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: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:25:38 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
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.
There again, I think he/she/it is choosing not to understand. Selective
inattention.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:54:39 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
<snipped irrelevance>
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
--
--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 11:57:45 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice"; it's
opposition to a *particular* choice. The development
of the smarmy euphemism of "a woman's right to choose"
as a substitute for pro-abortion is a linguistic atrocity.
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
non sequitur
I asked if getting HIV can reasonably be seen as
"punishment" by society when it is the consequence of a
free choice you made.
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
I've already made clear that I don't think it "ought"
to be, but that IF it is, simply killing the developing
child is wrong, every bit as wrong as waiting for the
child to be born and then killing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:01:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:57:45 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice"; it's
opposition to a *particular* choice. The development
of the smarmy euphemism of "a woman's right to choose"
as a substitute for pro-abortion is a linguistic atrocity.
And yet you continue with the emotive ***** such as saying a fetus
is a 'baby'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:03:12 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion,
is there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice";
Oh, so you DO support that particular choice.
it's opposition to a
*particular* choice.
Ergo, anti-choice.
The development of the smarmy euphemism of "a
woman's right to choose" as a substitute for pro-abortion is a
linguistic atrocity.
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
non sequitur
Not at all. Answer the question.
I asked if getting HIV can reasonably be seen as "punishment" by society
when it is the consequence of a free choice you made.
No, because "society" did not inflict it on you. If "society" deems that
a woman MUST NOT seek medical treatment for unwanted pregnancy, then
they are inflicting it on her as punishment.
Your analogy misses by a mile. If "society" decided that AIDS must go
untreated and no medication dispensed, THEN we'd have a similarity.
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
I've already made clear that I don't think it "ought" to be,
Good, then you support the "choice" of abortion.
but that IF
it is, simply killing the developing child is wrong, every bit as wrong
as waiting for the child to be born and then killing 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 12:40:39 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion,
is there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice";
Oh, so you DO support that particular choice.
it's opposition to a
*particular* choice.
Ergo, anti-choice.
The development of the smarmy euphemism of "a
woman's right to choose" as a substitute for pro-abortion is a
linguistic atrocity.
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your
behavior, and let it run it's course untreated?
non sequitur
Not at all. Answer the question.
I asked if getting HIV can reasonably be seen as "punishment" by
society when it is the consequence of a free choice you made.
No, because "society" did not inflict it on you.
Nor did "society" inflict conception on the woman.
If "society" deems that
a woman MUST NOT seek medical treatment for unwanted pregnancy, then
they are inflicting it on her as punishment.
No. That's just how you're trying to spin it.
Punishment is something that someone, perhaps society,
*does* to someone else. No one is "doing" pregnancy to
a woman. She chose to *****, and the fucking led to
pregnancy.
In any case, it isn't "pregnancy" we're talking about;
it's the BABY. The woman doesn't want to have a BABY,
so under the illusion that the fetus is "just" a lump
of cells, no different than a strand of hair or a
hangnail, she wants to get rid of it at that early
stage. But the fetus clearly is NOT "just" a lump of
cells, something the feminist (and incoherently
"pro-choice") author Naomi Wolf has recognized.
Your analogy misses by a mile. If "society" decided that AIDS must go
untreated and no medication dispensed, THEN we'd have a similarity.
No, it doesn't miss at all. Suppose some cure or
treatment for AIDS were developed, and it involved
performing a painful medical procedure on someone else;
say, a bone marrow transplant. If we forbid
involuntary bone marrow transplants, in which the donor
has no choice, is that somehow "punishing" the AIDS
victim? Clearly, no.
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
I've already made clear that I don't think it "ought" to be,
Good, then you support the "choice" of abortion.
No, not in the least. You're confusing two separate
issues. If you ***** and don't get pregnant, I don't
care; I don't consider that either a good or bad
outcome for me or society, although you may be
disappointed if having a baby was your intent. But if
you ***** and *DO* get pregnant, now I care. And I have
a moral right to care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:57:58 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in news:Hmmjf.7637
$wf.2155@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion,
is there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice";
Oh, so you DO support that particular choice.
it's opposition to a
*particular* choice.
Ergo, anti-choice.
The development of the smarmy euphemism of "a
woman's right to choose" as a substitute for pro-abortion is a
linguistic atrocity.
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your
behavior, and let it run it's course untreated?
non sequitur
Not at all. Answer the question.
I asked if getting HIV can reasonably be seen as "punishment" by
society when it is the consequence of a free choice you made.
No, because "society" did not inflict it on you.
Nor did "society" inflict conception on the woman.
If "society" deems that
a woman MUST NOT seek medical treatment for unwanted pregnancy, then
they are inflicting it on her as punishment.
No. That's just how you're trying to spin it.
Punishment is something that someone, perhaps society,
*does* to someone else. No one is "doing" pregnancy to
a woman. She chose to *****, and the fucking led to
pregnancy.
In any case, it isn't "pregnancy" we're talking about;
it's the BABY. The woman doesn't want to have a BABY,
so under the illusion that the fetus is "just" a lump
of cells, no different than a strand of hair or a
hangnail, she wants to get rid of it at that early
stage. But the fetus clearly is NOT "just" a lump of
cells, something the feminist (and incoherently
"pro-choice") author Naomi Wolf has recognized.
Your analogy misses by a mile. If "society" decided that AIDS must go
untreated and no medication dispensed, THEN we'd have a similarity.
No, it doesn't miss at all. Suppose some cure or
treatment for AIDS were developed, and it involved
performing a painful medical procedure on someone else;
say, a bone marrow transplant. If we forbid
involuntary bone marrow transplants, in which the donor
has no choice, is that somehow "punishing" the AIDS
victim? Clearly, no.
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
I've already made clear that I don't think it "ought" to be,
Good, then you support the "choice" of abortion.
No, not in the least. You're confusing two separate
issues. If you ***** and don't get pregnant, I don't
care; I don't consider that either a good or bad
outcome for me or society, although you may be
disappointed if having a baby was your intent. But if
you ***** and *DO* get pregnant, now I care. And I have
a moral right to care.
Then why don't you "care" in one hand and defecate in the other, then tell
us which hand gets full the fastest, S. Malcontent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:08:34 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion,
is there not?
Yes, there is. That's not "anti-choice";
Oh, so you DO support that particular choice.
it's opposition to a
*particular* choice.
Ergo, anti-choice.
The development of the smarmy euphemism of "a
woman's right to choose" as a substitute for pro-abortion is a
linguistic atrocity.
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your
behavior, and let it run it's course untreated?
non sequitur
Not at all. Answer the question.
I asked if getting HIV can reasonably be seen as "punishment" by
society when it is the consequence of a free choice you made.
No, because "society" did not inflict it on you.
Nor did "society" inflict conception on the woman.
If "society" deems that a woman MUST NOT seek medical treatment for
unwanted pregnancy, then they are inflicting it on her as punishment.
No. That's just how you're trying to spin it.
No, little kid, that's exactly what it is.
Punishment is something that someone, perhaps society, *does* to someone
else. No one is "doing" pregnancy to a woman.
If abortion would put an end to the pregnancy and you are denying that
to her, then that would be not inflicting it....how?
She chose to *****, and
the fucking led to pregnancy.
And there is a procedure to end the pregnancy.
In any case, it isn't "pregnancy" we're talking about; it's the BABY.
No, it's the pregnancy. If we are talking about the baby we must move up
about nine months.
The woman doesn't want to have a BABY, so under the illusion that the
fetus is "just" a lump of cells, no different than a strand of hair or a
hangnail, she wants to get rid of it at that early stage. But the fetus
clearly is NOT "just" a lump of cells, something the feminist (and
incoherently "pro-choice") author Naomi Wolf has recognized.
Your analogy misses by a mile. If "society" decided that AIDS must go
untreated and no medication dispensed, THEN we'd have a similarity.
No, it doesn't miss at all.
It misses by a mile. You are equating deliberately withholding available
medical treatment (abortion) with becoming ill in the first place
(AIDS)- two different things. I am equating deliberately withholding
available medical treatment with deliberately withholding available
medical treatment.
Suppose some cure or treatment for AIDS
were developed, and it involved performing a painful medical procedure
on someone else; say, a bone marrow transplant. If we forbid
involuntary bone marrow transplants, in which the donor has no choice,
is that somehow "punishing" the AIDS victim? Clearly, no.
If the marrow is available and you demand that it be withheld, then
clearly yes. Once again, your analogy misses by a mile.
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
I've already made clear that I don't think it "ought" to be,
Good, then you support the "choice" of abortion.
No, not in the least. You're confusing two separate issues. If you
***** and don't get pregnant, I don't care; I don't consider that either
a good or bad outcome for me or society, although you may be
disappointed if having a baby was your intent. But if you ***** and *DO*
get pregnant, now I care. And I have a moral right to care.
But not a legal one.
--
--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: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 10:47:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:54:39 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
<snipped irrelevance>
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
Are you suggesting that they ought NOT be? Do you believe in evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 10:52:11 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:54:39 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
<snipped irrelevance>
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
Are you suggesting that they ought NOT be?
I am suggesting that you have no right to make that decision for anyone
but yourself.
Do you believe in evolution?
--
--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: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
04 Dec 2005 11:46:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:52:11 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:54:39 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
<snipped irrelevance>
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
Are you suggesting that they ought NOT be?
I am suggesting that you have no right to make that decision for anyone
but yourself.
Do you believe in evolution?
Apparently you don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
07 Dec 2005 04:31:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:46:13 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:52:11 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:54:39 -0800, --sexkitten-- wrote:
S. Maizlich 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.
There is a crowd who are against a woman's right to choose abortion, is
there not?
<snipped irrelevance>
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.
If you took intravenous drugs and got HIV, would you:
a) seek medical treatment, or
b) figure it is the will of God, a natural extention of your behavior,
and let it run it's course untreated?
Look back up to your subject line: do you or do you not believe that
pregnancy and childbirth ought to be a consequence of sex?
Are you suggesting that they ought NOT be?
I would suggest that they need not be, and that whether or not a
person becomes a parent is and should be up to the person.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 05:55:11 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:10:19 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
It's on the top of his "head"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 06:02:44 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 06:25:23 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> writes:
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
So, just because you can't tolerate others making choices, the rest of us
shouldn't have the ability to, either? Maybe the Taliban can find a position
for you.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:15:44 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever hear of
birth control?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:53:54 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever hear of
birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:58:00 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever hear of
birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 12:08:57 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever hear of
birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 12:14:34 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in
news:Zrwjf.7934$wf.1813@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever
hear of birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
But right on target.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 02:05:12 AM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in
news:Zrwjf.7934$wf.1813@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever
hear of birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
But
"But" nothing. It was a bad comparison, period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 11:23:37 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in news:Y8yjf.11089
$aA2.10403@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
BOB wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in
news:Zrwjf.7934$wf.1813@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever
hear of birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
But
"But" nothing. It was a bad comparison, period.
Again, Ray was right on target about you, S. Malcontent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 02:07:44 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
BOB wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in
news:Zrwjf.7934$wf.1813@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
Excuse me? I've had consequence-free fucking all my life. Ever
hear of birth control?
That's excellent!
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth control, and
so-called "comprehensive" sex education in public schools being the
norm (in which birth control is taught and even made available),
are there millions of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
But
"But" nothing. It was a bad comparison, period.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
--
--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: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:06:44 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
It's because you're an arrogant, self-centered moron and a stinking
hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:29:58 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
It's because
It's because it's just a bad, invalid, dishonestly
motivated comparison. That's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 11:26:40 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
S. Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
So why, with widely and cheaply available birth
control, and so-called "comprehensive" sex education in
public schools being the norm (in which birth control
is taught and even made available), are there millions
of abortions?
And why, with the availability of innumerable textbooks, reference
books, study aids, and sample tests, can't you get a 1600 on the SAT
test?
Bad comparison.
It's because
It's because
You hate women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:26:47 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:44 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> in
news message <1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
And sometimes you do.
What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:27:23 AM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:44 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> in
news message <1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
And sometimes you do.
What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.
Sometimes, a baby is the consequence. A human baby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:16:20 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in message
news:fDbjf.10578$aA2.7506@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Liz wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:44 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> in
news message <1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?
Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.
And sometimes you do. What 'consequences' would you recommend for
fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.
Sometimes, a baby is the consequence. A human baby.
No *****, Sherlock. Your point?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
