Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:59:55 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <fbdro1t9rqcrikknis6cb553ufgje5bp6v@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:19:07 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it). This has been true since time out of mind.
But now, for the first time in human history, we have the ability to do
it safely. You want to take this ability away because you see some sort
of "rough justice" in any sex that results in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
I once heard Ralph Reed (operation rescue) being interviewed. He was
suave and convincing if you didn't listen too hard and already
accepted his premises. But when the interviewer asked him about birth
control he completely lost it and started ranting about not having
sex.
Never mind that it is the ultimate expression of love between two
people, and natures way of keeping them together.
Yeah. I enjoy the hell out of sex. I've procreated and thus fulfilled
life's purpose, so I had a vasectomy. It's the OP's worst nightmare,
apparently; "consequence-free fucking."
No, I have no objection to your wish for
consequence-free function; I only object to certain
means of achieving it. Your method suits me just fine.
I have no objection whatever to the prevention of
conception.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:47:42 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<fbdro1t9rqcrikknis6cb553ufgje5bp6v@4ax.com>, the lovely and
talented Christopher A Lee broadcast on alt.atheism:
The anti-abortion loonies imagine that you should only have sex if you
want a baby.
Isn't amazing how the people who can't stand the thought that
human beings evolved from animals are the very people who seem
to think that animal sexualness (or what they imagine animal
sexualness to be) should be the model for human behavior.
--
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
"No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith."--T. Paine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:16:28 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
That was just stupid.
I don't think there "ought" to be a consequence, you
fuckwit. It's that often there *is* the consequence of
a new developing human being. When that happens, it is
immoral simply to discard it as if it were no more
consequential than an unwanted mole on your cheek.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely."
Yes, millions do. Millions upon millions of women have
had several.
It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved
Now is the time to say "*****". It's simply
*****. The numbers are the proof. It's no more
agonizing for women than taking their car to Jiffy Lube.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:20:32 PM |
|
|
In article <M7ljf.7264$N45.5928@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely."
Yes, millions do. Millions upon millions of women have
had several.
For thousands of years. And they will for thousands of years to come.
If you think you're going to stop abortion by making it illegal, you're
simply wrong.
More to the point, if you think any particular woman's abortion is
wrong or right or clouded with moral ambiguity, it's not your decision.
Period.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 01:54:24 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:02:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1133380464.363964.121790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Show me where I've said there are no moral problems with abortion.
I simply contest that you have any useful answers for people (women,
mostly) who live in the real world.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:09:35 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133380464.363964.121790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Show me where I've said there are no moral problems with abortion.
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:03:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1133395775.578167.325630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat.
"This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion."
I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
You have me confused with someone else. It's not my claim. It's not my
contention. They're not my cells. It's not my decision.
Nor is it yours.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:51:30 PM |
|
|
chibiabos lied:
In article <1133395775.578167.325630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat.
"This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion."
That doesn't say what you accused me of saying, shitstain.
I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
You have me confused with someone else. It's not my claim.
No, I don't. Follow the thread backward, and next time, *****,
don't unethically snip the headers.
It's not my contention.
Yes, liar, it is. You challenged my claim that most women getting
abortion-on-demand do it casually. I answered you challenge twice.
*****.
They're not my cells. It's not my decision.
Nor is it yours.
Sorry, pal - society can easily make it its decision. Contrary to what
you mistakenly believe, women may *not* do "just whatever they like"
with their bodies. No one may. See what happens if you try to auction
one of your kidneys on eBay, you stupid *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 08:26:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1133405489.985875.146620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos lied:
In article <1133395775.578167.325630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat.
"This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion."
That doesn't say what you accused me of saying, shitstain.
It sure does. But I've noticed your comprehension skills seem to be no
better than your language.
I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
You have me confused with someone else. It's not my claim.
No, I don't. Follow the thread backward, and next time, *****,
don't unethically snip the headers.
I snip to the point for brevity and clarity. Nothing worse than reading
through 300 lines of argument to get to one of your gems.
It's not my contention.
Yes, liar, it is. You challenged my claim that most women getting
abortion-on-demand do it casually. I answered you challenge twice.
*****.
You're simply wrong. I have never claimed that the fetus is "just a
bunch of cells." In fact, I think its potential makes it somewhat more
than that, which is why moral issues are involved with the abortion
debate. And those moral issues affect most women's decision processes
when faced with the prospect of keeping or aborting an unplanned
pregnancy.
I don't see any reason to explore that point any further with you. My
views don't make any difference since you refuse to consider any that
aren't your own. Also, I'm getting tired of your sixth grade schoolyard
vocabulary.
They're not my cells. It's not my decision.
Nor is it yours.
Sorry, pal - society can easily make it its decision. Contrary to what
you mistakenly believe, women may *not* do "just whatever they like"
with their bodies. No one may.
Again, you're simply wrong. People do indeed have enormous control over
what they can do with their bodies. If you can find willing, licensed
practioners, everything from mild scarification (tattoos, piercings) to
plastic surgery to elective amputation is available, and it's all
legal.
See what happens if you try to auction
one of your kidneys on eBay, you stupid *****.
Bad example. Kidneys are donated all the time, and nobody is suggesting
selling fetuses on eBay.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 10:32:09 PM |
|
|
chibiabos unintelligently blabbered:
In article <1133405489.985875.146620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos lied:
In article <1133395775.578167.325630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat.
"This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion."
That doesn't say what you accused me of saying, shitstain.
It sure does.
It doesn't. I said you suffer from moral confusion, which you plainly
do. That does *not* suggest I think you necessarily have a moral issue
with abortion. Your moral confusion manifests itself generally.
I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
You have me confused with someone else. It's not my claim.
No, I don't. Follow the thread backward, and next time, *****,
don't unethically snip the headers.
I snip to the point for brevity
You snipped to conceal your lying.
[...]
Sorry, pal - society can easily make it its decision. Contrary to what
you mistakenly believe, women may *not* do "just whatever they like"
with their bodies. No one may.
Again, you're simply wrong. People do indeed have enormous control over
what they can do with their bodies.
Not at issue. They may *not* "do whatever they like".
If you can find willing, licensed
practioners, everything from mild scarification (tattoos, piercings) to
plastic surgery to elective amputation is available, and it's all
legal.
But some things one might wish to do are not legal.
See what happens if you try to auction
one of your kidneys on eBay, you stupid *****.
Bad example. Kidneys are donated all the time,
Kidneys are not sold to the highest bidder all the time. If people had
the right to do with their bodies just whatever they liked, you would
see such sales.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:22:11 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 16:09:35 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133380464.363964.121790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Show me where I've said there are no moral problems with abortion.
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that women might be thinking about
something else than the actual fetus, you *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:51:08 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 16:09:35 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133380464.363964.121790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Show me where I've said there are no moral problems with abortion.
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that women might be thinking about
something else than the actual fetus, you *****.
They're not. It's the fetus - they agonize because they know it's
human, and some part of them is horrified at what they're about to do.
Unfortunately, it's the smaller part of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:58:59 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 16:51:08 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 16:09:35 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <1133380464.363964.121790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, S.
Maizlich <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Show me where I've said there are no moral problems with abortion.
I never said that *you* might not have some moral problems with it,
*****-hat. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways: you can't
claim, fatuously, that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", then turn
around and say that women "agonize" over getting an abortion. A person
wouldn't agonize over any (non-existent) moral implications of getting
a mole removed or trimming her fingernails: THOSE are "just lumps of
cells", and not worthy of any agony. The fact that some women
apparently DO agonize over abortion (although, with several million a
year performed, you have to wonder just how much; is it more than the
agony of a bad hair day?) would seem to give the lie to your claim that
the fetus is "just a bunch of cells".
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that women might be thinking about
something else than the actual fetus, you *****.
They're not. It's the fetus - they agonize because they know it's
human, and some part of them is horrified at what they're about to do.
Unfortunately, it's the smaller part of them.
Wow, your mind reading talents are just amazing, aren't they? The way
you know better than those people what they're thinking, damn.
Give it up, newbie. Like I said, this is all very old and you're not
even in the top 10 when it comes to cogency (and frankly, considering
the company you're in, being out of the top 10 is reserved for the
very stupidest).
Hasn't anybody stuck a fork in you yet? You are done.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:13:07 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:20:32 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
That has to do with their fear of loss of virility, you fucking fat
twat.
You didn't address the issue, *****-4-braincell. The "agonizing" over
abortion by women, to the extent it occurs, isn't because of the
goddamned fucking medical complexity of the procedure (dear fuckin' god
is RIGHT, you fucking lunatic); the agonizing is over the fact they
realize it is NOT "just a lump of cells" they're discarding. They KNOW
it's something infinitely more significant, morally, than "just a lump
of cells". They agonize because they know they're killing another
human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:24:40 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
That has to do with their fear of loss of virility, you fucking fat
twat.
No, it doesn't, you tit. Not in most cases. It has to do with a loss
of fertility. Damn, you really are stupid.
You didn't address the issue, *****-4-braincell. The "agonizing" over
abortion by women, to the extent it occurs, isn't because of the
goddamned fucking medical complexity of the procedure (dear fuckin' god
is RIGHT, you fucking lunatic); the agonizing is over the fact they
realize it is NOT "just a lump of cells" they're discarding. They KNOW
it's something infinitely more significant, morally, than "just a lump
of cells". They agonize because they know they're killing another
human being.
I see we have another instance of Spazzy making ***** up. I'm guessing
asking you to back up your claims is just too much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:28:17 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
Your slovenly, sophomoric, incompetent manner of writing suggests you
did, you stupid *****.
and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
That has to do with their fear of loss of virility, you fucking fat
twat.
No, it doesn't, you tit.
Yes, it does.
You didn't address the issue, *****-4-braincell. The "agonizing" over
abortion by women, to the extent it occurs, isn't because of the
goddamned fucking medical complexity of the procedure (dear fuckin' god
is RIGHT, you fucking lunatic); the agonizing is over the fact they
realize it is NOT "just a lump of cells" they're discarding. They KNOW
it's something infinitely more significant, morally, than "just a lump
of cells". They agonize because they know they're killing another
human being.
I see we have another instance of
I see we have another instance of you whiffing off because you can't
address the issue. Try again, twat.
The reason any women "agonize" over abortion, if they do at all, is
that they realize they're killing another human being. That completely
belies the sophistry that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", which is
at the root of the pro-abortion crowd's belief that abortion is morally
permissible.
You're just fucked. You can't address this, and so you're just fucked.
Good!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:30:56 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 12:28:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
Your slovenly, sophomoric, incompetent manner of writing suggests you
did, you stupid *****.
Then maybe you should learn to read at a 4th grade level. The fact
that you qualified your answer with that word says that you DID
realize what I meant but had to make a strawman out of it, which seems
to be your only tactic.
and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
That has to do with their fear of loss of virility, you fucking fat
twat.
No, it doesn't, you tit.
Yes, it does.
No, fertility, you tit. Learn the difference.
You didn't address the issue, *****-4-braincell. The "agonizing" over
abortion by women, to the extent it occurs, isn't because of the
goddamned fucking medical complexity of the procedure (dear fuckin' god
is RIGHT, you fucking lunatic); the agonizing is over the fact they
realize it is NOT "just a lump of cells" they're discarding. They KNOW
it's something infinitely more significant, morally, than "just a lump
of cells". They agonize because they know they're killing another
human being.
I see we have another instance of
I see we have another instance of you whiffing off because you can't
address the issue. Try again, twat.
The reason any women "agonize" over abortion, if they do at all, is
that they realize they're killing another human being. That completely
belies the sophistry that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", which is
at the root of the pro-abortion crowd's belief that abortion is morally
permissible.
You're just fucked. You can't address this, and so you're just fucked.
Good!
No, I have addressed it. You're not only wrong, you can't produce any
reasoning to back up your claims. Case closed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 02:45:11 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:28:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
Your slovenly, sophomoric, incompetent manner of writing suggests you
did, you stupid *****.
Then maybe you should learn to read at a 4th grade level.
Maybe you should learn English better.
and spend a lot of time making that decision for real.
That has to do with their fear of loss of virility, you fucking fat
twat.
No, it doesn't, you tit.
Yes, it does.
No, fertility, you tit.
No, virility, you shitbag. First of all, only women are "fertile".
Second of all, the ENTIRE POINT of getting a vasectomy is to prevent
conception, which the man seeking consequence-free fucking wants.
It's virility, you dumb fucking asswipe. They internalize it as being
"less manly" because they can no longer father children.
You didn't address the issue, *****-4-braincell. The "agonizing" over
abortion by women, to the extent it occurs, isn't because of the
goddamned fucking medical complexity of the procedure (dear fuckin' god
is RIGHT, you fucking lunatic); the agonizing is over the fact they
realize it is NOT "just a lump of cells" they're discarding. They KNOW
it's something infinitely more significant, morally, than "just a lump
of cells". They agonize because they know they're killing another
human being.
I see we have another instance of
I see we have another instance of you whiffing off because you can't
address the issue. Try again, twat.
The reason any women "agonize" over abortion, if they do at all, is
that they realize they're killing another human being. That completely
belies the sophistry that the fetus is "just a lump of cells", which is
at the root of the pro-abortion crowd's belief that abortion is morally
permissible.
You're just fucked. You can't address this, and so you're just fucked.
Good!
No, I have addressed it.
You haven't addressed it, you chickenshit punk. You blabbered a weak
and lame insult and then whiffed off. You're still whiffing off. Your
entire life is a whiff-off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 03:00:30 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 12:45:11 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:28:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
Your slovenly, sophomoric, incompetent manner of writing suggests you
did, you stupid *****.
Then maybe you should learn to read at a 4th grade level.
Maybe you should learn English better.
Ah, the old delete and run. Well, that confirms what I said.
I'll just cut out the rest, since you've proven unable to deal with
the fact that your suppositions, until supported with ANYTHING more
compelling than vaguely scatological insults, remain wrong.
A free tip, newbie - everything you say has been said and soundly
trounced. You're just re-hashing old ground that's been tromped over
before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 06:10:43 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:45:11 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:28:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 12:20:32 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 11:54:24 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally.
*****.
It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence. It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Oh please. Spare me the Limbaughtomized party line. Few women approach
abortion "casually, blithely." It is an agonizing decision for everyone
involved (and you know it).
This slipped my mind in my first informative, helpful response to your
moral confusion.
Why IN THE ***** would anyone agonize over getting rid of "just a lump
of cells"? Doesn't this completely belie the heinous sophistry that it
is "just a lump of cells"? No one would "agonize" over getting a mole
removed or trimming her fingernails, or even over the moral
implications liposuction. THOSE are all instances of eliminating "just
a lump of cells", and that's why no one suffers any moral pangs of
conscience over it.
But if you're to be taken seriously regarding your claim that women
agonize over abortion, then clearly at least some women do NOT see it
as "just a lump of cells".
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Oh, dear fuckin' god. Most men consider getting a vasectomy to be a
major procedure
No, they don't, you fucking idiot. They realize the procedure,
medically, is next to trivial.
Did I say anything about the medical aspects? No, I didn't, *****.
Your slovenly, sophomoric, incompetent manner of writing suggests you
did, you stupid *****.
Then maybe you should learn to read at a 4th grade level.
Maybe you should learn English better.
Ah, the old
Ah, the old WHIFF-OFF. You WHIFFED OFF, you stupid *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:59:05 AM |
|
|
In article <3Xbjf.10586$aA2.9682@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <Bo1jf.7215$wf.5909@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
Face the facts: "reproductive freedom" is just a
smokescreen. The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.
I don't see a problem here.
What, in your opinion, should be the consequence of fucking?
It isn't that I think there "ought" to be a
consequence, pally. It's the fact that, often enough,
a new human life just IS a consequence.
That might be a "consequence" of a woman walking down a dark ally at
night, too.
It's wrong,
deeply wrong, that millions of people every year see a
new human life as something simply to be plucked out
and casually, blithely discarded; as if no more
significant than trimming fingernails or shaving.
Then lets get out of Iraq!
. | |
