Doc Degall

Your logic is pure idiocy. While the odds are certainly stacked against those born into adversity, the innocent unborn are either worthy of protection or they are not. It's not a decision based on their chances of becoming well adjusted adults. The world is full of people who bucked the odds and became loving, successful well adjusted adults despite being born into adverse conditions. So based on the fact that the odds are against them developing into well adjusted adults YOU will put yourself in the position of deciding whether or not they are worthy to live or die ? Kiss my azz. (22 hrs ago | post #32900)

There you go with your catch all "context " again. You use that a lot as a safety net don't you ? Of course she didn't say it. So you ARE percepting for her. I'll acknowledge that she wasn't offering sympathy to anyone but "true believers", as she said as much in her post. But NO WHERE does she say that she does not perceive those on here not to be true believers. NO WHERE. Doesn't even hint at it. She may have said that she disagrees with the pro lifers on here but that in no way means she perceives them as not true believers. Whether you like it or not you perceived for her. (23 hrs ago | post #32894)

Then point to where she says her perception is that those on here are not true believers. (23 hrs ago | post #32890)

Duh.....sad really. Numbnuts I can read the Constitution. That puts me one up on you in the field of reading comprehension. (Yesterday | post #32882)

I understand perfectly. Now answer the question....why are you percepting for Kathy ? (Yesterday | post #32881)

You're all over the place. Do you even know what the frig you're talkin about anymore ? Now you're talking about the Supreme Courts INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Had you stuck with that argument I would have had little to respond to. But even in the RvW decision the SC themselves acknowledged that the Constitution "DOES NOT DEFINE PERSON IN SO MANY WORDS". They merely say that it is their interpretation that within the context in which the word PERSON is used they conclude that it does not include the unborn. But at the same time they acknowledge that the Constitution DOES NOT define person. Stick with the SC interpretation instead of blindly and WRONGLY insisting that the Constitution iteself defines PERSON....which it absolutely DID NOT. Ya big dumbbell ya. (Yesterday | post #27646)

What ? You're no frightwinger ? Then why would you call yourself that ? I mean you're not stupid are you ? You can read the handwriting on the wall. It's a matter of simple arithmetic, for Gods sake. Don't you have any sense?!! Don't you have a brain!? Are you so completely senile that you don't know what you're talkin about anymore !!?! (Yesterday | post #27642)

Stop with this you nitwit. It's been posted so often I can recite this in my sleep. IT DEFINES A CITIZEN.....NOT A PERSON. " A person born or naturalized in the U.S is a CITIZEN of the U.S." Terrific that tells me what the qualifications are to be a US citizen. Nothing more ! It in no way......GET IT.......NO WAY defines what the qualifications are to be a PERSON. Let's take this by the numbers you mental midget. Substitute the word "widget" for the word "person" in that 14th amendament clause : "All widgets born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US." Fine, but now that begs the question....just what is a widget ? Is it defined anywhere in that same 14th amendment ? Of course it isn't. Same as PERSON is not defined in the 14th amendment. (Yesterday | post #27641)

Some more than others. Ol' Scotty P here being a case in point. (Yesterday | post #32870)

See ? You STILL don't know. Even MORE tragic. Why are you percepting for Kathy ? She made no distinction nor any exceptions to her statement that her" heart went out to the true believers". I only read your posts once. I can't stomach any repeats. (Yesterday | post #32869)

Ah...ah..ah, watch yourself ma'am. The statute of limitations on stupidity has not expired. The 14th amendment says no such thing. Not even close. All it says is that you need to be "born or naturalized in the U.S. in order to be considered a citizen of the U.S.". Nothing more. No matter how many times you say it, that will NEVER change. (Yesterday | post #27637)

As a "frightwinger " do you hate liberty also ? (Yesterday | post #27635)

A militant believer like me ? Where did I ever say I was a militant believer ? I never professed to be anything more than a cafeteria Catholic. I was speaking on behalf of the true believers on here, not myself. And my opposition to abortion was never based on my faith but an acknowledgement of a fundamental wrong. So once again your assessment of me is wrong. No surprise there. All of you pro aborters have a tendency to jump to inaccurate conclusions. The fact is if Pup were a "true believer" (you know, the kind that Kathy expressed sympathy for ) she could not be pro life and "refuse to get into another's uterus", for a really true believer recognizes abortion for the fundamental wrong it is and could never oppose it personally but acknowledge it as an option for others. So, actually the sympathy that Kathy professed for the "true believers" does NOT apply to Pup, for she cannot, based on your description of her belief, be a true believer. (Yesterday | post #32865)

What are you.....a mind reader ? How do you OR she know who is a true believer and who isn't ? Just because they may say things that you don't agree with they are all of a sudden not true believers ? The reality is the the true believers that she so sympathizes with would probably say exactly the same thing as those on here when it comes to the defense of the innocent unborn. And if they came on here and did exactly that they'd be labelled as NOT true belivers faster than you could say " I never said I personally oppose abortion...you took it outta context". Your bullshitting did in fact belittle you. You just don't know it. That makes it even more tragic. (Yesterday | post #32863)