Quadibloc <jsavard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:1188794054.981093.118450@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BOB wrote:
>> DaveInLakeVilla@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dave in Lake Villa) wrote in news:24714-
>> 46D9C9CA-794@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > Their babies got to have a life and a home . What do aborted
babies
>> > get to have because 'mom' thought ***ual 'freedom' / immorality was
>> > more im****tant ?
>> >
>> Non-existance, which is what they had to start with, DavIL.
>>
>> Btw you fool, are you trying to equate freedom with immorality?
>
> If a pregnant woman stands on a bathroom scale, she finds she is
> heavier. So when abortions are performed, they are not performed on
> anything non-existent, or abortion would not be necessary.
>
> Yes, before the woman got pregnant, the unborn child was non-existent.
> So there was a time when the child didn't exist.
>
> So? A year before anyone was born, that person was non-existent. So,
> since we all had non-existence to start with, murdering anyone should
> be legal?
>
> "Freedom" to kill innocent people who are not trying to hurt others,
> how can you equate that, being allowed to violate the rights of
> others, with freedom, where everyone's rights are respected, because
> everyone is equal?
>
> John Savard
>
You anti-choice loons seem to have a fixation on killing children and
other innocent people. Why is that?
|
