHING MORE than the protection of the
discredited, hedonistic "sexual revolution". Yep -
they're still in thrall to unbridled licentiousness and
self-absorbed hedonism. Not exactly the foundations of
a strong civilization...
Whereas you think that requiring women to gestate and give birth when
a conception happens is some kind of laudable moral thought?
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings
is a laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Wrong.
No, I'm right.
No, you're wrong.
I am right.
Really? Then here:
is your chance and a space to prove it in. Some verifiable quotations
supporting your claim will be acceptable - anything else is merely
your admission of guilt.
No, little kid - this isn't an event for which one needs to provide
"citations" and quotes. You have committed the fallacy of reification
(go look it up).
I have shown by a careful examination of terms that consequence-free
fucking is *all* the pro-abortion crowd is after. I did this by
showing that their smokescreen, "reproductive freedom", is untenable.
But you didn't do that.
Yes, I did. I showed that women and even girls have full control over
the choice to become pregnant. The state neither forbids it nor
coerces it. Therefore, women have full "reproductive freedom", and the
word or concept of abortion doesn't even enter into it.
See? That was easy.
Except that sometimes they don't have a choice, so you've shown
nothing.
The vast majority of abortions are of the "But the
Chardonnay was sooooo yummy!" variety. In any case,
there is no state policy of forced impregnation. The
state does not compel impregnation, nor does it forbid
it, and so women have complete reproductive freedom.
Reproductive freedom is NOT the motivation behind the
shrill, hysterical insistence on abortion-on-demand.
You know that already, of course, but for some reason
you pretend otherwise.
Your insistence that you're correct
I am correct.
See above. You have your chance to prove your claim.
I proved it several posts back. Perhaps you missed it, didn't
understand it, or ignored it. <shrug>
No, I read your little screed, and dismissed it as being basically
untenable.
No, it's airtight.
See above.
I did. My logic is still airtight, and your dedication
to consequence-free fucking is obvious though still
bizarre.
in the face of
the evidence to the contrary
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oooh, how compelling
Yes. It is your feelings, and *ONLY* your feelings, about
self-indulgence that lead you to believe the sexual revolution - the
promotion of self-absorbed and consequence-free hedonism in sex - is a
good thing, and therefore worthy of protection. You are wrong.
I suppose asking you to show where I've ever said anything even
remotely resembling those sentiments would be just too much to
expect...
It's laughably obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:40:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:58:39 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Except that sometimes they don't have a choice, so you've shown
nothing.
The vast majority of abortions are of the "But the
Chardonnay was sooooo yummy!" variety.
So sorry, it's not your place to impose what you want on someone
else's uterus.
In any case,
there is no state policy of forced impregnation. The
state does not compel impregnation, nor does it forbid
it, and so women have complete reproductive freedom.
Reproductive freedom is NOT the motivation behind the
shrill, hysterical insistence on abortion-on-demand.
You know that already, of course, but for some reason
you pretend otherwise.
No, I'm not pretending otherwise. You're simply lying about pro-choice
motivations as part of your fallacy-ridden attempts to exert control.
Geez, even PD has better hysterical rants than you.
Your insistence that you're correct
I am correct.
See above. You have your chance to prove your claim.
I proved it several posts back. Perhaps you missed it, didn't
understand it, or ignored it. <shrug>
No, I read your little screed, and dismissed it as being basically
untenable.
No, it's airtight.
See above.
I did. My logic is still airtight, and your dedication
to consequence-free fucking is obvious though still
bizarre.
Like I said, you're lying about my motivations. Why is that?
(Cue the whole 'I can read your mind' ***** from Spazzy).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:05:09 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oh, the irony! BTW why did you feel the need to start a whole new
thread to carry this out? Didja suppose no one from the old one would
notice that you're not only a liar, but also a coward?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:12:26 PM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
No "evidence", you dunderheaded fat *****; only your immature feelings.
Oh, the irony! BTW why did you feel the need to start a whole new
thread to carry this out? Didja suppose no one from the old one would
notice that you're not only a liar, but also a coward?
I didn't start a new thread, Mimi. I gave a sub-thread a new title,
that's all; very common in usenet.
Why do you call me a "coward"? What's cowardly about taking an
unpopular position and defending it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:43:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:49:05 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
So what is your problem with that?
Aint you getting any?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:02:26 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a laudable
moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd would
be punitive parenthood, wouldn't it?
--
--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 01:03:31 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a laudable
moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion
activists fully support your right to choose where to
live, what to wear, whether or not to have sex, what
breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Axiom: no one is universally anti-choice, and no one
is universally pro-choice. It is important to avoid
politically convenient but morally dishonest euphemism,
and specify the object of choice. Say "pro-abortion",
not "pro-choice", because that's what it is.
would be punitive parenthood, wouldn't it?
How so? If you shoot intravenous drugs and get HIV, is
that some form of "punishment" that society has imposed
on you? Clearly, no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:37:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:03:31 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a laudable
moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion
activists fully support your right to choose where to
live, what to wear, whether or not to have sex, what
breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Look in a dictionary, you tit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:08:45 PM |
|
|
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:03:31 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a laudable
moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion
activists fully support your right to choose where to
live, what to wear, whether or not to have sex, what
breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Look in a dictionary, you tit.
A dictionary is useless in this case. Dictionaries
merely reflect popular usage. I'm not interested in
popular usage, fuckwad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:59:52 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> writes:
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:03:31 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a laudable
moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion activists fully support
your right to choose where to live, what to wear, whether or not to have
sex, what breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Look in a dictionary, you tit.
A dictionary is useless in this case. Dictionaries merely reflect popular
usage. I'm not interested in popular usage, fuckwad.
No kidding...you've made a pretty good case that you're not interested in any
part of reality that gives your ranting the lie.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:12:42 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:03:31 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a
laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion activists fully
support your right to choose where to live, what to wear, whether or
not to have sex, what breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Look in a dictionary, you tit.
A dictionary is useless in this case.
Yeah, all those irrelevant word definitions and stuff, totally useless
for defining words.
Dictionaries merely reflect
popular usage. I'm not interested in popular usage, fuckwad.
So you consider a definition valid only if it is unpopular?
--
--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: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:18:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:12:42 -0800, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:03:31 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
I think forbidding the willful killing of human beings is a
laudable moral pursuit.
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a smokescreen. The
*real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd is consequence-free fucking.
Then by the same token, the *real* goal of the anti-choice crowd
There *is* no "anti-choice" crowd. Anti-abortion activists fully
support your right to choose where to live, what to wear, whether or
not to have sex, what breakfast cereal to eat, what to watch on TV, etc.
Look in a dictionary, you tit.
A dictionary is useless in this case.
Yeah, all those irrelevant word definitions and stuff, totally useless
for defining words.
Dictionaries merely reflect
popular usage. I'm not interested in popular usage, fuckwad.
So you consider a definition valid only if it is unpopular?
Apparently the fact that 'pro-choice' is a compound word with a
specific meaning has escaped our little newbie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
