"klunk" (klunk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) writes:
> "Voyager" <think.uninc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:15db28ad-c620-47ce-8594-6b81fd511503@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Mark Sebree wrote:
>>
>>> Embryos and fetuses are not children.
>>
>> When they are human, they are unborn children.
>
> nope... tissue-growth is not a child... but potentially a child in the
same
> way that any cell in your body can be... birth must occur before
something
> can be a child... there's no such thing as unborn... unless of course,
you
> claim that everything which does not exist, including a rock can be
unborn
> before formation...
>
>
>
>>> > > > >Perhaps if you used the correct
>>> > > > > words for what you are talking about, you would not be seen as
>>> > > > > being
>>> > > > > so dishonest.
>>> > > > He did use the correct words, baby killer wannabe.
>>> > > Really? You are lying about me, and you are lying about what he
>>> > > said.
>>
>>> > I am doing neither, baby killer wannabe.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are. Nobody is advocating the killing of infants, no matter
>>> how much you lie about it, for example. And the correct words for
>>> what he was referring to are "embryo" and "fetus". I did not see him
>>> use either one.
>>
>> He used the correct words, baby killer wannerbe.
>
> nope... you, however are employing disingenuous bombast to defend your
> non-argument...
>
>
>>> > >The correct words for an embryo or fetus is "embryo" and
>>> > > "fetus" respectively.
>>> >
>>> > Those are words you baby-killer wannabes try to use to mask the
horror
>>> > of what you advocate.
>>
>>> There is no horror in the medical procedure of an abortion,
>>
>> there certainly is to the victim
>
> what victim...?... the blastocyst?... then, by your very own argument,
one
> is committing murder when they have a cancerous tumour removed...
tumours
> contain living cells and each has a potential for being transformed into
a
> living child...
>
>
>>>and there
>>> is nobody that is advocating the killing of infants,
>>
>> you and your ilk advocate the killing of unborn children all the time,
>> baby killer wannabe
>
> and you advocate the destruction of living, adult lives whilst
hypcritically
> ignoring the cries of starving children whom are dying every three
seconds
> in africa...
>
>
>>>and the people
>>> that are trying to mask their agenda and create an emotional response
>>> are the anti-choice activists like you.
>>
>> We are speaking the truth, baby killer wannabe. You speak nothing but
>> lies.
>
> no, you are not speaking the truth... you are a lying, life-destroying
agent
> of satan who cares not a whit about the consequences of your own
repressive
> and self-serving ignorance...
>
>
>>> > > I did not see where he referred to embryos or fetuses at all.
>>> >
>>> > Why would he?
>>
>>> To be accurate and truthful about what he is referring to, and to
>>> argue his point intelligently and rationally. Things that anti-choice
>>> activists have trouble doing.
>>
>> He walks circles around you for truthfulness and accuracy baby killer
>> wannabe.
>
> lol... truth travels a straight line... only lies travel in circles...
you
> hypocritical, narcissistic, life-destroying, woman and freedom hating
agent
> of satan...
>
>
>>> > He isn't a baby killer wannabe.
>>
>>> Nor is anyone else. Anti-choice liars like you call people that
>>> promote the legality of abortion for any woman that wants one
>>> apparently like to blatantly lie about pro-choice activists because
>>> they have to facts to sup****t their position.
>>
>> Tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets terminated by
>> abortion, baby killer wannabe. Lying is what you assholes do.
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>>> > > > > > Who speaks for this little one?
>>> > > > > You mean the embryo/fetus that is using the woman's body
against
>>> > > > > her
>>> > > > > will?
>>> > > > No, he means her unborn child, baby killer wannabe.
>>> > > Despite your lies, I have no desire to kill infants.
>>> >
>>> > You must have, since you twist reason, logic and truth to justify
the
>>> > killing of unborn children.
>>
>>> Not at all. Unlike you, I am not twisting reason, logic, or truth,
>>> nor am I sup****ting the killing or harm of any person. You simply
>>> cannot accept the truth and the facts.
>>
>> ROFLMAO. Tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets terminated
>> by abortion, baby killer wannabe.
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>
>>> > > There is no such thing as an "unborn child".
>>> >
>>> > A lie you baby-killer wannabes love to tell.
>>
>>> The only liars are the anti-choice activists. My statement is a
>>> statement if fact.
>>
>> You wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up and kicked you in the ass.
>
> and you go waaaay out of your way to deny facts... whilst pulling
fantasies
> out of your ass and expecting people to believe you when you claim the
smell
> is perfume...
>
>
>> But tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets terminated by
>> abortion, baby killer wannabe.
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>
>>> > >Children have been born. "Unborn child" is a misnomer and
propaganda
>>> > >tool used by anti-
>>> > > choice activists to stir up emotional sup****t for their position
>>> > > since
>>> > > they know that factual and honest positions will not work on most
>>> > > people, especially the intelligent people that most pro-choice
>>> > > advocates are.
>>> >
>>> > ROFLMAO. "Embryo" and "fetus" are euphemistic words you baby-killer
>>> > wannabes try to use to mask the horror of what you advocate.
>>
>>> There are no baby killer wannabes that I know of anywhere. "Embryo"
>>> and "fetus" are the proper names of the gestational entity that is
>>> using the woman's body.
>>
>> They are the euphemisms you and your pro-baby killing ilk use to hide
>> the horror of what you advocate.
>
> no asshole... horror is what you advocate... and "pro-baby killing" is a
> bombastic euphemism employed by those steeped in superstition...
>
>
>> > Embryo refers to the time from implantation,
>>> which is the start of the pregnancy, to about 8 weeks in human beings,
>>> and "fetus" refers to the point from the end of the first 8 weeks to
>>> the end of the pregnancy. You should really learn what the proper
>>> terms are.
>>
>>> There is no horror associated with an abortion.
>>
>> There certainly is for the human whose life is terminated.
>
> nope... tissue is incapable of experiencing horror...
>
>
>>> > > Apparently, you do not know the correct words either, even after
>>> > > being
>>> > > told them.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not going to believe your lies, baby-killer wannabe.
>>>
>>> What lies?
>>
>> Well that lie that it isn't a human life that gets terminated by
>> abortion is one worthy of JG himself, baby killer wannabe.
>
> nope... something cannot by definitition be terminated until it becomes
> manifest...
>
>
>>> > Most intelligent, rational people don't.
>>
>>> Actually, most rational, intelligent people (like me) are pro-choice.
>>> Take a look at the demographics of the sides sometime.
>>
>> I have.
>
> nope... you've gone to great lengths to lie about it though...
>
>
>>> > The science is all on our side.
>>
>>> Then why is it so against your position?
>>
>> It isn't. It is against your position.
>
> nope... you are lying once again... how typical of the fool to fabricate
> bull**** to defend the indefensible...
>
>
>>> Why can't you even
>>> understand the science and medicine involved?
>>
>> I understand quite well what a saline abortion does. And what happens
>> to a human that is sucked apart during one of your other harmless
>> abortion procedures.
>
> lol... it is impossible to suck a human through such an implement...
tissue,
> however.. is another story... aside from that, you understand nothing
> outside of your own self-serving and life-destroying narcissism...
>
>
>
>>> >
>>> > > > > Use that if it was a person, the woman would be justified in
>>> > > > > defending herself with any force necessary to end that attack
>>> > > > > immediately.
>>> > > > Preganacy isn't an attack you dumbass gas bag.
>>> > > I am a lot smarter than you are.
>>> >
>>> > I bet our IQ test scores and educations would show otherwise.
>>
>>> You would almost certainly lose that bet.
>>
>> I most certainly would not.
>
> you already have...
>
>
>>> > >To a woman that does not want to be
>>> > > pregnant, it is an attack and a nonconsensual use of her body.
>>> >
>>> > It is not an attack.
>>
>>> It is to the woman that does not want to be pregnant.
>>
>> It is not.
>
> yes it is... and you are attacking all women by your self-serving and
> destructive narcissism...
>
>
>>> > Someone kicking your lame ass would be an attack.
>>
>>> So would an unwanted pregnancy. And if I was attacked, I can fight
>>> back. You want to tie the woman's hands and prevent her from
>>> defending herself.
>>
>> She isn't under attack so she couldn't be defending herself.
>
> she is under the same form of "attack" as anyone experiencing unwanted
> tissue growth...
>
>
>>> > A viral infection that affects your health would be an attack.
>>
>>> And like a viral infection, the woman can seek medical help to end
>>> that medical condition immediately when she experiences an unwanted
>>> pregnancy.
>>
>> Her unborn child is now a medical condition.
>
> nope... there's no such thing as an "unborn child"... by definition...
> something cannot be a child until it is born...
>
>
>>>You want to prevent the woman from getting the medical
>>> attention she needs to safely end her medical condition.
>>
>> You want to kill unborn children.
>
> nope... but you do advocate the destruction of living adult lives...
whilst
> callously ignoring the living children in africa who die every three
seconds
> due to a very curable condition of hunger...
>
>
>>> > A pregnancy is not an attack.
>>
>>> Yes, it is. It is a medical condition that adversely and serious
>>> affects the woman's health and well-being, causes permanent harm, is
>>> expensive to treat if allowed to run its course, and can threaten her
>>> life.
>>
>> Bull****.
>
> nope... your entire argument however, is pure and unadulterated
bull****....
>
>
>>>There exists simple, safe, and inexpensive means to end that
>>> medical condition if she so chooses.
>>
>> You mean kill her unborn child and they aren't that safe or simple.
>
> nope... he means the removal of unwanted tissue growth... your attitude
> however, does endanger the god given rights and freedoms of women
> worldwide... and that makes you nothing short of a sadistic,
life-destroying
> hypocrite...
>
>
>
>>>You want to prevent her from
>>> getting that medical treatment, and force her to endure her condition
>>> against her will.
>>
>> We want to save the life of unborn girls and boys, you want to kill
>> them.
>
> nope... you want to meddle with the rights, freedoms and lives of living
> adults in the name of serving your sadistic narcissism...
>
>
>
>> If you were so interested in helping the women who feel they have no
>> where to turn but abortion you would be fighting for medicare and
>> improved social programs.
>
> nope... if you were at all interested in helping women, you would
sup****t
> not only abortion, but also *** education that didn't involve
abstinence...
>
>
>> Next time you see a pro-life person lobbying to deny women drugs for
>> illnesses or treatments for parasites let me know.
>
>
> next time you see a crack-addicted child with a child then you should
ponder
> the hell you promote as an agent of satan...
>
>
>>> > >She will suffer permanent harm through the pregnancy, risk death,
>>> > >torture,
>>> > > financial hard****p, emotional distress, ruination of her life, and
>>> > > other things.
>>> >
>>> > If her life is in danger she can abort since the defence of self-
>>> > defence would apply.
>>
>>> That is any pregnancy. Every pregnancy causes significant physical
>>> harm,
>>
>> bull****.
>
> nope... the human body is irrevocably changed as a result of
pregnancy...
> and every woman risks losing her life when choosing to carry a fetus to
> term...
>
>
>
>>>and being forced to endure and complete unwanted pregnancies
>>> often causes the other things that I mentioned.
>>
>> which things? How often?
>
> take a look around you, asshole... there are plenty of examples of the
sort
> of destruction that comes about when people are unprepared for
parenthood...
>
>
>>> > However, most pregancies will not threaten her
>>> > life.
>>
>>> Actually, they do. They threaten her on many levels. Forcing a woman
>>> to endure an unwanted pregnancy means that you are forcing her to
>>> endure the consequences of your choices and your decisions, without
>>> giving her a say in the matter, and thus you are forcing her to accept
>>> the risk and ruination that you think she should have to live with.
>>
>> ??? Unless she is in danger of losing her life, any risk and
>> ruination is insignificant to the lose of the life of the aborted
>> child. And she has plenty of choice up to conception.
>>
>> If pregancy is so dangerous, why are you and the rest of your ilk not
>> running ads advising all women to abort? Why aren't medical
>> professionals?
>
> because that has nothing to do with this issue... and is only a farcical
> red-herring you resort to when all else fails you...
>
>
>> My partner has had 3 children... she is still alive and kicking. Her
>> mother had nine. She is still alive and kicking.
>> My father's mother had more than that. Pregnancy never killed her.
>
> and so, you should be content with counting your blessings and not
wasting
> your energy on forcing your repressiveness upon others...
>
>
>>> > You want her to be able to take the life of another human so she
>>> > isn't inconveniencd.
>>
>>> No, I want her to be able to defend herself
>>
>> she isn't being attacked
>
> yes, she is... in the same way that any human body is being "attacked"
by
> undesirable tissue growth...
>
>
>>>.and not be forced to
>>> endure the use and abuse of her body against her will.
>>
>> she isn't being forced to endure the use and abuse of her body against
>> her will. She is engaging in the process of reproduction
>
> actually... your entire argument is an attempt to force a woman to
comply
> with your self-serving ignorance...
>
>
>>>It is her life
>>> and her health that is at risk, not yours. So SHE is the one that has
>>> the final say in the matter.
>>
>> Until the law says otherwise.
>
> the law did say otherwise... and because it was proven to be in error...
was
> changed... deal with it... grow up and move on so the rest of us can
address
> issues which do not spring from your own narcissims...
>
>
>>> > That is sick.
>>
>>> Not at all. I am not the one that wants to force the woman to suffer
>>> needlessly. I am not the one that couldn't care less about the
>>> woman's opinion in the matter, and what she wants. That is you.
>>
>> You are the one that wants her to be able to take the life of another
>> human so she
>> isn't inconveniencd.
>
> nope... you are the one who wishes to destroy the life of a living adult
> woman in favour of imposing your own myopic and regressive fascism...
>
>
>>> > > To a woman that does not want to be pregnant, the unwanted
pregnancy
>>> > > is most certainly an attack on her body and her life.
>>> >
>>> > It is nothing of the sort.
>>
>>> Actually, it is exactly as I described it.
>>
>> It is as far from how you have described it as the lie that it is not
>> a human that is killed when there is an abortion.
>
> nope... tissue is removed during an abortion procedure... nothing
more...
> nothing less... and you are lying to protect your selfishness...
>
>
>>> > > > > > Do they not have a say?
>>> > > > > Since they are using the woman's body against her will and
>>> > > > > causing her
>>> > > > > harm, no. An embryo/fetus has no more say that a mugger or a
>>> > > > > rapist
>>> > > > > does when the woman fights back to defend herself, and the
>>> > > > > assailant
>>> > > > > is harmed or killed by the defense.
>>> > > > Logical inconsistency piled on logical inconsistency... the baby
>>> > > > killer wannabees can offer nothing more.
>>> > > You are claiming that anti-choice activists
>>> >
>>> > anti-abortionists
>>
>>> Anti-Choice activists.
>>
>> anti-abortionist
>
> nope... anti-choice... anti-freedom and pro-repression based upon
nothing
> more than your own myopia...
>
>
>>>That is what you are. You are against the
>>> woman having a choice in the matter.
>>
>> More pro-abortion lies. I am all for women having choice when it comes
>> to birth control, I am all for choice when it comes to decided whether
>> or not to have ***, I am all for choice when there is actually a real
>> threat of a loss of life of the woman. But killing another human for
>> reasons of convenience or because you want to is as wrong as taking
>> the life of another human for the same reason.
>
> nope... no human life has been taken... only tissue has been removed...
>
>
>>> Calling you "anti-choice" is
>>> certainly more honest than anything that you call pro-choice
>>> activists.
>>
>> Sure baby-killer wannabe. Tell us again that it isn't a human life
>> that gets terminated by abortion,
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>>> >
>>> > >like you are baby killers now, along with their other crimes? I
>>> > >presented no logical
>>> > > inconsistencies. That is why you cannot show them specifically.
>>> >
>>> > Please read a post entirely before you waste time replying.
>>
>>> I did read it entirely. My statement stands. You are the one
>>> presenting logical inconsistencies piled onto logical inconsistencies.
>>
>> ROFLMAO. Tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets
>> terminated by abortion,
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>>> >
>>> > > > It isn't a human (according to the lying baby killer wannabes)
but
>>> > > > it
>>> > > > attacks the mother like a mugger or rapist.
>>> > > In a manner of speaking. A parasitic organism would be a better
>>> > > analogy.
>>> >
>>> > This babykiller wannabe is now saying an unborn child is like a
>>> > tapeworm or aids virus.
>>
>>> There is nobody here that is advocating killing infants, so you can
>>> stop your lies.
>>
>> No lies on my part.
>
> lol... everything about your position is a lie...
>
>
>>> A tapeworm is a decent analogy. The AIDS virus has never been
>>> considered a parasite or parasitic organism.
>>
>>
>> Bacteria and viruses are parastic organisms. Some are of the type that
>> kill their host.
>
> and so... you have no point here other than to sup****t a procedure which
> removes such organisms...
>
>
>>> > > > Earth to baby killer wannabe:
>>> > > There are none that exists except in your imagination.
>>> >
>>> > And reality.
>>
>>> Nope. Reality is not what you are lying about. Nobody is advocating
>>> killing infants.
>>
>> Tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets terminated by
>> abortion,
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>>> > > > even muggers and rapists are human, and were they not, they
>>> > > > couldn't be muggers and rapists.
>>> > > You are the one that is claiming that embryos and fetuses are
human
>>> > > beings, not me. I was trying to explain it in simple terms that
you
>>> > > understand.
>>> >
>>> > They are human beings your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>
>>> I have not been lying at all. Unlike you, I have educated myself on
>>> the subject. Since embryos and fetuses have not been born, they do
>>> not fit the legal definition of a human being or a person, which is
>>> alive, BORN, and human.
>>
>>> And so you cannot deny the facts, here is the evidence:
>>
>> That isn't evidence. It is a legal enactment.
>> Why is it you baby killers always have to fall back to legal
>> positivism to argue?
>> Well, we know... it is because science is against you.
>
> nope... science is what has permitted our society to rise above
self-serving
> superstition such as you promote...
>
>
>
>>> http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch1.html
>>> IC 35-41-1-14
>>> "Human being" defined
>>> Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and
>>> is alive.
>>>
>>> IC 35-41-1-22
>>> "Person" defined
>>> Sec. 22. (a) "Person" means a human being, cor****ation, limited
>>> liability company, partner****p, unincor****ated association, or
>>> governmental entity.
>>>
>>> And before you ask, I am using Indiana because that is where I live.
>>> And if you notice, neither an embryo nor a fetus fits the definition
>>> of a person or a human being.
>>
>> So when the law said the women and blacks were not persons, were they
>> not persons?
>
> so... when the bible says one should smite their neighbour for mixing
> different threads into cloth... you sup****t this...?
>
>
>>> > Science establishes that a unique human life begins when sperm
>>> > impregnates egg.
>>
>>> However, that does not make it a human being, or a person, and it does
>>> not give the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus the right to use the
>>> woman's body against her will.
>>
>> You are telling us again that it isn't a human life that gets
>> terminated by abortion, And adding in the lie that the abortion victim
>> is using a woman's body against her will.
>
> lol... tissue cannot by definition be a victim... but you are lying
again
> with your self-serving and bombastic hyperbole...
>
>
>
>>> > > > > Apparently, you think that the woman should let herself be
raped
>>> > > > > or
>>> > > > > mugged.
>>> > > > Holy leaps of logic batman.
>>> > > You are the one that is claiming that the woman should submit to
her
>>> > > body being used and abused against her will, not me. There is no
>>> > > leap
>>> > > of logic.
>>> >
>>> > Having a child is not an abuse of her body - it is the natural
course
>>> > of things unless the woman miscarriages.
>>
>>> It is abuse of her body if the woman does not want to be pregnant.
>>
>> It is nothing of the sort.
>
> it is her choice to remove unwanted tissue before it destroys her
life...
> not yours...
>
>
>>> It is illegal to force someone to allow their bodies to be used by
>>> another entity, even if such use is to keep the other entity alive.
>>
>>
>> Only until a law is passed that says otherwise.
>
> and laws evolve over time as the improve and become superior to their
> predecessors... your argument however, seeks to turn back the clock...
grow
> up and try to join the rest of us whom have relegated the dark ages to a
> horrific memory of repression...
>
>
>>> You want to force the woman to allow her body to be used by something
>>> else against her will and without her consent.
>>
>> You want her to kill her unborn child.
>
> nope... you however, seek to destroy the life of a living adult...
whilst
> hypocritically ignoring all the other children whom die every three
seconds
> in africa due to the very curable condition of hunger...
>
>
>>> > No outside chemicals or surgery are required.
>>
>>> The introduction of a parasitic organism usually does not require
>>> surgery or chemicals.
>>
>> Her offspring is not a parastic organism.
>
> yes it is... and anything that cannot sustain its own existence without
> draining resources from another is a parasite...
>
>
>> >However, it is not the introduction that the
>>> woman wants, it is the immediate removal.
>>
>>> >
>>> > > > Earth to baby killer wannabe:
>>> > > You are calling to people that do not exist except in your
>>> > > imagination. Nobody here is advocating the killing of infants.
>>> >
>>> You are justifying it...
>>
>>> Nope. I have not once mentioned any infants being killed.
>>
>> The fascists denied the humanity of Jews, Gypsies, homo***uals and
>> communists. You do the same with the unborn.
>
> nope... you deny the humanity of women... hypocrite...
>
>
>>> > and doing the same sort of scape-goating and
>>> > denial of the humaness of the victims that your sort always do.
>>
>>> What victims? The woman is not a victim when she gets an abortion,
>>> and I have not been scapegoating nor denying her humaness at all.
>>> That is more along the lines of what anti-choice advocates do.
>>
>> Tell us again that it isn't a human life that gets terminated by
>> abortion,
>
> okay... removing fetal tissue is nothing more than a surgical procedure
to
> save a woman from a life of servitude... you contemptible, lying,
> life-destroying, superstition-suckling parody of humanity...
>
>
>
>>
>>> >
>>> > > > leaps of logic are really
>>> > > > misapplications of logic.
>>> > > Good thing that I did not misapply logic or make any leaps of
logic.
>>> >
>>> > You made several.
>>
>>> However, you cannot point out any of them.
>>
>>
>> That wouldn't be a problem. However this is already way too long a
>> post.
>
> only because you prolong the promotion of superstitious nonsense for no
> reason other than to placate your own insecurities...
>
>
>>> More likely, you cannot
>>> follow the basic logic that the woman is a human being, and she cannot
>>> nor should not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
>>
>> What I can't follow is the logic that allows her convenience to trump
>> another person's right to life.
>
> of course you can't follow the logic because your entire position runs
> contrary to logic... there's nothing convenient about an abortion and
you
> have no right to trump the right another has to what happens to their
body
> and life and liveliehood...
>
>
>
>>> > > > > > a 'choice'? After-all, it is their life that's at stake.
>>> > > > > However, they are an invader. They are using the woman's body
>>> > > > > without
>>> > > > > her consent and against her will.
>>> > > > As she did when she was an unborn child,
>>> > > Wrong. First, it is not an "unborn child" since such things do
not
>>> > > exist, it is an embryo then a fetus.
>>> >
>>> > Wrong. Your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>
>>> I have not told any lies, and my statement is quite correct.
>>
>> Lying is all you baby-killer wannabes do.
>
> nope... your entire argument is composed of bombast and lies...
hypocrite...
>
>
>>> >
>>> > > Second, her mother GAVE consent for her body to be so used. If
her
>>> > > mother had not, her mother would
>>> > > have gotten an abortion.
>>> >
>>> > Her mother did not kill her unborn child.
>>
>>> Because her mother CHOOSE to continue the pregnancy. You seem to have
>>> trouble with the choice aspect.
>>
>> Choice isn't the issue. There is plenty of choice before the
>> pregnancy.
>
> wrong... choice is ENTIRELY the issue... and you seek to remove that
from
> someone whom has the same right to it as you do...
>
>
>>> > > > and as her mother did before
>>> > > > her, down to the first human who walked the earth, and down to
the
>>> > > > first hominid she decended from.
>>> > > And in most cases, the women GAVE consent for the embryos/fetuses
to
>>> > > use their bodies by not seeking to get an abortion, or by planning
>>> > > the
>>> > > pregnancy.
>>> >
>>> > This is patently untrue.
>>>
>>> You should study more.
>>
>> Everyone should study more. However, no matter how much more I
>> studied, it would still be patently untrue.
>
> only because you are capable of processing only that which fits your
> prejudice... which is no different than a bigot who tortures and kills
> someone on the basis of inherited physical characteristics... and no
> different than someone who kills another in the name of an adherence to
a
> superstitious belief in a mythical god....
>
> <the rest of this overlong bull**** has been snipped due to it's
repetitive
> and circular nature>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
