Abortion is murder

[blastula]

Your claim is a flat-out lie. Roe showed specifically and explicitly that the unborn is not a person and referenced past court cases proving this as well.

Blackmun misinterpreted and misapplied the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution was not about OBGYN, biology 101, or to address when human life begins. Therefore, it did not include matters pertaining to the unborn. Anything that was not enumerated in the Constitution, should not be taken as non-existing.

Beside, the 14th is about defining citizenship, not about right to life issue. Nothing in the Constitution or Roe v Wade specifically or expressively stated that the unborn is not a person.

 

[steen]

the diverense here is the right to save a life and the right to give a life.

So you ARE admitting that there is no actual "right to life"?

 

[steen]

Blackmun misinterpreted and misapplied the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution was not about OBGYN, biology 101, or to address when human life begins. Therefore, it did not include matters pertaining to the unborn.

Ah, but you are now lying. As was clearly stated in the ruling, and as I copied. Blackmum found this merely consistent with many previous rulings from long before RvW.

Anything that was not enumerated in the Constitution, should not be taken as non-existing.

But personhood HAS been dealt with in numerous rulings in a consistent manner. To claim that Blackmum was taking a radical departure on that point is an outright lie.

Beside, the 14th is about defining citizenship, not about right to life issue. Nothing in the Constitution or Roe v Wade specifically or expressively stated that the unborn is not a person.

The section IX in RvW that I copied for you is specifically stating that the unborn is not a person. YOU ARE LYING!

 

[jallman]

Ah, but you are now lying. As was clearly stated in the ruling, and as I copied. Blackmum found this merely consistent with many previous rulings from long before RvW.

But personhood HAS been dealt with in numerous rulings in a consistent manner. To claim that Blackmum was taking a radical departure on that point is an outright lie.

The section IX in RvW that I copied for you is specifically stating that the unborn is not a person. YOU ARE LYING!

Come on steen...now let up a little for their sakes. Cant we just trade lie for mistaken just this once?

:mrgreen:

 

[blastula]

Problem A: He wants the fetus carried to term and she doesnt.
Solution: Compensate the woman for carrying the child and then he makes arrangements to care for the child.

Problem B: She wants the fetus carried to term and he does not.
Solution: She makes proper arrangements to care for the child.

Problem C: They both want the fetus carried to turn.
Solution: They share responsibility for caring for the child or making arrangements to care for the child.

You're skirting the debate.

Your premise in prior post was :"Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood."

If a man just want sex and not parenthood, problems A and C are out of the picture. Problem B applies but not according to reality.

I like to comment on problem A. Are you saying a man who wants his fetus carried to term can force a woman to carry to term and give birth by compensating the woman for carrying the child and then he makes arrangements to care for the child?

 

[steen]

Come on steen...now let up a little for their sakes. Cant we just trade lie for mistaken just this once?

:mrgreen:

I am not so sure in this case. Blastula had access to the text and picked one part of and claimed it proved what the rest of the text very explicitly denied. I am not sure that falls under a mere mistake. It was a bit to deliberate for that.

 

[jallman]

You're skirting the debate.

Your premise in prior post was :"Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood."

If a man just want sex and not parenthood, problems A and C are out of the picture. Problem B applies but not according to reality.

I like to comment on problem A. Are you saying a man who wants his fetus carried to term can force a woman to carry to term and give birth by compensating the woman for carrying the child and then he makes arrangements to care for the child?

I am not skirting anything, in fact, I am making my assertions more direct simply for your sake, not mine. My premise was and still is that "Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood."

As for problem A, yes that is an equitable solution, but no one has the right to force that woman into carrying the fetus. If she agrees, fine, but if she doesnt, then that is her choice.

 

[Stace]

CLASS IS IN SESSION!

If yo're going to 'school someone, make sure you are factual, know your stuff, and can't be proven wrong - especially SO QUICKLY!

You could probably use a dose of your own advice there.

Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder - 1 was for Laci and the 2nd was for his UN-BORN CHILD! Don't hate the playa, hate the game...or in this instance, the Court!

I'm not sure what words may have been used in the actual verdict, but there was already a law in effect in California that allowed him to be charged with two counts of murder. I've posted this many times, since Scott Peterson sure does seem to be a popular person around these parts, but here it is again:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Hmmm...last time I checked, Scott wasn't Laci's doctor, nor did Laci give any sort of consent. This is the ONLY reason that Scott was successfully charged with two counts of murder.

Doctors say now that when some Late Term Aboritons are being performed, the BABY is allowed to come out right up to the point where the only think left inside is the head, so it can technically be classified as a 'fetus' and the abortion can be performed. They say, however, that the baby is completely aware of what is going on and feels the pain, no matter what the pro-aboritonists claim!

Well, surely, you have something to back this up with. I've certainly never seen this claim.

CLASS IS DISMISSED!

Indeed it is.

 

[jallman]

You could probably use a dose of your own advice there.



I'm not sure what words may have been used in the actual verdict, but there was already a law in effect in California that allowed him to be charged with two counts of murder. I've posted this many times, since Scott Peterson sure does seem to be a popular person around these parts, but here it is again:



Hmmm...last time I checked, Scott wasn't Laci's doctor, nor did Laci give any sort of consent. This is the ONLY reason that Scott was successfully charged with two counts of murder.



Well, surely, you have something to back this up with. I've certainly never seen this claim.



Indeed it is.

:applaud :rock :applaud

Rock on stace...just tell me you were wearing that hot little bikini when you handed easywhatever his azz

 

[blastula]

Ah, but you are now lying. As was clearly stated in the ruling, and as I copied. Blackmum found this merely consistent with many previous rulings from long before RvW.

But personhood HAS been dealt with in numerous rulings in a consistent manner. To claim that Blackmum was taking a radical departure on that point is an outright lie.

The section IX in RvW that I copied for you is specifically stating that the unborn is not a person. YOU ARE LYING!

Here is what Blackmun said:

"But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113>[410 U.S. 113, 158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113>This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented"

Does it sounds like a ruling on the status of personhood of the unborn or is it merely his judicial interpretation of the constitution which clearly showed his misinterpretation?

The fact is that the Constitution is silent on the unborn is expected because the intent of the Constitution is about the founding of the nation and not about dealing with matters pertaining to philosophical question.

Amendment 9 specifically tell us not to interpret as construed to deny or disparage other rights possess by the people if those rights weren't listed or enumerated in the Consitution. Which Blackmun obviously ignored.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[blastula]

I am not skirting anything, in fact, I am making my assertions more direct simply for your sake, not mine. My premise was and still is that "Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood."

As for problem A, yes that is an equitable solution, but no one has the right to force that woman into carrying the fetus. If she agrees, fine, but if she doesnt, then that is her choice.

That means to say, your premise doesn't count when it is not in favor.

 

[jallman]

That means to say, your premise doesn't count when it is not in favor.

That means to say what? I am not quite sure what is so hard to understand with the phrase:

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.


What is it you are having a hard time with? What is so unclear about that statement? Are you just being argumentative without a point? Thats what it looks like to me. Make a point and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Stace]

:applaud :rock :applaud

Rock on stace...just tell me you were wearing that hot little bikini when you handed easywhatever his azz

*sigh* But alas, I no longer own that bikini. And trust me, me in a bikini right now? Not what you'd want to see. Baby belly already, wouldn't it figure? LOL....but feel free to have any mental image you want sweet thing. :mrgreen: (ssssh...don't let Kelzie see that!)

 

[jamesrage]

Are you asking me as a member of this forum or specifically as a homosexual so you can continue your baiting? For the record, I support choice, not abortion.

That is like saying I do not support murder,but I think if my neighbor wishes to murder someone they should be allowed to.You either support it or you don't support it,There is none of this gray area crap.

And its not as far as the law is concerned.

A rulling based on 1950s science pushed by eugenist activist group allowed by a rat judge in a black robe?
If we want to use old science and racist eugnics groups to make laws how about we dig up some old nazi germany laws?

Bullshit. I am not for abortion, I am for choice.

Yes you are.What you are stating is "I do not support murder,but if someone else wants to they should be able"

Again, why are you contemplating so deeply what homosexuals specifically say about this topic?If there is no gay gene, then how come you are making this such an issue.

I suspect that if gays became a target for abortions they would be suddenly opposing abortions,not the "I am like against abortions,buit if a woman wishes to have then she should be able to" sitting on the fence crap.That double speak only works on idiots.

This thread is specifically about the lie that abortion is murder.

Abortion is murder,your using a law pushed by eugenist,a rat in a black robe and 1950s science to justify the murder of innocent babies who have harmed no one.The Nazis proably use old science,eugnenics and some rats in black robes to justify genocide.

 

[doughgirl]

Easyt65 says, “I am so sick of poster's like you who try to discredit other people's opinion, facts, and posts by simply saying 'you're lying', 'you're makin' stuff up', etc! I see you keep flappin' your gums but the only thing coming up on the screen is your OPINIONS!”

It wouldn’t matter what we posted they would say it was lies and we were liars. That is their only defense. That is their only line.

So keep going easy65……….

I’ll give you a site easy where late term abortions are done……..http://www.drtiller.com/

There are many more, if you wish I can post them as well. The pro-death camp here will say they do not exist but they do and woman from all over the country travel there to kill their third term babies.

Steen says, “And that also would be false, as the fetus can't even physically feel anything until after the 26th week of pregnancy. The review of all the research up until this point indicates that even then, actual ability to feel and possibly identify a feeling doesn't happen until at least 4 weeks after that.”

ALL THE RESEARCH? ALL? ALL? :rofl WHY STEEN IF THAT AINT A LIE THEN I NEVER HEARD ONE BEFORE......

What about the babies born before that, like my niece at 21 ½ weeks. She felt nothing?

:rofl
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

Here is one from Psychology today….
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html
(Psychology Today, Sep/Oct98, Vol. 31 Issue 5, p44, 6p, 4c.)

http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

The issue here isn’t really pain. It is death to a human living unborn child. Pain is irrelevant. Many people are paralyzed from the neck down……….would it be ok to chop a leg or arm off just because they couldn’t feel it. Is it ok to abort the unborn cause they can’t feel it anyway and that makes it more bearable for the ones who condone it?

Whether or not the unborn can feel pain is a huge issue to the pro-death camp. ITS HUGE Because if they had to admit the child could feel pain,,,,,,,,then how would that make them look?

Then they would be advocating abortion at the expense of taking the life of the child………who could feel pain during the procedure.

This is all about the pro-abortion crowd trying to feel comfortable about abortion.

“I am happy to know that you have been pounding away while I was on hiatus.”

And I have no plans of leaving to the pro-abortion camps dismay. I am so glad you are here.

Jamesrage you are so right my friend. There is no such thing as being pro-choice, anti-abortion. The thing is .. they know it too. :mrgreen:

 

[jallman]

Well, I see we are going to have to take the same approach we took with the other hysterical, lying, radical loon.

That is like saying I do not support murder,but I think if my neighbor wishes to murder someone they should be allowed to.You either support it or you don't support it,There is none of this gray area crap.

Bullshit. I specifically said that I support the right of a woman to choose and that means her choice can be abortion or motherhood or adoption or any other choices that fall within the law. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

A rulling based on 1950s science pushed by eugenist activist group allowed by a rat judge in a black robe?
If we want to use old science and racist eugnics groups to make laws how about we dig up some old nazi germany laws?

Bullshit. Comparing the laws of Nazi germany with the laws of democratic United States is purely an attempt to vilify a position which you cannot refute. Science has held true to the ruling despite the numerous cases brought before the Supreme court since the 1950's. And again, wherever the procedure was conceived has nothing to do with how it is applied now. Otherwise, we would not have Fords or Volkswagen Beetles. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

Yes you are.What you are stating is "I do not support murder,but if someone else wants to they should be able"

Bullshit. Abortion is not murder. This has been proven here already, Johnny Come Lately. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

I suspect that if gays became a target for abortions they would be suddenly opposing abortions,not the "I am like against abortions,buit if a woman wishes to have then she should be able to" sitting on the fence crap.That double speak only works on idiots.

Bullshit. This conversation has nothing to do with gays, and even more so by your own admission that you dont believe in a gay gene to start with. You get an extra bad mark this time:

Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying/trolling.

Abortion is murder,your using a law pushed by eugenist,a rat in a black robe and 1950s science to justify the murder of innocent babies who have harmed no one.The Nazis proably use old science,eugnenics and some rats in black robes to justify genocide.

Bullshit. Abortion has already been proven not to be murder. Further, science has been updated along with every challenge to Roe v Wade, which, mind you, is still intact. But hey...what do facts matter when you can rely on histrionics, hysterics, emotional rampages, and lies. Oh, and lets not forget trolling...

You're gonna be my new pet since doughgirl broke this morning. :mrgreen:

 

[jallman]

It wouldn’t matter what we posted they would say it was lies and we were liars. That is their only defense. That is their only line.

Because all you keep posting is lies, you hysterical liar.

There are many more, if you wish I can post them as well. The pro-death camp here will say they do not exist but they do and woman from all over the country travel there to kill their third term babies.

:yawn: Buuuulllshittt. There is no such thing as the pro-death camp. Further, the site you posted specifically states:

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you.

You would have everyone believe that a pregnant woman can just go in, prop her legs up in stirrups and have it sucked right out, no questions asked. Again, BUUUULLLSHITTTT!!! Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

ALL THE RESEARCH? ALL? ALL? :rofl WHY STEEN IF THAT AINT A LIE THEN I NEVER HEARD ONE BEFORE......

BUUUUUULLLLLSHIIIITTTT!!! I posted scientific data myself which you never responded to that specifically states 26 weeks. Here, just because I like proving what a hysterical liar you are to everyone, let me post it again right HERE. You really should not talk about others lying...in fact, get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

What about the babies born before that, like my niece at 21 ½ weeks. She felt nothing?


http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

Here is one from Psychology today….
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html
(Psychology Today, Sep/Oct98, Vol. 31 Issue 5, p44, 6p, 4c.)

http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

Your personal anecdotes and pro-life slant sites are not relevant to this debate.

The issue here isn’t really pain. It is death to a human living unborn child. Pain is irrelevant. Many people are paralyzed from the neck down……….would it be ok to chop a leg or arm off just because they couldn’t feel it. Is it ok to abort the unborn cause they can’t feel it anyway and that makes it more bearable for the ones who condone it?

OMG you said something that wasnt bullshit. The issue isnt pain, its personhood. The fetus most definitely does not have it before the 18th week of pregnancy. Get your emotions under control and thanks for not lying this time.

Whether or not the unborn can feel pain is a huge issue to the pro-death camp. ITS HUGE Because if they had to admit the child could feel pain,,,,,,,,then how would that make them look?

Oh damn :doh You had to go and blow it. BULLLLLLSHIIIITTTT!!! The issue is not whether the fetus can experience pain and there is no such thing as a pro death camp. You are attempting to slant the topic with more vilification and lies. Get your emotions under control and stop vilifying/lying.

Then they would be advocating abortion at the expense of taking the life of the child………who could feel pain during the procedure.

BUUUULLLLSHIIIIIITTTT!!! There is no child to take a life from and no one is advocating the abortion specifically, simply the choice. Get your emotions under control and stop vilifying/lying.

This is all about the pro-abortion crowd trying to feel comfortable about abortion.

BUUUULLLLSHITTTT!!! There is no such thing as a pro-abortion crowd. There is no need to make someone feel more comfortable with a medical procedure intended to alleviate a medical condition. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

And I have no plans of leaving to the pro-abortion camps dismay.

There is no dismay whatsoever coming from me...though you are still uttering bullshit as there is no such thing as a pro-abortion camp. In reality, you have become one of my favorite chew-toys. :mrgreen:

I am so glad you are here.

You ought to be cuz she is the only chance you guys have. You could double her chances if you didnt post anymore though.

Jamesrage you are so right my friend. There is no such thing as being pro-choice, anti-abortion. The thing is .. they know it too.

Oh my god...It just hit me...you can still help out your side by just being their cheerleader. Like uh mah god, you can like, sit there and type out encouragement to post more bullshit. Its like, so totally perfect for you. Aha!!! YAY pro-life team go go go!

 

[jamesrage]

Well, I see we are going to have to take the same approach we took with the other hysterical, lying, radical loon.



Bullshit. I specifically said that I support the right of a woman to choose and that means her choice can be abortion or motherhood or adoption or any other choices that fall within the law. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

There is no grey area when it comes to abortion.You are either against it or you are for it.There is no "Eyes Supports the woman's right to choose,But I am against abortion"That is the biggest load of crap statement ever made.Thats like saying you support our troops while demonizing them a blog every day,thats like saying you hate icecream but you love chocolate icecream,thats like someone who lives alone saying he hate dogs but he has 4 four dogs he spoils the **** out of,thats like saying you support the KKK but oppose thier cross burnings and lynchings,thats like saying you hate toy trains but you have a toy train collection and thats like saying you hate money but you are filthy rich.

Bullshit. Comparing the laws of Nazi germany with the laws of democratic United States is purely an attempt to vilify a position which you cannot refute. Science has held true to the ruling despite the numerous cases brought before the Supreme court since the 1950's. And again, wherever the procedure was conceived has nothing to do with how it is applied now. Otherwise, we would not have Fords or Volkswagen Beetles. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

If you want to beleave all science I am sure I can find some old racist science text form this country.

Bullshit. Abortion is not murder. This has been proven here already,

The only thing you abortionist proven is you all have a loophole.
Killing innocent babies is murder.Just becasue a rat in a black robe and some other rats lowered the value of life on innocent children does not change the fact it is murder.

Bullshit. This conversation has nothing to do with gays, and even more so by your own admission that you dont believe in a gay gene to start with. You get an extra bad mark this time:

I may not beleave in a gay gene,but I do find hypothetical situations interesting.You however proably beleave in gay gene.Since you proably beleave in it I thought I should ask you since there is a strong possiblilty that since you think abortion is okay(Don't give me that double speak you don't) would your opnion change if hypothetically in the future they were able to determine a child's sexuality a week or two after gestation and parents

Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying/trolling.

You have no room to call anyone a liar seeing how you are using the fence sitting rhetoric.You are about as pro-life as I am rich.Too bad this site does not let users have a animated gif as a avatar.This would be perfect for a certian someone.

 

[jallman]

There is no grey area when it comes to abortion.You are either against it or you are for it.There is no "Eyes Supports the woman's right to choose,But I am against abortion"That is the biggest load of crap statement ever made.Thats like saying you support our troops while demonizing them a blog every day,thats like saying you hate icecream but you love chocolate icecream,thats like someone who lives alone saying he hate dogs but he has 4 four dogs he spoils the **** out of,thats like saying you support the KKK but oppose thier cross burnings and lynchings,thats like saying you hate toy trains but you have a toy train collection and thats like saying you hate money but you are filthy rich.

Bullshit. Abortion is acceptable, but it is not a first choice if you can help it. However, I support the choice if it needs to be made. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

If you want to beleave all science I am sure I can find some old racist science text form this country.

And that science would be as relevant as the rest of your claims. Science has evolved and until you can show real science to match what I have posted, get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

The only thing you abortionist proven is you all have a loophole.
Killing innocent babies is murder.Just becasue a rat in a black robe and some other rats lowered the value of life on innocent children does not change the fact it is murder.

Bullshit times three. There is no loophole, there is no murder of an innocent baby, and there is no lowered value on the life of an innocent baby when the choice for abortion is exercised before 18 weeks. Oh wait...and a fourth bullshit...abortion is not murder. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

I may not beleave in a gay gene,but I do find hypothetical situations interesting.You however proably beleave in gay gene.Since you proably beleave in it I thought I should ask you since there is a strong possiblilty that since you think abortion is okay(Don't give me that double speak you don't) would your opnion change if hypothetically in the future they were able to determine a child's sexuality a week or two after gestation and parents

I do not believe in a magical gay gene either. Your trolling attempt is duly noted...you're gonna be more fun than doughgirl cuz you actually got some spirit. I dont suppose I'll be making you cry anytime soon...cool deal.

You have no room to call anyone a liar seeing how you are using the fence sitting rhetoric.You are about as pro-life as I am rich.Too bad this site does not let users have a animated gif as a avatar.This would be perfect for a certian someone.

I dont believe I ever called myself pro-life. Your obvious comprehension issues aside...I support the woman's right to abortion up to the 18th week. There is no fence sitting here, but that was a noble attempt at making your bullshit stink a little less. Have I told you how happy I am that you are replacing doughgirl? :mrgreen:

 

[Fantasea]

There is no such thing as an unborn child. There are fetuses which once born will be come children. I am granting that then fetus may have personhood after 18 weeks...why cant you grant that there is no child until after birth?

From the tone and tenor of some of your recent posts, methinks you need to cool it a bit.

Why not relax and tell us about the time honored description, "woman with child" which goes back to biblical times.

 

[Fantasea]

I’ll give you a site easy where late term abortions are done……..http://www.drtiller.com/

Is this the outfit that advertises,

Abortions While You Wait​

No fetus can beat us!​

 

[jamesrage]

Bullshit times three. There is no loophole, there is no murder of an innocent baby, and there is no lowered value on the life of an innocent baby when the choice for abortion is exercised before 18 weeks. Oh wait...and a fourth bullshit...abortion is not murder. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.

Just becasue you beleave that murdering innocent babies is not murder,does not make you right.

I do not believe in a magical gay gene either. Your trolling attempt is duly noted...you're gonna be more fun than doughgirl cuz you actually got some spirit.

Trolling?You mean you do not like I said and so you wanna cu-why to a mod?Did the mean ol'jamesrage say something you did not like?

I dont suppose I'll be making you cry anytime soon...cool deal.

THe only one I see crying is the person throwing the troll accusations around.

I dont believe I ever called myself pro-life.

You said you are against abortions,but support the woman's right to choose.That is a this kind of statement.

 

[ngdawg]

Well, the term 'angel of death' goes back to biblical times too and what did that angel do? Just go thru town, blithely killing the firstborns.....
Oh, and when pushing the stroller through the mall many times as I did, I, too, was a woman with child.....
Why do people bring up 100 year old crap and biblical references???
Oh, yea.....lack of anything else pertinent:doh

Jallman, :rock Next to my hairstylist, you're my favorite GG! Your posts have been great:mrgreen:

 

[Fantasea]

Have you actually read anything she has written? And you are going to commend her for losing so much ground on simple basis that she cant stop lying?

Which of us is perfect in all our presentations? At least, she brings a fresh and somewhat novel approach to a somber subject.

I do not wish to offend you, however your posts are beginning to be sprinkled with invective that hereofore was pretty much exclusive to steen. I find it to be a detracting distraction unworthy of your amply demonstrated talent.

 

[ngdawg]

Just becasue you beleave that murdering innocent babies is not murder,does not make you right.

The law makes him right....what YOU believe is only that-your belief. It has no basis in reality or law.

You said you are against abortions,but support the woman's right to choose.That is a this kind of statement.

Actually, this is why it is called PRO-CHOICE. Supporting a woman's right to choose her OWN reproductive path. Not one pro-choicer has answered in the affirmative (that means 'yes') in regards to supporting the act of aborting. What we DO support is an individual's civil liberties to choose what is best for her OWN situation and life.
If we were as you think, you wouldn't even exist as we'd be sure that no bigots/racists/narrow-minded would be allowed to procreate:lol:
Not sure what that last sentence was...were you crying as you typed? Oh..that cartoony thing....


Gotta love these fundie guys thought, they're so....insane!!! It's like waiting for a firecracker to go BOOM :2funny: