Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Long Night Moon 13]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Been sick for over ten days. On the computer very little in those ten days. Plus I scroll over much of what isn't part of my conversation. That would include many of your posts.
BTW, I don't see any reason to lie to you. For what purpose?

Yet the post you did reply to had within it Tom Tom's insults which you claim to not have seen, and then used the lame excuse that you were sick and so hadn't been here for a few days, yet I found that you indeed had been posting.

Your purpose was clear. While complaining that my remarks were "supercilious" you didn't want to have to acknowledge that they were in response to your fellow fundie who was insulting Bitner's beliefs. You wanted to cling to your double-standard. I saw through it so your lying was in vain.

[Long Night Moon 13]

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>She has a crush on Siggy Freud.

She NEEDS Siggy Freud.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Make my day wrote:

<quoted text>These pro-death advocates are really screwed up. The top Fukked up offenders are foofoo ,Katie, Bitner, Ladilulu, junket ,CD,Ocean,chicky and CPeter.

Hey, I think I'm all that's left.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're confused. I said there's nothing wrong with that to a post from Bitner, not to a post from Chicky.
Try again.

Wrong. While you did say that in response to Bitter, you also said there was nothing wrong with a statement from Tinker Bell defining viability exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.(Post #274777)

Speaking of Bitter, why DID you say there was nothing wrong with her statement about a preemie being able to REACH viability with medical assistance ? When in fact you agreed that a preemie receiving medical assistance was ALREADY viable. Hmmmm ?

[QUOTE]You've finally seen the light. That's good, because my Duracell batteries were nearing the end of their useful life.
Thanks!

It's what I've been saying all along F. Lee.

I'd post a link to your post of slightly over a year ago, but I've not got the patience to swift through 10,000 pages to find it.

You haven't got the patience my ass. You know it doesn't exist. If you thought it did, you'd find the patience alright.

So you'll just have to live with the fact that everyone else who's read your posts knows you're just now reverting your position to agree with me.

No, I don't think I'll live with it just because YOU don't have the balls to go back and look for posts that don't exist.
Reverting my position ? You don't have to lift a finger ball-less. I'll find the posts that show what my position has been all along.

I will, however, say thanks. Again, you've finally seen the light.
<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure, sure sure.

You're really saying that my position has been the same as chicky's, Tinker Bell's, moncie, bitter, katie, et al ? Is THAT what you're saying ? That viability is defined as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance ? That if a preemie requires medical assistance it cannot be viable ?

[Doc Degall]

cpeter1313 wrote:

And straight boys could keep it in their pants. Were you a virgin on your wedding night? How about your wife?

Hey Tink, his point was that if men can be told they have the choice to keep it in their pants then women can be told they have a choice to leave his dick alone.
And if he wasn't a virgin on his wedding night it either means he had a willing partner who chose to embrace his dick....or he was a rapist.

[QUOTE]But it's really about punishing women who enjoy sex, isn't it? As for "valuing" fetuses, that's a philosophical decision. You'remfree to worshipo them if you wish, but no one else has to follow your beliefs.

Is valuing an infant's life a philosophical decision Tink ?

[Doc Degall]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The old degrees of culpability argument. You have to be kidding me. The other pathetic joke is you using the constitution to defend your argument when you could care less about the document. You have contempt for it unless you can conveniently use it to make a point. I dismiss your arguments in the same arrogant manner you wave your hand away at mine.

The ignorant wretch you are speaking to thinks the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. It knows nothing.

[Doc Degall]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The same way the progressives co-opt the useful idiots that can rationalize that just because it's in the womb, that its not a human. Its not only possible, but the holocaust goes on still everyday. You couch the argument with ambiguities like "choice", "rights", "fairness" as if its just about you. The biggest challenge for the selfish to comprehend is that it always has to be about themselves, and be damned with anybody else. Rounding up and killing millions has happened in mans history to many times, and the ignorant and complacent will see to it that it happens again. It takes real courage to stand in opposition of the mobs thinking, and cowardice to stand with them even when your soul tells you their wrong.

This is good. I like your style.

You hit it on the head with the selfish thing. Their abject selfishness is precisely the reason they cannot comprehend how it could be about anyone but themselves....and why they will never understand how anyone who doesn't share their narrow minded selfish mindset would desire protection for the most innocent and helpless human life.

[Doc Degall]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Then stock up on condoms or keep your zipper pulled up.

I use Durex. And what has THAT got to do with the issue of whether or not a fetus is considered a person ?
You're better off sticking to your cute little "fundie" jabs. Cause when you attempt to actually argue the facts or the actual merits of your position....you demonstrate you are woefully out of your league.

Next problem...

How can the Rangers start generating a little more offense ?

[Guppy]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
So as long as its about "choices", it would only seem logical that if the man has no choice in the decision as to whether his unborn son or daughter is killed at the hands of the mother, he should be able to choose to not be financially obligated for that child if he never intended to create it, and the mother chooses to have it and raise it anyway, right? That would be fair, right?

Life isn't always fair.

Sorry...

[Guppy]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
This is good. I like your style.
You hit it on the head with the selfish thing. Their abject selfishness is precisely the reason they cannot comprehend how it could be about anyone but themselves....and why they will never understand how anyone who doesn't share their narrow minded selfish mindset would desire protection for the most innocent and helpless human life.

You are such a little fairy.

[grumpy]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
This is good. I like your style.
You hit it on the head with the selfish thing. Their abject selfishness is precisely the reason they cannot comprehend how it could be about anyone but themselves....and why they will never understand how anyone who doesn't share their narrow minded selfish mindset would desire protection for the most innocent and helpless human life.

Why do you argue so incessently about the definition of "vability" when you are for the " protection for the most innocent and helpless human life."?
Certainly there is human life before viability.

[cpeter1313]

A PLM'er killed tiller. You are a PLM'er. What is your degree of culpability? Oh, and in point of fact, there were plenty of deaths hitler neither dictated or even knew about; he left such things to others.

Where have I shown contempt for the constitution? Link to it.

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The old degrees of culpability argument. You have to be kidding me. The other pathetic joke is you using the constitution to defend your argument when you could care less about the document. You have contempt for it unless you can conveniently use it to make a point. I dismiss your arguments in the same arrogant manner you wave your hand away at mine.

[cpeter1313]

Nope. The BORN child has a legal right to be supported by both parents unless parental responsibility has been waived. Paying support does not affect the father's medical and physical risks.

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
So as long as its about "choices", it would only seem logical that if the man has no choice in the decision as to whether his unborn son or daughter is killed at the hands of the mother, he should be able to choose to not be financially obligated for that child if he never intended to create it, and the mother chooses to have it and raise it anyway, right? That would be fair, right?

[Long Night Moon 13]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
I use Durex.

http://www.amazon.com/dgp-Extra-Small-Condoms...

[Guppy]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The same way the progressives co-opt the useful idiots that can rationalize that just because it's in the womb, that its not a human. Its not only possible, but the holocaust goes on still everyday. You couch the argument with ambiguities like "choice", "rights", "fairness" as if its just about you. The biggest challenge for the selfish to comprehend is that it always has to be about themselves, and be damned with anybody else. Rounding up and killing millions has happened in mans history to many times, and the ignorant and complacent will see to it that it happens again. It takes real courage to stand in opposition of the mobs thinking, and cowardice to stand with them even when your soul tells you their wrong.

You are funny. No one said just because it's in the womb, that it's not a human. It's the beginning of human life.
Do you ever stand up for what's right? I mean, stand up for what's right when you are the only one for it?
Holocaust - A sacrifice consumed by fire.

Holocaust - A thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life esp. through fire.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
How can the Rangers start generating a little more offense ?

Bathe less.

[Guppy]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
I use Durex. And what has THAT got to do with the issue of whether or not a fetus is considered a person ?
You're better off sticking to your cute little "fundie" jabs. Cause when you attempt to actually argue the facts or the actual merits of your position....you demonstrate you are woefully out of your league.
<quoted text>
How can the Rangers start generating a little more offense ?

You are like a little kid in school. Raises hand. Teacher, teacher! I use Durex!
What is Durex? Why did you feel the need to mention that?

[Guppy]

Who knew that men cared about abortion? I thought their only contribution was to write a check.

[Guppy]

hmmm wrote:

<quoted text> Hitler ordered at least three million Jews, Catholics , etc killed. There have been fifty five million and counting abortions in this Country alone, five times that in the world.

Hitler wanted Catholics killed! OMG! Why? They didn't do anything wrong.

[Guppy]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Your pathetic!

Hahahaha. Is that supposed to be a compliment?