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: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:31:56 PM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied:
Lars didn't lie, you lied about him lying
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:29:47 AM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:
Lars Eighner lied:
Lars didn't lie, you lied about him lying
Yes, he certainly did lie. He slapped together a silly
little strawman about anti-abortion activists' "real"
intent. A strawman is a lie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: cheap, miserable underclass |
29 Nov 2005 08:08:35 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
The claim that they are religious motivated is shown to be
groundless in that the Bible is very clear that the killing of a
fetus was never consider murder, but was only a cause for a
lawsuit. Moreover, the thought that a fetus is a person from
conception is simply unknown in the doctrine of any Christian
sect until relatively recently.
So, what is the real reason? The real reason is that choice
opponents want a miserable underclass who will work cheap, and
to that end they want government to control people reproductive
organs. There will, of course, always be safe abortions for the
daughters of the rich - who can travel to other countries to get
them. The point is to enforce unwant childbearing on the poor,
and this is proven in that the same people who oppose choice
also oppose making birth control information and materials to
poor students.
you speak true
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 04:56:29 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-. You knew that, of course.
As for compulsory childbirth: no one is in favor of that. To be in
favor of it, you'd have to be in favor of forcible impregnation, and no
one is.
That's quite a slovenly little strawman you slapped together there,
lars. Why don't you dismantle it and shove the straw up your *****? Be
sure to soak it in gasoline first, then hold your ***** over an open
flame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:34:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
As for compulsory childbirth: no one is in favor of that.
Then you must be pro-choice.
To be in
favor of it, you'd have to be in favor of forcible impregnation
Non sequitur.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:40:27 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
As for compulsory childbirth: no one is in favor of that.
Then you must be pro-choice.
No one is universally pro-choice. See above.
To be in
favor of it, you'd have to be in favor of forcible impregnation
Non sequitur.
No, not in the least. In order to give birth a woman must be pregnant,
so in order to be in favor of compulsory childbirth, one must be in
favor of compulsory impregnation; but no one is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:44:42 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:46:40 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the anti-choice crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 07:58:38 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is. It's a well-known term, and your sad little
attempt to introduce a strawman just isn't very impressive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:02:00 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:04:51 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133316120.087485.252040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory
childbirth crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice, but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose
what kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers
you put on in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice.
Why are gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of
specifying ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they
find it uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
From the American Heritage dictionary:
pro-choice (pr˝-chois“) adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:10:24 PM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133316120.087485.252040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory
childbirth crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice, but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose
what kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers
you put on in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice.
Why are gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of
specifying ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they
find it uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
From the American Heritage dictionary:
Not helpful, bobby. Dictionaries like that cravenly follow popular
convention. All you're doing is begging the question.
WHY are pro-abortion hysterics so dead-set against using the word
"abortion"? The word *clearly* and unambiguously drives them to
distraction. That's why they have concocted this smarmy euphemism of
unspecified "choice", and it's why the former National Abortion Rights
Action League, NARAL, has *completely* abandoned use of the word in its
title; they've fobbed off the fiction that "NARAL" is just a word, not
an acronym.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 08:19:33 PM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133316624.167444.296140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
BOB wrote:
"S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1133316120.087485.252040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32
@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory
childbirth crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that
*particular*
choice, but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to
choose
what kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and
trousers
you put on in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice.
Why are gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened
of
specifying ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they
find it uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum
of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based
on
moral and political cowardice.
From the American Heritage dictionary:
Not helpful, bobby. Dictionaries like that cravenly follow popular
convention. All you're doing is begging the question.
Sorry, I thought you were educated. My mistake.
WHY are pro-abortion hysterics so dead-set against using the word
"abortion"? The word *clearly* and unambiguously drives them to
distraction. That's why they have concocted this smarmy euphemism of
unspecified "choice", and it's why the former National Abortion Rights
Action League, NARAL, has *completely* abandoned use of the word in its
title; they've fobbed off the fiction that "NARAL" is just a word, not
an acronym.
The well-informed already know the answer. The ill-informed should seek
an education.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
29 Nov 2005 09:24:57 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal? 'Pro-choice' refers to the subject of abortion. Ask
anyone with half a brain (that's half more than you) and they'll tell
you the same thing.
Your little made-up issue isn't an issue. It's *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:31:16 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:21:28 AM |
|
|
"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in message
news:UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
snip
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the right to
choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between themselves and the
word "abortion" whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their position.
Nym-shifting SOB - Re-PLONK.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 08:59:04 AM |
|
|
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose? You hope to relate pro-choice with
"something shameful, even evil, about their position?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:47:43 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose?
No. It's because "right of a woman to choose" makes no
sense without specifying the *object* of choice.
(Never mind that there is nothing in the Constitution
delineating rights based on sex of the rights-holder.)
YOU do not support the generalized right to choose;
for example, you do not support a "right to choose" to
murder one's spouse, or a "right to choose" to sell a
kidney or chunk of your liver to the highest bidder.
"Right to choose" omits the object of choice, because
the proponents are ashamed of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 09:47:43 PM |
|
|
In article <3Bljf.7285$N45.1006@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why
are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose?
No. It's because "right of a woman to choose" makes no
sense without specifying the *object* of choice.
So YOU are the one person in the world who doesnąt know what people
mean when they say "pro-choice!"
(Never mind that there is nothing in the Constitution
delineating rights based on sex of the rights-holder.)
Yeah - I'll never mind that since it is irrelevant.
YOU do not support the generalized right to choose;
for example, you do not support a "right to choose" to
murder one's spouse, or a "right to choose" to sell a
kidney or chunk of your liver to the highest bidder.
This is the dumbest "argument" I have ever heard. You and Osprey
(Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php ) should get
together. He feels the same way.
"Right to choose" omits the object of choice, because
the proponents are ashamed of it.
*****. I know what I think - you don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 01:09:57 AM |
|
|
davie barnes whined:
In article <3Bljf.7285$N45.1006@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why
are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose?
No. It's because "right of a woman to choose" makes no
sense without specifying the *object* of choice.
So YOU are the one person in the world who doesnąt know what people
mean when they say "pro-choice!"
Oh, I know well what they mean. But their choice of
language is dishonest and cowardly.
(Never mind that there is nothing in the Constitution
delineating rights based on sex of the rights-holder.)
Yeah - I'll never mind that since it is irrelevant.
It's very relevant. Pro-abortion knuckleheads keep
blabbering about "a *woman's* right to choose". When
you hear it in person, there's always a vocal emphasis
on the word "woman". It's no accident that the
abortion regime, and the language employed in support
of it, came about during a time of nauseating identity
politics and promotion of political correctness.
Women, like racial, ethnic, sexual orientation and
other "minority" groups, feel that their status as
quasi-officially recognized "oppressed" persons
entitles them to special rights, based on their
membership in supposedly oppressed groups.
YOU do not support the generalized right to choose;
for example, you do not support a "right to choose" to
murder one's spouse, or a "right to choose" to sell a
kidney or chunk of your liver to the highest bidder.
This is the dumbest "argument" I have ever heard.
It's not an argument, davie. It's a statement of fact.
"Right to choose" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms.
That is obvious and undeniable. I suppose you could
come back and tell me that it's just an example of the
slovenly, intellectually lazy American tendency to
abbreviate everything - you know: cabernet sauvignon
becomes "cab" - but we both know it's something more
calculated than that. Partly it's a cynical attempt to
invoke generalized "freedom" sentiment; partly, it's a
distinct embarrassment at acknowledging the object of
choice.
"Right to choose" omits the object of choice, because
the proponents are ashamed of it.
*****.
Nope. It's spot-on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 09:31:58 PM |
|
|
In article <9lxjf.11075$aA2.4196@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
davie barnes whined:
In article <3Bljf.7285$N45.1006@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose
what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put
on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why
are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose?
No. It's because "right of a woman to choose" makes no
sense without specifying the *object* of choice.
So YOU are the one person in the world who doesnąt know what people
mean when they say "pro-choice!"
Oh, I know well what they mean. But their choice of
language is dishonest and cowardly.
From the guy who just claimed "pro-choice" makes no sense without
specifying the object.
(Never mind that there is nothing in the Constitution
delineating rights based on sex of the rights-holder.)
Yeah - I'll never mind that since it is irrelevant.
It's very relevant. Pro-abortion knuckleheads keep
blabbering about "a *woman's* right to choose". When
you hear it in person, there's always a vocal emphasis
on the word "woman". It's no accident that the
abortion regime, and the language employed in support
of it, came about during a time of nauseating identity
politics and promotion of political correctness.
Women, like racial, ethnic, sexual orientation and
other "minority" groups, feel that their status as
quasi-officially recognized "oppressed" persons
entitles them to special rights, based on their
membership in supposedly oppressed groups.
Maybe you just don't understand they mean "right to choose an abortion."
YOU do not support the generalized right to choose;
for example, you do not support a "right to choose" to
murder one's spouse, or a "right to choose" to sell a
kidney or chunk of your liver to the highest bidder.
This is the dumbest "argument" I have ever heard.
It's not an argument, davie. It's a statement of fact.
It is dumb as *****.
"Right to choose" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms.
Like "pro-life?"
That is obvious and undeniable. I suppose you could
come back and tell me that it's just an example of the
slovenly, intellectually lazy American tendency to
abbreviate everything - you know: cabernet sauvignon
becomes "cab" - but we both know it's something more
calculated than that. Partly it's a cynical attempt to
invoke generalized "freedom" sentiment; partly, it's a
distinct embarrassment at acknowledging the object of
choice.
No, I just think you have a habit of focusing on stupid things.
"Right to choose" omits the object of choice, because
the proponents are ashamed of it.
*****.
Nope. It's spot-on.
Bet you can't support it, though. (No use breaking your record.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:51:53 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <UGbjf.10580$aA2.5261@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular*
choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to
choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you
put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice.
Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of
specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY it: "the right
to choose an abortion"? Why do they keep miles between themselves
and the word "abortion" whenever they can? The answer is obvious:
they *know* there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Is that why you use "pro-abortion" to describe those who simple support
the right of a woman to choose?
No. It's because "right of a woman to choose" makes no sense without
specifying the *object* of choice. (Never mind that there is nothing in
the Constitution delineating rights based on sex of the rights-holder.)
YOU do not support the generalized right to choose; for example, you do
not support a "right to choose" to murder one's spouse, or a "right to
choose" to sell a kidney or chunk of your liver to the highest bidder.
"Right to choose" omits the object of choice, because the proponents are
ashamed of it.
In that case, we should be called "pro-pregnancy".
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:41:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:31:16 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
Nope, no such thing. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to,
say, check a dictionary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 07:07:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:31:16 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
You're full of *****, as usual. If all you have to bring to the table
is some vague wish to mis-state what a term means then you don't have
much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:09:44 AM |
|
|
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:31:16 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political
rhetoric indicates that although the left *know* that
the moral position they are advocating is shameful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 11:23:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:09:44 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:31:16 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep miles between themselves and the word "abortion"
whenever they can? The answer is obvious: they *know*
there is something shameful, even evil, about their
position.
You're full of *****, as usual.
Nope. *All* of this "safe, legal and rare" political
rhetoric indicates that although the left *know* that
the moral position they are advocating is shameful.
And yet every time you say that, it's wrong. Mere projection on your
part. Get used to it. Your opinion on others' motives is worthless.
Hell, the fact that you have to replace 'wrote' with 'lied' in your
reply headers is evidence enough of your insecurity and inability to
deal with facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
30 Nov 2005 12:03:55 PM |
|
|
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:09:44 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:31:16 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 18:02:00 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:46:40 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH lied:
On 29 Nov 2005 17:40:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Nov 2005 14:56:29 -0800, "S. Maizlich"
<notgenx32@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Lars Eighner wrote:
What is the real aim of the anti-choice, compulsory childbirth
crowd?
Opponents of abortion are indeed opposed to that *particular* choice,
but they are not opposed to choice -per se-
But they are.
No, they aren't. For example, they support your right to choose what
kind of work to do, where to live, which shirt and trousers you put on
in the morning, what TV shows you watch.
No one is universally anti-choice, and no one is universally
pro-choice. It's important to specify the *object* of choice. Why are
gutless pro-abortion advocates so horribly frightened of specifying
ABORTION as the object of choice? Could it be they find it
uncomfortable for some reason?
Or it could be that most people (that is, those with a modicum of
intelligence) realize the 'pro-choice' refers to the subject of
abortion, you idiot.
No, that's not it.
No, actually it is.
No, it isn't. The refusal to specify the object of choice is based on
moral and political cowardice.
What refusal?
The implied refusal. Why don't they just fucking SAY
it: "the right to choose an abortion"? Why do they
keep mile | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
