The Problem with the Pro-Choice Movement
SereneBabe
The subject line of this message is the title of my most recent column
(URL is in the sig) -- will you check it out?
--
Heather
**********************
"It's All About Me!" a weekly column by SereneBabe
http://members.aol.com/serenebabe/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
enfant terrible
> (Please excuse the cross-posting, sometimes I can't resist.)
>
> The subject line of this message is the title of my most recent
> column (URL is in the sig) -- will you check it out?
Nice essay - misleading title! :-)
I don't know of any pro-choicer who is irrevocably married to
surgical abortion as an end-all/be-all solution to unwanted
pregnancies. Yet it's funny how the majority of anti-abortion
folks are also opposed to artificial birth control.
Salome
enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> SereneBabe <seren...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > (Please excuse the cross-posting, sometimes I can't resist.)
> >
> > The subject line of this message is the title of my most recent
> > column (URL is in the sig) -- will you check it out?
>
> Nice essay - misleading title! :-)
>
> I don't know of any pro-choicer who is irrevocably married to
> surgical abortion as an end-all/be-all solution to unwanted
> pregnancies. Yet it's funny how the majority of anti-abortion
> folks are also opposed to artificial birth control.
Admittedly I haven't read the article yet, but EF's comment interests
me. I should point out that abortion and artifical birth control aren't
separate issues in regards to Catholic teachings on sexual morality, so
that would explain why Catholics, at least (I can't speak for others),
are opposed to both. Abortion involves the direct destruction of a
human life. Artificial birth control allows the sexual relationship
between spouses to take precedence in their marriage by directly
interfering in pro-creation, which is God's greatest gift to us. Now, I
know the argument is that parents should have the freedom to decide
whether or *not* to have children. But there you're getting into a
whole conversation about what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of
the Church. Its controversial. Anytime you tell someone they can't do
something, there's going to be a fight. The Church is simply saying
that the pro-creative act (sex) is a gift in a marriage and not merely
a means of pleasure and gratification. And that love is naturally
generative, expressing itself through the gift of children.
Hope that helps.
Salome
enfant terrible
> enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I don't know of any pro-choicer who is irrevocably married to
> > surgical abortion as an end-all/be-all solution to unwanted
> > pregnancies. Yet it's funny how the majority of anti-abortion
> > folks are also opposed to artificial birth control.
> Admittedly I haven't read the article yet, but EF's comment interests
> me. I should point out that abortion and artifical birth control
> aren't separate issues in regards to Catholic teachings on sexual
> morality, so that would explain why Catholics, at least (I can't
> speak for others), are opposed to both.
I understand what the RCC teaches quite well, thank you. One could
argue back and forth regarding the validity of that teaching, but
what is of greater concern to me is the RCC's attempts to codify
its beliefs into secular law. I would not accept that any more than
a Catholic would accept having to pray a Protestant prayer with
content she regards as heretical.
> Abortion involves the direct destruction of a human life. Artificial
> birth control allows the sexual relationship between spouses to take
> precedence in their marriage by directly interfering in pro-creation,
> which is God's greatest gift to us. Now, I know the argument is that
> parents should have the freedom to decide whether or *not* to have
> children. But there you're getting into a whole conversation about
> what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of the Church. Its
> controversial. Anytime you tell someone they can't do something,
> there's going to be a fight. The Church is simply saying that the
> pro-creative act (sex) is a gift in a marriage and not merely a
> means of pleasure and gratification. And that love is naturally
> generative, expressing itself through the gift of children.
Unless you're leaving out important details, the impression I get
from the above summary is that the RCC's teaching was formulated in
a vacuum, without reference to RealLife[tm]. What about sex between
couples where there is no possibility of procreation? Are post-
menopausal women and infertile men simply to abstain? If there is
no hope of children (or no plans for more children), is there no
genuine love?
And here's a nice bit of sophistry for you to unravel: if a pregnancy
results from a rape, does that make rape procreative and generative
in the same way that love is procreative and generative?
Salome
enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I understand what the RCC teaches quite well, thank you. One could
> argue back and forth regarding the validity of that teaching, but
> what is of greater concern to me is the RCC's attempts to codify
> its beliefs into secular law. I would not accept that any more than
> a Catholic would accept having to pray a Protestant prayer with
> content she regards as heretical.
First of all, I don't know why you sound so bitter. Did I do something
to you? Anyway, I honestly don't know what you mean by the Church's
"attempts to codify it's beliefs into secular law". Birth control is
legal in this country, unlike in some predominatly Catholic countries.
Unless I'm missing some pertinent news bulletins, I've seen no evidence
that Catholic watchdogs are storming the offices of major lawmakers in
an attempt to undermine our freedom to get our hands on birth control.
We may not *like* birth control, but I don't see anyone trying to make
it illegal...at least not on the grounds that it's immoral. Maybe if
doctors proved it was harmful to women, that would be different. Still,
that would be a case for the FDA, not the Catholic Church.
> Unless you're leaving out important details, the impression I get
> from the above summary is that the RCC's teaching was formulated in
> a vacuum, without reference to RealLife[tm]. What about sex between
> couples where there is no possibility of procreation? Are post-
> menopausal women and infertile men simply to abstain? If there is
> no hope of children (or no plans for more children), is there no
> genuine love?
Come on, don't make us both look stupid. This comment is way
simplistic. Of *course* persons past the childbearing age and persons
unable to have children don't fall into the category of people "closing
themselves off to the gift of life". Being sterile is a situation
beyond anyone's control and being post-menopausal is simply biological.
Of course there is genuine love between spouses unable to have
children. In many cases they even adopt or seek other ways to fill
their lives, such as with volunteer work, community service, or
something like that.
>
> And here's a nice bit of sophistry for you to unravel: if a pregnancy
> results from a rape, does that make rape procreative and generative
> in the same way that love is procreative and generative?
No it doesn't, but that woman's decision to keep and love her child IS
procreative and generative.
Salome
Josie Burgin Lawson
> In article <7phgsu$87d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > enfant terrible <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > I understand what the RCC teaches quite well, thank you. One could
> > argue back and forth regarding the validity of that teaching, but
> > what is of greater concern to me is the RCC's attempts to codify
> > its beliefs into secular law. I would not accept that any more than
> > a Catholic would accept having to pray a Protestant prayer with
> > content she regards as heretical.
>
> First of all, I don't know why you sound so bitter. Did I do something
> to you? Anyway, I honestly don't know what you mean by the Church's
> "attempts to codify it's beliefs into secular law". Birth control is
> legal in this country, unlike in some predominatly Catholic countries.
> Unless I'm missing some pertinent news bulletins, I've seen no evidence
> that Catholic watchdogs are storming the offices of major lawmakers in
> an attempt to undermine our freedom to get our hands on birth control.
No, they're much more subtle than that: they redefine birth control as
"abortifacient" in order to have it banned and they harass drug
companies into abandoning sales and research on various birth contro
methods. The right-wing of the RCC leadership is the backbone of the
anti-choice movement, in the US at least, and their only interest is -
not the lives and health of women's, not preserving lives of zygotes,
blastocysts, embryos and fetuses - but, generally, wresting away from
people the right to privacy with reguard to sexual matters and,
specifically, wresting away from women the right to reject any sperm
that might have been deposited in their "vessels" (makes me want to do
a bad Star Trek Chekov, "Wessels"), even in the case of rape.
> We may not *like* birth control, but I don't see anyone trying to make
> it illegal...
Then you're not looking.
> at least not on the grounds that it's immoral.
No, they've come up with all kinds of slimy smoke screens in order to
pursue the same old goals.
>Maybe if
> doctors proved it was harmful to women, that would be different. Still,
> that would be a case for the FDA, not the Catholic Church.
And the same people are trying to influence the FDA - look at the
recent legislative attrocity over the "morning after pill."
<snip>
> Come on, don't make us both look stupid. This comment is way
> simplistic. Of *course* persons past the childbearing age and persons
> unable to have children don't fall into the category of people "closing
> themselves off to the gift of life". Being sterile is a situation
> beyond anyone's control and being post-menopausal is simply biological.
And, until this century, the leadership of the RCC banned sterile
people from marrying and older couples from having sex because they
considered it "immoral" to have sex if you can't reproduce. At core,
their attitude hasn't changed. I suspect alot of the myths that
western culture has about older people and sexuality, and women and
sexuality have been completely due to the bizarre strictures
instituted by the more prudish leaders of the RCC.
<snip>
Be well, Josie
======================================================
"For the reason of laughter, since laughter is surely
The surest touch of genius in creation.
[Thomas, from Act Two of Christopher Fry's
_The Lady's Not For Burning]
======================================================
Arthur Welsley
Salome wrote:
> Anyway, I honestly don't know what you mean by the Church's
> "attempts to codify it's beliefs into secular law". Birth control is
> legal in this country, unlike in some predominatly Catholic countries.
> Unless I'm missing some pertinent news bulletins, I've seen no evidence
> that Catholic watchdogs are storming the offices of major lawmakers in
> an attempt to undermine our freedom to get our hands on birth control.
> We may not *like* birth control, but I don't see anyone trying to make
> it illegal...at least not on the grounds that it's immoral. Maybe if
> doctors proved it was harmful to women, that would be different. Still,
> that would be a case for the FDA, not the Catholic Church.
Hey, I come from VERY Catholic country and we always had birth control
legal!!!
In all Eastern Europe never heard about country like that. How about
South America?
I'm also against birth control, but it is good to keep it legal ( were
people can decide for themselves ) unlike the abortion
which should be illegal- we are never free to kill...
Magdalene W.
Rev. Donald Spitz
IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow conception,
but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
Birth control should be illegal.
--
Mark 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
http://www.ArmyOfGod.com
up2u
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
> IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
conception,
> but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> Birth control should be illegal.
> -
Welcome to the 50's. Next you'll want to ban all occupations for women
except housewife and nun. What strikes me is how none of this is any
of your business. And thank God the law is on the side of women.
Lesley Dove
<Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
>IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow conception,
>but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
>Birth control should be illegal.
I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
aftermath of it myself, but what is your objection to barrier methods
of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
>--
>Mark 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body,
>but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him
>which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
>http://www.ArmyOfGod.com
If you don't fear that which kills the body only, why are you
anti-abortion?
I ask this from the viewpoint of an atheist pro-lifer. I believe in no
life after death, so I respect life, it's all we get IMO.
Lesley Dove - yes everyone, I'm back from the eclipse, and it was a
cloudy wet wash out :-(
Josie Burgin Lawson
wrote:
>
>
> Salome wrote:
>
>
> > Anyway, I honestly don't know what you mean by the Church's
> > "attempts to codify it's beliefs into secular law". Birth control is
> > legal in this country, unlike in some predominatly Catholic countries.
> > Unless I'm missing some pertinent news bulletins, I've seen no evidence
> > that Catholic watchdogs are storming the offices of major lawmakers in
> > an attempt to undermine our freedom to get our hands on birth control.
> > We may not *like* birth control, but I don't see anyone trying to make
> > it illegal...at least not on the grounds that it's immoral. Maybe if
> > doctors proved it was harmful to women, that would be different. Still,
> > that would be a case for the FDA, not the Catholic Church.
>
> Hey, I come from VERY Catholic country and we always had birth control
> legal!!!
But how much was actually available? The right-wing faction of the RCC
in the US has been very successful at keeping more effective methods
of birth control (which have been generally available in Europe) out
of the hands of American Women.
<snip>
> I'm also against birth control, but it is good to keep it legal ( were
> people can decide for themselves ) unlike the abortion
> which should be illegal- we are never free to kill...
We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
growing there, whether or not you approve.
Just as with birth control, "it is good to keep it legal (where[sic]
people can decide for themselves."
hereti...@my-deja.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
> <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>
> >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
the
> >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
conception,
> >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> >Birth control should be illegal.
>
> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
> aftermath of it myself,
Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
ill. Nuts. Over the points.
You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
> but what is your objection to barrier methods
> of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
> I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
> I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
You are insane. You need help. And in the UK, unlike here,
YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
reverend here if you don't do something about it.
Arthur Welsley
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
> <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> in <37C0535B...@ArmyofGod.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
> >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow conception,
> >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> >Birth control should be illegal.
>
> Our favorite ugly little troll has now been heard from with his usual
> useless comment. He can crawl back under his rock now.
If you have nothing of value to say, don't waste your breath. I find
Rev.D.S. comment very useful and I have to agree with Rev.
Magdalene W.
hereti...@my-deja.com
awel...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> If you have nothing of value to say, don't waste your breath.
Take your own advice, catholic boy.
> I find
> Rev.D.S. comment very useful and I have to agree with Rev.
you would.
You are part of a cult that deifies a woman who never existed,
at least not in the bible, and has glorified dead virgins and
women who died horribly, preferably during rape.
Now go out and molest an altar boy or whatever else you do
for fun.
Paul Yost
Remove "SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.
Arthur Welsley <awel...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<37C040B9...@hotmail.com>...
>
>
> Salome wrote:
>
>
> > Anyway, I honestly don't know what you mean by the Church's
> > "attempts to codify it's beliefs into secular law". Birth control is
> > legal in this country, unlike in some predominatly Catholic countries.
> > Unless I'm missing some pertinent news bulletins, I've seen no evidence
> > that Catholic watchdogs are storming the offices of major lawmakers in
> > an attempt to undermine our freedom to get our hands on birth control.
> > We may not *like* birth control, but I don't see anyone trying to make
> > it illegal...at least not on the grounds that it's immoral. Maybe if
> > doctors proved it was harmful to women, that would be different. Still,
> > that would be a case for the FDA, not the Catholic Church.
> Hey, I come from VERY Catholic country and we always had birth control
> legal!!!
> In all Eastern Europe never heard about country like that. How about
> South America?
> I'm also against birth control, but it is good to keep it legal ( were
> people can decide for themselves ) unlike the abortion
> which should be illegal- we are never free to kill...
>
> Magdalene W.
What country was that? Tell us about Romania, where abortion was illegal,
but unwanted children ended up in the most appalling orphanages. A few
months in a Romanian orphanage can require years of psychological,
emotional, and physical therapy to correct.
God forbid we should allow abortion, but it is ok to let the children
starve after they are born, or use them for target practice as is done by
the police in that predominantly catholic south american country, Brazil.
The dump kids don't even have orphanages. They just live in the garbage
heaps outside of town. Shop keepers look the other way when the police bag
these kids because it cuts down on shoplifting.
If every child born was wanted by both parents, they would most likely be
able to support it and raise it in a loving and nurturing environment.
This would significantly reduce both poverty and crime, as we have already
seen. I can't think of any reason anyone, least of all a religious
organization, would oppose such outcomes, save they thought perhaps their
best opportunities for recruits were among the poor, downtrodden, and
criminal elements...
Chris Lyman
# proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote:
# > "Rev. Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
# > >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
# > >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow conception,
# > >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
# > >Birth control should be illegal.
# > Our favorite ugly little troll has now been heard from with his usual
# > useless comment. He can crawl back under his rock now.
# If you have nothing of value to say, don't waste your breath. I find
# Rev.D.S. comment very useful and I have to agree with Rev.
First of all, "Reverend" Don's information is inaccurate and out of date.
More importantly, Spitzie is out and proud in favor of killing doctors
and anyone else who disagrees with him on abortion and/or birth
control. Remember John Salvi? Spitzie's *unlisted* phone number
was in his possession at the time of his arrest. I've asked Spitzie
about that several times, but have never received a response. If
you want to make common cause with that creep, be my guest, but
don't expect many warm wishes from *either* side of the debate.
ps - by Spitzie's lights, if you are even the tiniest bit to the left
of him on reproductive issues, you're a BabyKillingProAbort[tm].
Hope that helps.
--
Chris Lyman
Send email to chris-dot-lyman-atsign-pclink-dot-com
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
Lesley Dove
>In article <37c12aeb...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>> <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
>the
>> >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
>conception,
>> >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
>> >Birth control should be illegal.
>>
>> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
>> aftermath of it myself,
>
>Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>
>You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>
>> but what is your objection to barrier methods
>> of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
>> I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
>> I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
>
>You are insane. You need help. And in the UK, unlike here,
>YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
>reverend here if you don't do something about it.
Heretic, I am touched by your ongoing concern for me and my family -
not.
Now go away and mind someone else's business.
Lesley Dove
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.abortion, Rev. Donald Spitz <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com>
wrote on Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT <37C0535B...@ArmyofGod.com>:
>A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
>IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow conception,
>but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
>Birth control should be illegal.
Well, you heard it here first, folks. The Reverend has
declared that women are second-class citizens and
should not have any fun. :-)
Hey Rev, what about NFP? The most unreliable birth control
on the planet, but it's not an abortifacient.
How about condoms? They're not abortifacients -- unless one
counts the denial of sperm and egg meeting "abortion".
(That's assuming, of course, that one is used and it doesn't break.)
I'll admit, birth control pills might be a gray area,
especially considering the confusion (in my mind, anyway)
regarding conception -- is it fertilization, implantation,
or first detectability of the implantation by chemical means?
And then, Rev, you get to explain *why* birth control
should be illegal. Shit happens; so do abortions. (Spontaneous
ones, to be sure, but then, so do induced abortions.)
Trying to prevent induced abortions legally would abrogate
so many other rights that I'm surprised if anyone would
take the idea seriously.
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- "Woman slave? What woman slave?"
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:37:22 GMT <7ppqih$rfk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>In article <37C0535B...@ArmyofGod.com>,
> "Rev. Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>> A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
>> IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
>conception,
>> but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
>> Birth control should be illegal.
>
>Welcome to the 50's.
More like 5000 BC.... :-)
>Next you'll want to ban all occupations for women
>except housewife and nun. What strikes me is how none of this is any
>of your business. And thank God the law is on the side of women.
Actually, thank the lawmakers. :-) One would hope, however, that
a deity would in fact encourage men and women to participate
as equals in the great tapestry/game/etc. of life.
(And one would also hope said deity would gently correct, a la
Judith Martin, statements such as Spitzie's. Of course, in his
case, "gently" might be anything from a brick to a steamroller... :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- "Thick skull? What thick skull?"
hereti...@my-deja.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:46:39 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
> >> aftermath of it myself,
> >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
> >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
> >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
I'm serious, Lesley.
You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
Your lack of insight is just one of them.
> >You are insane. You need help. And in the UK, unlike here,
> >YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
> >reverend here if you don't do something about it.
>
> Heretic, I am touched by your ongoing concern for me and my family -
> not.
I just don't want to see you on one of Murdoch's papers,
on trial for butchering your kids or something.
> Now go away and mind someone else's business.
Sure, cunt.
Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
YOU are.
Why are you minding everyone else's business?
Lesley Dove
>In article <37c272fa...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:46:39 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>snip
>> >> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
>> >> aftermath of it myself,
>> >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>> >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>> >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>> >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>> >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>> >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>
>I'm serious, Lesley.
>You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
>Your lack of insight is just one of them.
My insight into the suffering of others clearly far exceeds yours.
>> >You are insane. You need help. And in the UK, unlike here,
>> >YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
>> >reverend here if you don't do something about it.
>>
>> Heretic, I am touched by your ongoing concern for me and my family -
>> not.
>
>I just don't want to see you on one of Murdoch's papers,
>on trial for butchering your kids or something.
>
>> Now go away and mind someone else's business.
>
>Sure, cunt.
>Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
>not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
>and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
>YOU are.
>Why are you minding everyone else's business?
Because of my insight into the terrible suffering of the animals and
the unborn babies. I have more understanding and empathy for other
living beings than you are capable of, so obviously I am not going to
butcher my children. Of course you would do the same to your own,
before they were born, so you are projecting much of the worst of
yourself onto me.
I am sorry to hear that you are torturing yourself with such
frightening thoughts about me, but I can only suggest that maybe you
are in need of help and leave it at that. I cannot be responsible for
your continued delusions about my mental state.
Lesley Dove
hereti...@my-deja.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:08:21 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
> >> >> aftermath of it myself,
> >> >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
> >> >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> >> >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
> >> >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> >> >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> >> >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
> >I'm serious, Lesley.
> >You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
> >Your lack of insight is just one of them.
> My insight into the suffering of others clearly far exceeds yours.
No, dear. We are talking about lack of insight abour YOUR
behavior that causes YOU to behave in manners others find
offensive, objectionable, ludicrous, offensive, and annoying.
You wonder why you are ostracized, and cannot see that your
own conduct drives people away. Your complete rejection of
all medical and psychological advice, both from professions
and lay people, might clue you in on something:
People agree you are a daft git.
snip
> >> Now go away and mind someone else's business.
> >Sure, cunt.
> >Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
> >not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
> >and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
> >YOU are.
> >Why are you minding everyone else's business?
>
> Because of my insight into the terrible suffering of the animals and
> the unborn babies.
"Unborn babies" cannot suffer.
Perhaps if you stop beleiveing in cult propaganda and deal with
reality, you'd understand that statements like that are why so
many, in this medium and no doubt in your personal life, can't
stand you and think you are a village idiot.
Not that there's anything ~wrong~ with that.
>I have more understanding and empathy for other
> living beings than you are capable of,
You cannot know that. You cannot prove that.
Therefore, it is more self-serving and rationalizing cognitions
you have formed to reduce what must be a honking case of cognitive
dissonance.
> so obviously I am not going to
> butcher my children.
I'm sure that Susan Smith said the same thing.
In fact, if you search the records, you will find that there
have been innumerable cases of women, who feel isolated socially,
under financial pressure, who DO butcher their children,
Invariably, the reaction of all those who knew the accused
say what a lovely woman and loving mother she was.
>Of course you would do the same to your own,
> before they were born, so you are projecting much of the worst of
> yourself onto me.
Nope. YOu did just that, however.
I realized that I was not cut out for child care, and
saw to it I'd never have to. You fucked up, got
knocked up, and now want everybody else to pity you,
take responsibility for you, and never ever ever say
anything you don't like.
> I am sorry to hear that you are torturing yourself with such
> frightening thoughts about me,
Torturing myself?
Hardly. You are fun to bait, you are very predicable,
you charge out like a possom on crack, foaming at the mouth
and raging inarticulately.
You do, however, fit a few profiles.
You are under stress.
People do break under the sort of strain you report.
> but I can only suggest that maybe you
> are in need of help and leave it at that. I cannot be responsible for
> your continued delusions about my mental state.
No, dearie. Your own words indicate your mental state,
let's hope they aren't used against you in a court of law.
Salome
awel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Hey, I come from VERY Catholic country and we always had birth control
> legal!!!
> In all Eastern Europe never heard about country like that. How about
> South America?
> I'm also against birth control, but it is good to keep it legal (
were
> people can decide for themselves ) unlike the abortion
> which should be illegal- we are never free to kill...
>
> Magdalene W.
Your remarks fall part like so much dust. Come on, you think birth
control is ~wrong~ but women should be free to get hold of it? Many pro-
choicers say the same about abortion: "I think it's wrong, but women
should be able to choose." Pick a view and stick to it! If something--
anything--is wrong, then why would you support the choice to do it??
That's a ridiculous point of view. Completely illogical.
Salome
Salome
Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:48:21, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> No, they're much more subtle than that: they redefine birth control as
> "abortifacient" in order to have it banned and they harass drug
> companies into abandoning sales and research on various birth contro
> methods.
You're telling me it ~isn't~ an abortifacient? I think I know some
people in the medical profession who would argue you down on that one.
Ah, but I guess they are probably part of the RCC conspiracy, right?
You're sounding an awful lot like Hilary Clinton there.
The right-wing of the RCC leadership is the backbone of the
> anti-choice movement, in the US at least, and their only interest is -
> not the lives and health of women's, not preserving lives of zygotes,
> blastocysts, embryos and fetuses - but, generally, wresting away from
> people the right to privacy with reguard to sexual matters and,
> specifically, wresting away from women the right to reject any sperm
> that might have been deposited in their "vessels" (makes me want to do
> a bad Star Trek Chekov, "Wessels"), even in the case of rape.
Oh, bore, bore, bore, bore. Stop whining and wake up! You're telling me
that abortion is in the best interests of women everywhere? Snap out of
it! I have never, never met ONE woman who had an abortion and didn't
wish that she would have or could have made a different decision. If
abortion is such a good solution, and is so safe for women, then why do
so many women regret that part of their lives? This isn't like "I
regret I wore the black dress instead of the red dress to the company
cocktail party." This is real, down-in-the-soul regret. And they never
get over it. Why ~is~ that? Part of the conspiracy? And furthermore,
you make yourself sound real ignorant with your bitching about the RCC.
Don't you know that Hindus and many African tribes consider abortion an
ABOMINATION? There are some African tribes that don't even have a word
for abortion in their language because the prospect of killing a child
in the womb is so unthinkable. And many, many Christian non-Catholics
abhor abortion as well, and Jews.
> Then you're not looking.
No. ~You're~ not looking. You're not looking at what abortion does to
the lives of women. What it does to men. It makes men look down on
woemn, makes them treat women as they we were expendable. They can use
and abuse a woman, no matter. She can always have an abortion and the
man is off the hook. Abortion forces the man to not have to take
responsibilty for his actions, to think twice about the consequences of
his actions. Abortion scars scars a women's conscience. Mother Teresa
said "Abortion is the greatest cause of war. Because, if a mother can
kill the child in her womb, what's to stop me from killing you?"
> No, they've come up with all kinds of slimy smoke screens in order to
> pursue the same old goals.
Nobody knows more about slimy smokescreens than pro-abortionists. Or
pro-choicers, whatver you call yourselves. It amounts to the same thing.
> And the same people are trying to influence the FDA - look at the
> recent legislative attrocity over the "morning after pill."
Are you surprised? The real "atrocity" is the morning after pill.
> And, until this century, the leadership of the RCC banned sterile
> people from marrying and older couples from having sex because they
> considered it "immoral" to have sex if you can't reproduce.
Prove it.
> At core,
> their attitude hasn't changed.
You're a liar. The Church is the ~only~ true supporter of loving, safe,
and healthy sexual relationships--within marriage, of course.
> I suspect alot of the myths that
> western culture has about older people and sexuality, and women and
> sexuality have been completely due to the bizarre strictures
> instituted by the more prudish leaders of the RCC.
Right, of course. Certainly not the Hasidim, who have sexual
intercourse with a sheet and a hole cut in it to separate the man and
woman. You sound so stupid. Have you not ever read the Song of Soloman,
which is in our Bible? The Song, while interpreted as a love hymn
between God and man on one level, is full of of sexual images and
romantic images on another level, clearly meant to show the beauty of
the sexual relationship between spouses. Oh, but we're ~so~ prudish.
Salome
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are the
> IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
conception,
> but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> Birth control should be illegal.
Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on this.
The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook up
their theories about our views on birth control and how we just won't
control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth control
is actually dangerous. In countries such as India and Africa, they have
never even ~heard~ of some of the cancers that women in the west have:
uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer. All are
rampant in the west and all are cancers which attack the sexual organs.
And birth control has ~nothing~ to do with this? Birth control is
killing women.
Salome
up2u <ms...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37C0535B...@ArmyofGod.com>,
> "Rev. Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> > A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
the
> > IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
> conception,
> > but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> > Birth control should be illegal.
>
> Welcome to the 50's. Next you'll want to ban all occupations for
women
> except housewife and nun. What strikes me is how none of this is any
> of your business. And thank God the law is on the side of women.
And you're an idiot to even make these remarks. None of our business?
Since when is the health and safety of other human beings not our
business? And what's wrong with housewives and nuns? God bless both
occupations. They are hard workers and carry out huge responsibilities
and do a great service to society. A woman who chooses to work in the
home rather than outside the home (if she can afford to do so) is a
wonderful woman. And nuns carry out duties for the community with their
charity work. Or, are you so ignorant that you think nuns stay in doors
all day and do nothing except fiddle with their rosary beads? I know
nuns and housewives and they are some of the most stable, happy, and
well-balanced women I know of. I would love to be in either of those
occupations. And I wasn't raised in the 50's either. I was raised in
the 80's. I am a modern and independent woman. Not uptight and angst-
ridden like yourself.
And the law isn't on the side of women. The law is on the side of rich
law officials and wealthy businesses. Thank God ~God~ is on the side of
Salome
> <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>
> >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
the
> >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
conception,
> >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> >Birth control should be illegal.
>
> of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
> I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
> I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is that
they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
There's you answer to why condoms aren't ok.
Salome
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37c12aeb...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
> > <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
> the
> > >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
> conception,
> > >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> > >Birth control should be illegal.
> >
> > I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
> > aftermath of it myself,
>
> has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>
> You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave this woman alone? You are
sick, you know that? How dare you say this crap to her! What's wrong?
Are you afraid that her experience will turn women off from the M-A
pill, you selfish bastard? Maybe you'd like to hear about women dying
from this thing in the morning paper, huh Adolf? You sick-twist.
Salome
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37c272fa...@news.connect4free.net>,
> > >> aftermath of it myself,
> > >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
> > >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> > >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
> > >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> > >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> > >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>
> You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
> Your lack of insight is just one of them.
>
> > >YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
> > >reverend here if you don't do something about it.
> >
> > Heretic, I am touched by your ongoing concern for me and my family -
> > not.
>
> I just don't want to see you on one of Murdoch's papers,
> on trial for butchering your kids or something.
>
>
> Sure, cunt.
> Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
> not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
> and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
> YOU are.
> Why are you minding everyone else's business?
Your remarks to Lesley are disgusting and rude as well as ~violent~. In
my opinion, Lesley show show these posts to the kind folks at Deja and
see if something can't be done about you.
Salome
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> No, dear. We are talking about lack of insight abour YOUR
> behavior that causes YOU to behave in manners others find
> offensive, objectionable, ludicrous, offensive, and annoying.
> You wonder why you are ostracized, and cannot see that your
> own conduct drives people away. Your complete rejection of
> all medical and psychological advice, both from professions
> and lay people, might clue you in on something:
> People agree you are a daft git.
There are no "others" involved here. There is just you, Harry, and your
sick tirade.
Salome
Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>
> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> growing there, whether or not you approve.
Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
Salomeh
Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> Oh, bore, bore, bore, bore. Stop whining and wake up! You're telling
> me that abortion is in the best interests of women everywhere?
No...it is in the best ineterest of women everywhere to be able to make
their OWN choices-not have the government mandate a course of action
for them.
> Snap out of it! I have never, never met ONE woman who had an abortion
> and didn't wish that she would have or could have made a different
> decision.
Hey...my only regret is that my birth control failed in the first
place. I have no regrets about the decision I've made. Guess you don't
get out much.....
> If abortion is such a good solution, and is so safe for women, then
> why do so many women regret that part of their lives? This isn't
> like "I regret I wore the black dress instead of the red dress to the
> company cocktail party." This is real, down-in-the-soul regret.
Because all women are different which is why a 0ne-size-fits-all
solution will only make matters worse.
> And they never get over it.
Sounds like they have other problems...most women go on with their
lives.
> Don't you know that Hindus and many African tribes consider abortion
> an ABOMINATION? There are some African tribes that don't even have a
> word for abortion in their language because the prospect of killing a
> child in the womb is so unthinkable.
And they are entitled to their opinions-but not to force their opinions
on me.
> And many, many Christian non-Catholics abhor abortion as well, and
> Jews.
And many don't-including myself...what's your point?
> No. ~You're~ not looking.
And you're only seeing what you want to see.....
> You're not looking at what abortion does to the lives of women.
Freedom to decide when to procreate? And having options when your
birth control fails? Sounds good to me.
> What it does to men. It makes men look down on woemn, makes them
> treat women as they we were expendable. They can use and abuse a
> woman, no matter.
They can and have done that all throughout history. And taking away a
woman's right to her body isn't going to change that. And it always
matters to the woman....
> She can always have an abortion and the man is off the hook.
And the woman is not left alone to raise a child herself, most often in
poverty..
> Abortion forces the man to not have to take responsibilty for his
> actions, to think twice about the consequences of his actions.
Responsibility? As opposed to men who run out on their wives leaving
them in poverty? I think knowing your limitations and where you want
your life to go IS responsibility. And no woman's destiny should have
to be altered irrevocably by men....because men rarely do think twice
when it comes to getting laid.
> Abortion scars scars a women's conscience.
Not all women. You can not speak for the millions who have come
through it fine.
> Mother Teresa said "Abortion is the greatest cause of war. Because,
> if a mother can kill the child in her womb, what's to stop me from
> killing you?"
Gee...and I thought war was a POLITICAL problem.
> Nobody knows more about slimy smokescreens than pro-abortionists. Or
> pro-choicers, whatver you call yourselves. It amounts to the same
> thing.
And an example of this would be what?
> Are you surprised? The real "atrocity" is the morning after pill.
Not for women who find out their pill didn't do the job.....for women
who are pregnant and do not want to be the morning after pill will be a
godsend when it is approved.
<snip>
> which is in our Bible? The Song, while interpreted as a love hymn
> between God and man on one level, is full of of sexual images and
> romantic images on another level, clearly meant to show the beauty of
> the sexual relationship between spouses. Oh, but we're ~so~ prudish.
>
> Salome
We are...sexual repression has long been the bastion of the religious
conservatives. Anyone who disagrees is branded a "slut"...well excuse
me...the WOMEN who disagree are called sluts...never hear about the men
they sleep with....
Salomeh
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle
and will piss on your computer."-Unknown
Salomeh
Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> And you're an idiot to even make these remarks.
Well actually it wasn't so long ago when those were the *ONLY*
acceptable options for women.
> None of our business? Since when is the health and safety of other
> human beings not our business?
Then put some of the energy you wast on zygotes and fetuses to work
where they will do some good-among those already born and homeless,
unemployed, etc.
> And what's wrong with housewives and nuns? God bless both
> occupations.
Nothing if that is their choice. If those are the only options, I call
it repression.
<snip>
> And the law isn't on the side of women. The law is on the side of rich
> law officials and wealthy businesses. Thank God ~God~ is on the side
> of women.
> Salome
REALLY? And where in the bible is there any reference to a woman being
*equal* to a man-deserving of the same rights?
Salomeh
--
Salomeh
Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> Your remarks fall part like so much dust. Come on, you think birth
> control is ~wrong~ but women should be free to get hold of it? Many
> pro- choicers say the same about abortion: "I think it's wrong, but
> women should be able to choose." Pick a view and stick to it! If
> something-- anything--is wrong, then why would you support the choice
> to do it?? That's a ridiculous point of view. Completely illogical.
>
> Salome
Because she can recognise that opinions differ and that just because it
may not be right for her, that does not mean the government should
mandate her wishes for all.
Salome
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7qh920$385$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Your remarks fall part like so much dust. Come on, you think birth
> > control is ~wrong~ but women should be free to get hold of it? Many
> > pro- choicers say the same about abortion: "I think it's wrong, but
> > women should be able to choose." Pick a view and stick to it! If
> > something-- anything--is wrong, then why would you support the
choice
> > to do it?? That's a ridiculous point of view. Completely illogical.
> >
> > Salome
>
> Because she can recognise that opinions differ and that just because
it
> may not be right for her, that does not mean the government should
> mandate her wishes for all.
> Salomeh
So, I want to sell crack to children on the streets. You might think
that's wrong, but it's right for me, because I need the money to pay my
rent and put food in my mouth. Well? Should the government step in and
take a way my freedom to do what's good for me, just because they
decide it's ~not~ good for others? Why should the government mandate
their wishes for all?
Salome
Salome
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7qhafa$4gl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, bore, bore, bore, bore. Stop whining and wake up! You're telling
> > me that abortion is in the best interests of women everywhere?
>
> No...it is in the best ineterest of women everywhere to be able to
make
> their OWN choices-not have the government mandate a course of action
> for them.
Do anything you want without consequence and without restriction.
That's what you are asking for from society. Would it make you happy if
we could just revert back to the cave-man era, before the world became
civilized? Then, we could just bludgeon our babies over the heads with
clubs as soon as they pop out of the birth canal. And kill off anyone
else who gets in our way.
> > Snap out of it! I have never, never met ONE woman who had an
abortion
> > and didn't wish that she would have or could have made a different
> > decision.
>
> Hey...my only regret is that my birth control failed in the first
> place. I have no regrets about the decision I've made. Guess you
don't
> get out much.....
Hey... good for you. Just another thing, right? Just like getting your
hair cut or your toenails trimmed. Did you get a look at the baby they
took from you?
> > If abortion is such a good solution, and is so safe for women, then
> > why do so many women regret that part of their lives? This isn't
> > like "I regret I wore the black dress instead of the red dress to
the
> > company cocktail party." This is real, down-in-the-soul regret.
>
> Because all women are different which is why a 0ne-size-fits-all
> solution will only make matters worse.
I would reply to this if it made any sense.
> > And they never get over it.
>
> Sounds like they have other problems...most women go on with their
> lives.
Right. Most women just get over it...like a bad head cold. Denial ain't
just a river in Egypt.
> > Don't you know that Hindus and many African tribes consider abortion
> > an ABOMINATION? There are some African tribes that don't even have a
> > word for abortion in their language because the prospect of killing
a
> > child in the womb is so unthinkable.
>
> And they are entitled to their opinions-but not to force their
opinions
> on me.
Duck and weave, duck and weave.
> > And many, many Christian non-Catholics abhor abortion as well, and
> > Jews.
> And many don't-including myself...what's your point?
My point? You didn't read? Then why are you here? My point is that the
author of the comments to which I was originally responding was
complaining bitterly about the RCC ~exclusively~. I was pointing out
that the RCC is not the only religion which views abortion as an
abomination, so why build a case asgainst us entirely. Is that clear
enough for you? Next time, please read thouroughly so I don't have to
repeat myself.
> > No. ~You're~ not looking.
>
> And you're only seeing what you want to see.....
Duck and weave, duck and weave. If I only wanted to see what I wanted
to see, then I wouldn't be in this NG talking to airheaded motormouths
like you, now would I?
> > You're not looking at what abortion does to the lives of women.
>
> Freedom to decide when to procreate? And having options when your
> birth control fails? Sounds good to me.
So good of you to snip the parts that backed up my reponse so that your
own response doesn't relate to my original point at all.
>
> > What it does to men. It makes men look down on woemn, makes them
> > treat women as they we were expendable. They can use and abuse a
> > woman, no matter.
>
> They can and have done that all throughout history. And taking away a
> woman's right to her body isn't going to change that. And it always
> matters to the woman....
]
So why don't women like ~you~ take better care of yourselves and not
get into situations where you have to fix "mistakes"? Lady, you can
make excuses all you want but you let a mad doctor take your baby from
you. You were in a position to protect that child. He had no one else
to protect him. You could have been a bigger woman and given that baby
to someone who would love him. I bet you wouldn't snap your cat's neck
if you felt it was time for it to go, would you? You're probably a
vegetarian, although I admit that's a wild guess. Want to humor me?
> > She can always have an abortion and the man is off the hook.
>
> And the woman is not left alone to raise a child herself, most often
in
> poverty..
What a liar you are. What a drama you invent just to justify your own
bad point of view. Why don't you just keep your legs closed and that
way no more babies have to die and we won't have to listen to your
heartless, uncompassionate, and tepid arguments on this NG anymore?
>
> > Abortion forces the man to not have to take responsibilty for his
> > actions, to think twice about the consequences of his actions.
>
> Responsibility? As opposed to men who run out on their wives leaving
> them in poverty? I think knowing your limitations and where you want
> your life to go IS responsibility. And no woman's destiny should have
> to be altered irrevocably by men....because men rarely do think twice
> when it comes to getting laid.
More drama. You are really laying tracks with this one: "Men rarely do
think twice when it comes to getting laid". Man, that is a ~good~ one!
But women like you ~gladly~ accomadate them, don't you?? Why are you
trying to come off like Miss Independence when you are so sexually
submissive to men? What hypocrisy. Do you even hear yourself?
>
> > Abortion scars scars a women's conscience.
>
> Not all women. You can not speak for the millions who have come
> through it fine.
Millions being the operative word. Millions of human beings with heart
beats and brain waves, dying on clinic beds and dumped afterwards in
incinerators. After the WWII holocaust, the whole world declared "never
again!". But it just isn't true. This is a holocaust. How blithely you
speak of killing. Your conscience is already hardened, that you have
zero remorse.
>
> > Mother Teresa said "Abortion is the greatest cause of war. Because,
> > if a mother can kill the child in her womb, what's to stop me from
> > killing you?"
>
> Gee...and I thought war was a POLITICAL problem.
Gee...I guess you thought ~wrong~. You really are misguided if you
think fighting and death is political in terme of political parties.
What do you think "political" means? It comes from POLIS meaning "the
people". Abortion is about ~people~. Get your education.
> > Nobody knows more about slimy smokescreens than pro-abortionists. Or
> > pro-choicers, whatver you call yourselves. It amounts to the same
> > thing.
>
> And an example of this would be what?
Everything that you've just said.
>
> > Are you surprised? The real "atrocity" is the morning after pill.
>
> Not for women who find out their pill didn't do the job.....for women
> who are pregnant and do not want to be the morning after pill will be
a
> godsend when it is approved.
Godsend? Interesting choice of terms, my dear. Well, let me clue you in
on a little something: God wants nothing to do with this.
>
> <snip>
> > which is in our Bible? The Song, while interpreted as a love hymn
> > between God and man on one level, is full of of sexual images and
> > romantic images on another level, clearly meant to show the beauty
of
> > the sexual relationship between spouses. Oh, but we're ~so~ prudish.
>
> We are...sexual repression has long been the bastion of the religious
> conservatives. Anyone who disagrees is branded a "slut"...well excuse
> me...the WOMEN who disagree are called sluts...never hear about the
men
> they sleep with....
Oh, boo-hoo. You know what you sound like? You sound like a kid in
elementary school who can't stand to get in trouble alone. She has to
narc on another kid too, because misery loves company. Do you really
think that ratting men out for their transgressions puts you in the
clear. Do you really think women should stoop that low: "Men behave
like whores, so women should be aloowed to also." You are so childish!
Salome
> > And you're an idiot to even make these remarks.
>
> Well actually it wasn't so long ago when those were the *ONLY*
> acceptable options for women.
Well, thanks for snipping the hell out of the previous post so that I
have no idea what you are mooing about. Nevermind, I'm sure I'll figure
it out by the time I wade through some more of your remarks.
>
> > None of our business? Since when is the health and safety of other
> > human beings not our business?
>
> Then put some of the energy you wast on zygotes and fetuses to work
> where they will do some good-among those already born and homeless,
> unemployed, etc.
No, you don't get off that easy. Miss Self-Righteous, why don't ~you~
ask yourself why they are homeless and destitute in the first place,
since you're such a humanitarian. Maybe it's becasue they are not loved
and respected as human beings...well, what do you respect? It starts in
the womb. By the way, ~your~ fetus had a heart beat, brain waves,
fingers and toes, and a nervous system at 8 weeks. And maybe, if given
the oppuurtunity, "he" would have grown up to be a noble and good young
man who wouldn't have mistreated women in the way that you despise so
much. Or maybe "she" would have been a free and independent young lady
with a zeal for life and everything good in it.
>
> > And what's wrong with housewives and nuns? God bless both
> > occupations.
>
> Nothing if that is their choice. If those are the only options, I
call
> it repression.
Who asked you? We weren't talking about repression here. Why are you
arguing with me in this post? Because I said nuns and housewives are
wonderful? There's nothing to argue about. Is your cat-pets NG slow on
news today?
>
> > And the law isn't on the side of women. The law is on the side of
rich
> > law officials and wealthy businesses. Thank God ~God~ is on the side
> > of women.
> REALLY? And where in the bible is there any reference to a woman
being
> *equal* to a man-deserving of the same rights?
There you go, whining about men again. Why don't ~you~ worry about
~you~ and maybe you will have a good effect on those around you and
they will start to change their lives based on your good example. If
you can muster the energy.
Ray Fischer
>1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
>relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is that
>they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
Because they don't want (more) children.
>2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
>relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
>of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
>adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
Because sex is fun.
--
Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
r...@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Ray Fischer
> Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>> Birth control should be illegal.
>
>Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on this.
>The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook up
>their theories about our views on birth control and how we just won't
>control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth control
>is actually dangerous.
You are nuts.
> In countries such as India and Africa, they have
>never even ~heard~ of some of the cancers that women in the west have:
>uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer.
All associated with a high-fat high-calorie diet.
> All are
>rampant in the west and all are cancers which attack the sexual organs.
>And birth control has ~nothing~ to do with this?
Right.
> Birth control is
>killing women.
And you don't know what you're talking about.
By the way, childbirth and pregnancy kill far more women than do
birth control or even abortion.
Ray Fischer
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>> has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>> ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>>
>> You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>> and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>> get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>
>Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave this woman alone?
Because she is an ignorant drama queen who considers her beliefs to be
more important than the truth. She lies about the effects of M-A
pills, and constructs elaborate fantasies to justify her whining.
> You are
>sick, you know that? How dare you say this crap to her! What's wrong?
Tough shit. Don't like it? Leave.
Ray Fischer
>> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
>> growing there, whether or not you approve.
>
>Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
Free clue: You're not God and you don't get to make the rules.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>
> >> Birth control should be illegal.
> >
> >Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on this.
> >The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook up
> >their theories about our views on birth control and how we just won't
> >control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth control
> >is actually dangerous.
>
> You are nuts.
And now that I'm married, I can see you for what you are, Ray: a
testosterone-addicted personality.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Theodore M. Seeber
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>
> >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>
> Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
>
> Free clue: You're not God and you don't get to make the rules.
Funny how drug addiction works, isn't it?
First you get addicted, then you start lying to stay addicted....
`jamis+
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qhqnt$gk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
First of all, in my opinion, once a baby is born then it is a person
and your examples would be murder. BIG difference than an abortion
that removes a fetus. Of course you won't see it that way, but it is
my opinion.
All I want is continued autonomy regarding my reproduction. I don't
want the government telling me I have to procreate next time my birth
control fails.Its not the government telling you not to abort the fetus. Its your conscience(if you still have one).
If you are so bent on believing you views are "right", why not go to an abortion clinic and take a look at a recently removed fetus? If your mother thought the same way you did, it could have been you in that disposal jar. It should have been you. Not your baby.++++++++++++++++++++++
ALT CTRL DEL TOGETHER
++++++++++++++++++++++Mr. James A. Limbaga
email: yeh...@hotmail.com
Jim Knuckey
Ron Nicholson wrote:
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ron Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ron Nicholson wrote:
> > > > > Never killed a baby, and I don't fuck women.
> > > >
> > > > I thought you believed in abortion and the right to fuck.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've never killed a baby, and I've never performed an abortion, and I support
> > > the right to consensual sex. What in my reply contradicts this.
> >
> > > > > My belief is not hedonistic, but absolute autonomy over one's body and a
> > > > > belief I've spent a good deal of time considering.
> > > >
> > > > Uh, idiot, that's the definition of Hedonism. Get a clue.
> > > > Ted
> > >
> > > Get a dictionary, idiot.
> > >
> > > Main Entry: he·do·nism
> > > Pronunciation: 'hE-d&n-"i-z&m
> > > Function: noun
> > > Etymology: Greek hEdonE pleasure; akin to Greek hEdys sweet -- more at SWEET
> > > Date: 1856
> > > 1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life
> >
> > Isn't that what you mean by "complete autonomy", if it feels good, then
> > you should do it? Seems to be above.
> >
>
> No. Did you have trouble understanding what I wrote, and the definitions provided.
>
> > And if you don't fuck women, then what are you doing taking a 17-year-old
> > to the abortionist? Or do you not consider her to be a woman?
>
> I volunteer as a youth outreach worker. Just one of the many tasks that I do to
> help young people.
>
> I consider her a young women.
keis...@mrlcompany.com
mha...@mrlcompany.com
bl...@mrlcompany.com
mle...@mrlcompany.com
jj6...@aol.com
npi...@aol.com
jo...@jthlighting.com
fresc...@msn.com
rja...@focus-carnes.com
galfo...@aol.com
jfisher.d...@lighting.net
mwelshinger...@lighting.net
pbon...@sihope.com
dei...@sihope.com
sku...@sihope.com
jknu...@lumasales.com
rl...@earthlink.net
bh...@pulseproducts.com
in...@aol.com
st...@leenoonan.com
gr...@leenoonan.com
b...@leenoonan.com
rl...@earthlink.net
cm...@lumasales.com
jst...@lumasales.com
sh...@lumasales.com
rja...@focus-carnes.com
Salomeh
Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > No...it is in the best interest of women everywhere to be able to
> > make their OWN choices-not have the government mandate a course of
> > action for them.
> Do anything you want without consequence and without restriction.
> That's what you are asking for from society. Would it make you happy
> if we could just revert back to the cave-man era, before the world
> became civilized? Then, we could just bludgeon our babies over the
> heads with clubs as soon as they pop out of the birth canal. And kill
> off anyone else who gets in our way.
First of all, in my opinion, once a baby is born then it is a person
and your examples would be murder. BIG difference than an abortion
that removes a fetus. Of course you won't see it that way, but it is
my opinion.
All I want is continued autonomy regarding my reproduction. I don't
want the government telling me I have to procreate next time my birth
control fails.
In your opinion would we be any more civilized if the government DID
mandate our reproductive rights? The government that can tell you "no"
is the same government that can tell you "you MUST". Don't believe
me? Look at what's happening in China.
> > Hey...my only regret is that my birth control failed in the first
> > place. I have no regrets about the decision I've made. Guess you
> > don't get out much.....
>
> Hey... good for you. Just another thing, right? Just like getting your
> hair cut or your toenails trimmed. Did you get a look at the baby they
> took from you?
No..I generally do not have to recover from a haircut. It was like any
other outpatient invasive medical procedure. And as I was only 5 weeks
along there wasn't much to see..
> > Because all women are different which is why a 0ne-size-fits-all
> > solution will only make matters worse.
>
> I would reply to this if it made any sense.
Here's a clue: Just because "everyone you know" who has had an
abortion regrets it doesn't mean the rest of us feel this way. And
making abortion illegal now will not do them any good anyway.
> > Sounds like they have other problems...most women go on with their
> > lives.
> Right. Most women just get over it...like a bad head cold. Denial
> ain't just a river in Egypt.
LOL...I see...in YOUR esteemed opinion, since I do not regret
terminating my pregnancy I'm in denial???? LOL Seriously...women do
get on with their lives and have children when the time is right for
them. Just because you can't accept that does not make it a lie.
> > And you're only seeing what you want to see.....
>
> Duck and weave, duck and weave. If I only wanted to see what I wanted
> to see, then I wouldn't be in this NG talking to airheaded motormouths
> like you, now would I?
Airheaded motormouth? Gee...one post and you think you know me....
And you are probably here because "god told you to convert all of us
pro-choice heathen".
> > They can and have done that all throughout history. And taking away
> > a woman's right to her body isn't going to change that. And it
> > always matters to the woman....
> So why don't women like ~you~ take better care of yourselves and no
> get into situations where you have to fix "mistakes"? Lady, you can
> make excuses all you want but you let a mad doctor take your baby from
> you. You were in a position to protect that child. He had no one else
> to protect him. You could have been a bigger woman and given that baby
> to someone who would love him. I bet you wouldn't snap your cat's neck
> if you felt it was time for it to go, would you? You're probably a
> vegetarian, although I admit that's a wild guess. Want to humor me?
Accidental pregnancy has nothing to do with how a woman takes care of
herself. No birth control method is 100% effective and until there is
one abortion will remain a viable back up method.
Also, for me to have continued the pregnancy I would have had to quit
one of the 2 full time jobs I had at the time which would have put me
in poverty.
And if either of my kittens were ill and in pain, I would have them
euthanised if there was no cure for them....
As to the vegan thing..you are way way off......
> > And the woman is not left alone to raise a child herself, most often
> > in poverty..
>
> What a liar you are. What a drama you invent just to justify your own
> bad point of view. Why don't you just keep your legs closed and that
> way no more babies have to die and we won't have to listen to your
> heartless, uncompassionate, and tepid arguments on this NG anymore?
What an assuming heartless person you are....I am telling a true
story....about my father who ran off when I was 6 leaving my mother to
fend for the 3 of us...in poverty til she died at 42 from the stress
that bastard caused her. IT HAPPENS, and if she had had an abortion
instead of "doing the right thing" and marrying him maybe she would
have had a chance at a better and longer and happier life. THAT is why
choice is important. Just because it never happened to you doesn't
mean the rest of us live in wonderland.
And notice you putting all the blame on ME for the situation..you hold
men blameless? Does it even matter to you that I am/was in a
relationship with the man-who supported my decision by the way-and he's
RC. No...I had an abortion so you see me as a slut.
> > Responsibility? As opposed to men who run out on their wives
> > leaving them in poverty? I think knowing your limitations and
> > where you want your life to go IS responsibility. And no woman's
> > destiny should have to be altered irrevocably by men....because men
> > rarely do think twice when it comes to getting laid.
>
> More drama. You are really laying tracks with this one: "Men rarely do
> think twice when it comes to getting laid". Man, that is a ~good~ one!
Not drama...FACT. I was a latch key kid before there was a catch
phrase for them. And yes, I've yet to see a man use any rationale if
he though he could get some. You must be male if you have a problem
with that.
> But women like you ~gladly~ accomadate them, don't you?? Why are you
> trying to come off like Miss Independence when you are so sexually
> submissive to men? What hypocrisy. Do you even hear yourself?
Women like me? You're assuming again. Typecasting the woman who had
an abortion....and no, I do NOT accomodate them.....
You need to stop making assumptions....you are WAY off the mark.
> > And an example of this would be what?
>
> Everything that you've just said.
Oh..my father running out on us and my working from the time I was 13
to help support the family, losing out on my childhood, then watching
my mother die and raising my brother is all a smokescreen? Well..tell
you what...next time around you get to have MY life and see if you can
get some of that Christian compassion and understanding in regards to
how the rest of us live.
> > > Are you surprised? The real "atrocity" is the morning after pill.
> >
> > Not for women who find out their pill didn't do the job.....for
> > women who are pregnant and do not want to be the morning after pill
> > will be a godsend when it is approved.
>
> Godsend? Interesting choice of terms, my dear. Well, let me clue you
> in on a little something: God wants nothing to do with this.
How do you know? Most miscarraiges happen at the same time most
abortions do.....and I don't see the religious community blaming God
for that....
> > We are...sexual repression has long been the bastion of the
> > religious conservatives. Anyone who disagrees is branded
> > a "slut"...well excuse me...the WOMEN who disagree are called
> > sluts...never hear about the men they sleep with....
>
> Oh, boo-hoo. You know what you sound like? You sound like a kid in
> elementary school who can't stand to get in trouble alone. She has to
> narc on another kid too, because misery loves company. Do you really
> think that ratting men out for their transgressions puts you in the
> clear. Do you really think women should stoop that low: "Men behave
> like whores, so women should be aloowed to also." You are so childish!
No..you miss my point....not suprising....I am merely pointing out the
double standard which you yourself employed in this same post...
"So why don't women like ~you~ take better care of yourselves and no
get into situations where you have to fix "mistakes"? "
"Why don't you just keep your legs closed..."
Sound familiar?
Salomeh
-
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle
and will piss on your computer."-Unknown
Ron Nicholson
> In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>
> >
> > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > growing there, whether or not you approve.
>
> Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>
> Salome
Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours if
Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as many
men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of their
choosing.
C.A. Owens
>1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
>relationship ~want~ to use condoms?
Because they want to have sex, but not a pregnancy.
>2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
>relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
>of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
>adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
Because they want sex, not a lifetime commitment.
Chris Owens
C.A. Owens
>> Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>> has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>> ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>>
>> You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>> and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>> get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>
>Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave this woman alone? You are
>sick, you know that? How dare you say this crap to her! What's wrong?
>Are you afraid that her experience will turn women off from the M-A
>pill, you selfish bastard? Maybe you'd like to hear about women dying
>from this thing in the morning paper, huh Adolf? You sick-twist.
Salome, Lesley keeps on and on and ON about having, willingly, taken
the MA pill not knowing that it can act as an abortifacient many years
ago. She is constantly harping on how her doctor didn't tell her
this; conveniently ignoring that she didn't ask. She didn't get ill
from it, she just regrets a freely-made choice.
Chris Owens
C.A. Owens
>> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
>> growing there, whether or not you approve.
>
>Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
In point of fact, yes.
Chris Owens
C.A. Owens
> All I want is continued autonomy regarding my reproduction. I don't
> want the government telling me I have to procreate next time my birth
> control fails.
>
> Its not the government telling you not to abort the fetus. Its your
>conscience
Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
> If you are so bent on believing you views are "right", why not go to an
>abortion clinic and take a look at a recently removed fetus? If your mother
>thought the same way you did, it could have been you in that disposal jar.
Not necessarily. Pro-choice includes choosing birth.
Chris Owens
Josie Burgin Lawson
> In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-ObSwGgU2oRkE@localhost>,
> Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:48:21, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, they're much more subtle than that: they redefine birth control as
> > "abortifacient" in order to have it banned and they harass drug
> > companies into abandoning sales and research on various birth contro
> > methods.
>
> You're telling me it ~isn't~ an abortifacient? I think I know some
> people in the medical profession who would argue you down on that one.
If they think that all, or even "most", birth control is
"abortifacient," they certainly aren't "medical professionals" that I
would trust with *my family's health care.
> Ah, but I guess they are probably part of the RCC conspiracy, right?
> You're sounding an awful lot like Hilary Clinton there.
Wow! Considering that she is one of the most brilliant minds in this
country today, that's a *tremendous compliment! *Thank you! <sweet
smile>
> The right-wing of the RCC leadership is the backbone of the
> > anti-choice movement, in the US at least, and their only interest is -
> > not the lives and health of women's, not preserving lives of zygotes,
> > blastocysts, embryos and fetuses - but, generally, wresting away from
> > people the right to privacy with reguard to sexual matters and,
> > specifically, wresting away from women the right to reject any sperm
> > that might have been deposited in their "vessels" (makes me want to do
> > a bad Star Trek Chekov, "Wessels"), even in the case of rape.
>
>
> Oh, bore, bore, bore, bore. Stop whining and wake up!
Turn around and say that to the Pro-Involuntary-Gestation brigade. You
want to talk "whining:" "Eeyewie! Women are having *SEX* and getting
away with not having babies! That's <shrieked at loudest possible
volume> *HORRIBLE!!!!!*"
>You're telling me
> that abortion is in the best interests of women everywhere?
I'm telling you that abortion is a woman's personal decision, thus
absolutely none of your business.
> Snap out of
> it!
<L!> Seen "Moonstruck" one too many times?
> I have never, never met ONE woman who had an abortion and didn't
> wish that she would have or could have made a different decision.
Then you don't know many women. Or all of the women you know have been
mentally and emotionally abused by religious zealots.
>If
> abortion is such a good solution, and is so safe for women, then why do
> so many women regret that part of their lives?
Once again, it's a personal decision and none of your business.
>This isn't like "I
> regret I wore the black dress instead of the red dress to the company
> cocktail party."
Women are neither that stupid nor that petty, so why do the P.I.G.s
keep treating them as though they are?
>This is real, down-in-the-soul regret.
Mostly for women who've been mentally and emotionally abused by
self-serving religious zealots.
> And they never
> get over it. Why ~is~ that?
Because they've been mentally and emotionally abused by those who sell
guilt to keep themselves in power.
>Part of the conspiracy? And furthermore,
> you make yourself sound real ignorant with your bitching about the RCC.
The fact that you don't recognize what goes on doesn't mean it isn't
happening. Read something besides anti-choice
propaganda.
> Don't you know that Hindus and many African tribes consider abortion an
> ABOMINATION? There are some African tribes that don't even have a word
> for abortion in their language because the prospect of killing a child
> in the womb is so unthinkable.
And in such places women are set on fire when thier husbands want to
get rid of them; and/or they have thier clitorises and labias cut off
and their vaginas sewn into tiny little openings so that men's sexual
pleasure is increased and women's sexual pleasure is non-existent and
the women's lives are put at terrible risk from infection, horrible
complications in childbirth, etc. The people who defend those things
as part of their "cultural heritage" are the people the Pope chooses
to ally himself with in order to oppose abortion. Thank you for
illustrating my point.
> And many, many Christian non-Catholics
> abhor abortion as well, and Jews.
The majority of protestants and Jews support reproductive choice.
<snip of P.I.G. cyber-flatulence>
> You're a liar. The Church is the ~only~ true supporter of loving, safe,
> and healthy sexual relationships--within marriage, of course.
<BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!>
There is nothing "beautiful" about what the RCC leadership has done in
distorting human sexual relationships to serve it's own purposes. If
it had nothing else to answer for, the very idea of castrating young
men (due a period in which RCC leadership's misogyny was so rampant
that even the sound of women's voices in the church choir were an
anathema), then later forbidding them to marry because they were
incapable of fathering children, is dispicable in the extreme.
Be well, Josie
======================================================
"For the reason of laughter, since laughter is surely
The surest touch of genius in creation.
[Thomas, from Act Two of Christopher Fry's
_The Lady's Not For Burning]
======================================================
Josie Burgin Lawson
> In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>
> >
> > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > growing there, whether or not you approve.
>
>
> Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
<LOL!> I've had 6 children *by my choice*. And yes, it *is "asking too
much" for you to be allowed to stick your long,
snotty, wart-covered nose in my bedroom.
Josie Burgin Lawson
<snip>
> Do anything you want without consequence and without restriction.
> That's what you are asking for from society.
What we are asking is that you mind your own ignorant, useless
business.
<snip of psycho-P.I.G. blather>
Josie Burgin Lawson
<snip>
> So, I want to sell crack to children on the streets. You might think
> that's wrong, but it's right for me, because I need the money to pay my
> rent and put food in my mouth
Okay, so you can't grok the difference between a woman's right to
decide what will or will not grow inside her own body and a person
taking actions that harm another human being. But what does your
complete lack of cognitive ability have to do with a woman's right to
determine for herself what will or will not be allowed to grow and
develop within her body?
Josie Burgin Lawson
> In article <37c12aeb...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
> > <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
> the
> > >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
> conception,
> > >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
> > >Birth control should be illegal.
> >
> > I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
> > aftermath of it myself, but what is your objection to barrier methods
> > of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
> > I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
> > I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
>
>
> 1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
> relationship ~want~ to use condoms?
Are you mentally retarded?
>Everything I've ever heard is that
> they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
Far less so than unwanted children would be...
> 2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
> relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
> of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
> adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
That's none of your business.
> There's you answer to why condoms aren't ok.
Pretty lame answer, which is no surprise.
Pat Winstanley
(Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>>Why are you minding everyone else's business?
>
>Because of my insight into the terrible suffering of the animals and
>the unborn babies.
What do z/e/fs suffer, exactly?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-ObSwGgU2oRkE@localhost>,
> Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:48:21, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, they're much more subtle than that: they redefine birth control as
>> "abortifacient" in order to have it banned and they harass drug
>> companies into abandoning sales and research on various birth contro
>> methods.
>
>You're telling me it ~isn't~ an abortifacient?
What do you define as an abortion?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>
>>
>> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
>> growing there, whether or not you approve.
>
>
>Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed?
Anyone who never opens their legs must have quite a problem with
constipation (or mess)... assuming normal physiology...
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>> Welcome to the 50's. Next you'll want to ban all occupations for
>women
>> except housewife and nun. What strikes me is how none of this is any
>> of your business. And thank God the law is on the side of women.
>
>And you're an idiot to even make these remarks. None of our business?
>Since when is the health and safety of other human beings not our
>business?
In what way is the health and safety of human beings jeapordised by
women having occupations other than housewife or nun?
> And what's wrong with housewives and nuns?
Nothing - if that's what they want as an occupation. If they'd rather
be a lumberjack or a stockbroker et al then there's nothing wrong with
that either.
Pat Winstanley
Lesley Dove
>In article <37cbbbca...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:08:21 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> >> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
>> >> >> aftermath of it myself,
>> >> >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>> >> >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>> >> >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>> >> >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>> >> >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>> >> >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>> >I'm serious, Lesley.
>> >You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
>> >Your lack of insight is just one of them.
>
>> My insight into the suffering of others clearly far exceeds yours.
>
>No, dear. We are talking about lack of insight abour YOUR
>behavior that causes YOU to behave in manners others find
>offensive, objectionable, ludicrous, offensive, and annoying.
>You wonder why you are ostracized, and cannot see that your
>own conduct drives people away. Your complete rejection of
>all medical and psychological advice, both from professions
>and lay people, might clue you in on something:
>People agree you are a daft git.
"People" agree, do they?
I know plenty who do not.
>snip
>> >> Now go away and mind someone else's business.
>> >Sure, cunt.
>> >Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
>> >not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
>> >and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
>> >YOU are.
>> >Why are you minding everyone else's business?
>>
>> Because of my insight into the terrible suffering of the animals and
>> the unborn babies.
>
>"Unborn babies" cannot suffer.
>Perhaps if you stop beleiveing in cult propaganda and deal with
>reality, you'd understand that statements like that are why so
>many, in this medium and no doubt in your personal life, can't
>stand you and think you are a village idiot.
Just speak for yourself OK, heretic.
Don't assume everyone agrees with you about me.
That is very arrogant.
>Not that there's anything ~wrong~ with that.
>
>>I have more understanding and empathy for other
>> living beings than you are capable of,
>
>You cannot know that. You cannot prove that.
>Therefore, it is more self-serving and rationalizing cognitions
>you have formed to reduce what must be a honking case of cognitive
>dissonance.
More bulllshit waffle...
>> so obviously I am not going to
>> butcher my children.
>
>I'm sure that Susan Smith said the same thing.
>In fact, if you search the records, you will find that there
>have been innumerable cases of women, who feel isolated socially,
>under financial pressure, who DO butcher their children,
>Invariably, the reaction of all those who knew the accused
>say what a lovely woman and loving mother she was.
I don't know the exact circumstances of Susan Smith.
Maybe if she approached the likes of you with her problems, it's no
wonder she was pushed over the edge.
>>Of course you would do the same to your own,
>> before they were born, so you are projecting much of the worst of
>> yourself onto me.
>
>Nope. YOu did just that, however.
>I realized that I was not cut out for child care, and
>saw to it I'd never have to.
What? Did you get your tubes done?
>You fucked up, got
>knocked up, and now want everybody else to pity you,
>take responsibility for you, and never ever ever say
>anything you don't like.
If I had such expectations, I would certainly not have hung around
here so much.
I don't want your pity, just real friends.
>> I am sorry to hear that you are torturing yourself with such
>> frightening thoughts about me,
>
>Torturing myself?
>Hardly. You are fun to bait, you are very predicable,
>you charge out like a possom on crack, foaming at the mouth
>and raging inarticulately.
Talking about yourself here, heretic?
>You do, however, fit a few profiles.
>You are under stress.
>People do break under the sort of strain you report.
>
>> but I can only suggest that maybe you
>> are in need of help and leave it at that. I cannot be responsible for
>> your continued delusions about my mental state.
>
>No, dearie. Your own words indicate your mental state,
>let's hope they aren't used against you in a court of law.
Won't happen.
Lesley Dove
Lesley Dove
>In article <7puu3a$e5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <37c272fa...@news.connect4free.net>,
>> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:46:39 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> snip
>> > >> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
>> > >> aftermath of it myself,
>> > >Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
>> > >has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
>> > >ill. Nuts. Over the points.
>> > >You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
>> > >and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
>> > >get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
>>
>> I'm serious, Lesley.
>> You really are showing some signs that are disturbing.
>> Your lack of insight is just one of them.
>>
>> > >You are insane. You need help. And in the UK, unlike here,
>> > >YOU HAVE HELP AVAILABLE. You'll end up as whack as the phony
>> > >reverend here if you don't do something about it.
>> >
>> > Heretic, I am touched by your ongoing concern for me and my family -
>> > not.
>>
>> I just don't want to see you on one of Murdoch's papers,
>> on trial for butchering your kids or something.
>>
>> > Now go away and mind someone else's business.
>>
>> Sure, cunt.
>> Just as soon as YOU realize that YOUR insistance that women
>> not abort, not use contraception that you don't like,
>> and eat meat shows what a fucking control freak fascisti
>> YOU are.
>> Why are you minding everyone else's business?
>
>
>Your remarks to Lesley are disgusting and rude as well as ~violent~. In
>my opinion, Lesley show show these posts to the kind folks at Deja and
>see if something can't be done about you.
Thank you for your kind support, but I have become used to heretic
over the last few months, and she doesn't get to me so much now.
She doesn't like women who speak up regretting abortion or the
morning-after pill.
Her solution is to insult and bully them into going away, if she can,
so as to suppress the truth about their feelings and experiences.
Lesley Dove
Lesley Dove
>In article <37c12aeb...@news.connect4free.net>,
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:41:21 GMT, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>> <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A lot that passes for birth control is abortifacient. Examples are
>the
>> >IUD, the morning after pill, birth control pills which allow
>conception,
>> >but stop implantation into the uterine lining, Norplant, etc.
>> >Birth control should be illegal.
>>
>> I agree about the m-a pill, etc, having personally suffered the
>> aftermath of it myself, but what is your objection to barrier methods
>> of contraception, surely that is truly contraceptive?
>> I see nothing wrong in principle with condoms.
>> I hope you can explain why they should be banned IYO.
>
>
>1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
>relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is that
>they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
Well, I have personally bad experience of condoms. They break too
easily, and that is how I ended up using the m-a pill as a teenager.
That's worse than a pain in the neck, I tell you.
My boyfriend and I were young and I panicked.
I wish I had waited a couple more years at least, to be mature enough
to handle the consequences of having sex.
But as condoms are not abortifacient, I can't agree with banning them.
I do believe in educating young people of the risks of trusting
condoms.
I have two kids, and do not want any more, but IMO the best thing is
for women to understand their fertility and not have sex during
fertile times.
Some people, however simply prefer condoms.
>2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
>relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
>of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
>adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
>
>There's you answer to why condoms aren't ok.
I agree with this part, I personally would not have sex outside of
monogamy, although I have outside of marriage.
Lesley Dove
>Salome
Salome
"`jamis+" <ja...@sitio.de> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BEF3F1.754CFC00
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> and your examples would be murder. BIG difference than an abortion
> that removes a fetus. Of course you won't see it that way, but it
is
> my opinion.
Excuses, excuses, and MORE excuses. Keep duping yourself. I would be
interested in knowing what that cut-off point is bwteen a non-baby and a
baby. Because your opinions don't amount to a hill of beans in the face
of medical ~facts~ concerning the gestation of a human being.
> All I want is continued autonomy regarding my reproduction. I don't
> want the government telling me I have to procreate next time my
birth
> control fails.
You know, you can go ahead and have abortions from now til Kingdom come.
You are right, it's legal. But what pisses me off mightily is your blase
attitude towards the matter in general. I pray to God you are never in a
position to give a woman advice concerning her pregnancy.
> Its not the government telling you not to abort the fetus. Its your
> conscience(if you still have one).
>
> If you are so bent on believing you views are "right", why not go to
an
> abortion clinic and take a look at a recently removed fetus? If your
mother
> thought the same way you did, it could have been you in that disposal
jar.
> It should have been you. Not your baby.
Good question. I asked Salomeh the same question, but she failed to
answer. I think her silence is her answer.
Salome
Salome
>
> Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
> his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
Right. And the Sheinbein kid doesn't think he's wrong either. Neither
does the kid at Berkely who let his best frind rape and kill a 7 year
old girl and didn't tell on him for three days. And Miloshovic thinks
his actions are justified as well. So, you were saying....?
> Not necessarily. Pro-choice includes choosing birth.
Bullshit. The ~choice~ you are defending is the ~choice~ to have an
abortion. Plain and simple.
Salome
Salome
pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:52:14 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> Welcome to the 50's. Next you'll want to ban all occupations for
> >women
> >> except housewife and nun. What strikes me is how none of this is
any
> >> of your business. And thank God the law is on the side of women.
> >
> >And you're an idiot to even make these remarks. None of our business?
> >Since when is the health and safety of other human beings not our
> >business?
>
> In what way is the health and safety of human beings jeapordised by
> women having occupations other than housewife or nun?
You know what, if people aren't going to take the effort to read the
threads before jumping in with their two cents' worth, then there's no
point in trying to have a discussion. You jumped in the middle of a
discussion you aren't prepared to reply to, that's why your question is
completely out of place. Read the thread.
>
> > And what's wrong with housewives and nuns?
>
> Nothing - if that's what they want as an occupation. If they'd rather
> be a lumberjack or a stockbroker et al then there's nothing wrong with
> that either.
Who said it was? READ THE THREAD next time before you interject. Most
people learn how to swim before they jump in the pool. You've taken
everything absolutely out of context becasue you saw one sentence you
decided didn't suit you.
Salome
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
> >> has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> >> ill. Nuts. Over the points.
> >>
> >> You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> >> and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> >> get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
> >
>
> more important than the truth. She lies about the effects of M-A
> pills, and constructs elaborate fantasies to justify her whining.
So you are justified in terrorizing her on the Internet???
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 31 Aug 1999, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>> > Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>> >> Birth control should be illegal.
>> >
>> >Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on this.
>> >The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook up
>> >their theories about our views on birth control and how we just won't
>> >control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth control
>> >is actually dangerous.
>> You are nuts.
>And now that I'm married, I can see you for what you are, Ray: a
>testosterone-addicted personality.
Back again, Ted? So, you went and got married...and you're still as blind as
a bat. (I guess you still haven't gotten around to killing all of us, either
-- remember _that_ promise you made? You didn't break into the Army depot in
Umatilla, either, so you could build your own missile warheads to launch
against Texas. Been a rough year for you, hasn't it?)
--PLH, still here, and it looks like I've got more target practice
Salome
cao...@redsuspenders.com (C.A. Owens) wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:02:24 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> Lesley, your insistance that taking the m-a pill years ago
> >> has caused your current problems is proof that you are mentally
> >> ill. Nuts. Over the points.
> >>
> >> You didn't "suffer" anything at all, but your nonstop whining
> >> and histrionics show some SERIOUS disorders. Which you should
> >> get help for ASAP, before you harm yourself or your children.
> >
> >sick, you know that? How dare you say this crap to her! What's wrong?
> >Are you afraid that her experience will turn women off from the M-A
> >pill, you selfish bastard? Maybe you'd like to hear about women dying
> >from this thing in the morning paper, huh Adolf? You sick-twist.
>
> Salome, Lesley keeps on and on and ON about having, willingly, taken
> the MA pill not knowing that it can act as an abortifacient many years
> ago. She is constantly harping on how her doctor didn't tell her
> this; conveniently ignoring that she didn't ask. She didn't get ill
> from it, she just regrets a freely-made choice.
>
> Chris Owens
That still doesn't justify terrorizing her on the Internet. These are
people making excuses for their bad behaviour.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 31 Aug 1999, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
>> >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
>> >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
>> >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>> Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
>> Free clue: You're not God and you don't get to make the rules.
>Funny how drug addiction works, isn't it?
>First you get addicted, then you start lying to stay addicted....
We're not interested in YOUR problem with that, Ted. I see you still have a
problem with any other woman making her own choices without crawling to a
pinhead like you for approval.
--PLH, now I _know_ it's September, if Seeber's back
Salome
> >relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is
that
> >they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
>
>
> >2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
> >relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the
spread
> >of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are
mature
> >adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
>
Then die for it.
Salome
>
> >> Birth control should be illegal.
> >
> >Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on
this.
> >The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook up
> >their theories about our views on birth control and how we just won't
> >control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth
control
> >is actually dangerous.
>
> You are nuts.
Your mother.
>
> > In countries such as India and Africa, they have
> >never even ~heard~ of some of the cancers that women in the west
have:
> >uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer.
>
> All associated with a high-fat high-calorie diet.
Oh, good one. So why do thin, healthy women get these cancers,
brain-bulb?
>
> > All are
> >rampant in the west and all are cancers which attack the sexual
organs.
> >And birth control has ~nothing~ to do with this?
>
> Right.
Wrong.
>
> > Birth control is
> >killing women.
>
> And you don't know what you're talking about.
Is that all you have to say?
>
> By the way, childbirth and pregnancy kill far more women than do
> birth control or even abortion.
Of course they do. It makes sense for you to say that since you hate
women and children. And you hate yourself.
Salome
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990831...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On 31 Aug 1999, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Birth control should be illegal.
> > >
> > >Spitz, I never imagined we'd agree on anthing, but I agree 100% on
this.
> > >The pro-abortion/birth control detractors of the RCC love to cook
up
> > >their theories about our views on birth control and how we just
won't
> > >control over women's lives. They never stop to think that birth
control
> > >is actually dangerous.
> >
> > You are nuts.
>
> testosterone-addicted personality.
Ray hates women. Ray hates children because they come from women. Having
a hard time coming out of the closet, Ray? Those latent homosexual
tendencies must be ~such~ a drag.
Salome
>
> >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>
> Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
You'd like that wouldn't you? But then, who would expose you for the
liar that you are?
And God ~did~ make the rules: Thou shalt not kill.
Salome
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990831...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> > >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't
want
> > >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > >
> > >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> >
> > Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
> >
>
> Funny how drug addiction works, isn't it?
> First you get addicted, then you start lying to stay addicted....
And continued lying to cover up the lies they just told. Talk about a
vicious cycle! No wonder their lives are so sad that they have to spend
their time in a NG with other people who tell the same lies. Misery
loves company?
Salome
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> Salome wrote:
>
> > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> >
> > >
> > > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> > Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> >
>
> Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours if
> Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as many
> men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of their
> choosing.
Crimes against humanity often result from this sort of thoughtless,
hedonistic way of living. ~That~ I care about. I don't care about your
fucking. Go on, fuck away! Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck. Just stop killing
babies.
Salome
pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:22:19 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> >
> >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed?
>
> constipation (or mess)... assuming normal physiology...
>
> Pat Winstanley
If I wanted to hear an asshole, I would have farted.
Salome
>
> <snip>
>
> > So, I want to sell crack to children on the streets. You might think
> > that's wrong, but it's right for me, because I need the money to pay
my
> > rent and put food in my mouth
>
> Okay, so you can't grok the difference between a woman's right to
> decide what will or will not grow inside her own body and a person
> taking actions that harm another human being. But what does your
> complete lack of cognitive ability have to do with a woman's right to
> determine for herself what will or will not be allowed to grow and
> develop within her body?
>
> Be well, Josie
If you had any sense, you wouldn't have to ask me this. I made my point.
Read it again if you're so lonesome that you need me to repeat myself.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <37CC7498...@home.com>,
> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > Salome wrote:
> >
want
> > > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > >
> > >
> > > Salome
> >
> > Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours
if
> > Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as
many
> > men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of their
> > choosing.
>
> Crimes against humanity often result from this sort of thoughtless,
> hedonistic way of living.
Can you quote a single case where a crime against humanity (like the
inquisition, witch-burning, the Holocaust or the Gulag) resulted from
a "thoughtless, hedonistic way of living" ?
You *are* running out of arguments ....
~That~ I care about. I don't care about your
> fucking. Go on, fuck away! Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck. Just stop killing
> babies.
You'll have to stay after hours and write a hundred times on the
blackboard:
"No baby is killed during an abortion".
HRG.
hereti...@my-deja.com
thus easy catches, Lesley could not help but respond:
In article <37ccf2a9...@news.compuserve.com>,
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove ) wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:08:50 GMT, hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> My insight into the suffering of others clearly far exceeds yours.
> >No, dear. We are talking about lack of insight abour YOUR
> >behavior that causes YOU to behave in manners others find
> >offensive, objectionable, ludicrous, offensive, and annoying.
> >You wonder why you are ostracized, and cannot see that your
> >own conduct drives people away. Your complete rejection of
> >all medical and psychological advice, both from professions
> >and lay people, might clue you in on something:
> >People agree you are a daft git.
> "People" agree, do they?
> I know plenty who do not.
But you yourself ADMIT that many people reject you, to wit:
Your 'friends' who will not provide free childcare.
Your doctor who crossed you off.
That one is significant, since in order to do that, the doctor
had to fill out a lot of paperwork. Face it, not vaccinating
children is bad medicine.
Other animal rightists
Veganistas et al
> >> Because of my insight into the terrible suffering of the animals
and
> >> the unborn babies.
> >"Unborn babies" cannot suffer.
> >Perhaps if you stop beleiveing in cult propaganda and deal with
> >reality, you'd understand that statements like that are why so
> >many, in this medium and no doubt in your personal life, can't
> >stand you and think you are a village idiot.
> Just speak for yourself OK, heretic.
Many others in this forum, for ex PatrickH, think you
are not unlike the village idiot.
> Don't assume everyone agrees with you about me.
I didn't. Many do, those whose opinions I am in agreement with.
> That is very arrogant.
Of course I am arrogant. I am, once again, ~right~
> >>I have more understanding and empathy for other
> >> living beings than you are capable of,
> >You cannot know that. You cannot prove that.
> >Therefore, it is more self-serving and rationalizing cognitions
> >you have formed to reduce what must be a honking case of cognitive
> >dissonance.
> More bulllshit waffle...
Nope. If you don't understand it have someone who knows a bit
about social psych explain it to you.
snip
> I don't know the exact circumstances of Susan Smith.
> Maybe if she approached the likes of you with her problems, it's no
> wonder she was pushed over the edge.
That last assertion shows a great deal about how you attribute
blame. How could I be in any way responsible for the behavior of
Susan Smith? In fact, her stepfather was molesting her, and he
was a prominent prolife politicohack. No *wonder* she did what she
did, she was pushed over the edge by ^people like you^ ie
prolife hypocrites and numbnuts.
snip
> What? Did you get your tubes done?
I do not discuss medical procedures with anyone but those
with a need to know, and you have no need to know anything
about my medical history.
> >You fucked up, got
> >knocked up, and now want everybody else to pity you,
> >take responsibility for you, and never ever ever say
> >anything you don't like.
> If I had such expectations, I would certainly not have hung around
> here so much.
> I don't want your pity, just real friends.
which you cannot have because you ask more than you give, and
few tolerate such relationships. This indicates a lack of empathy;
you assume YOUR needs/wants trump everyone else's. Self-centeredness
and blatant egotism is ultimately repelling to most people. You
simply don't accept feedback well, it seems. Like I say, I know
that your medical system DOES have qualified help. Take advantage.
snip
> >No, dearie. Your own words indicate your mental state,
> >let's hope they aren't used against you in a court of law.
> Won't happen.
)O(Never name the well from which you will not drink)O(
Patrick L. Humphrey
> cao...@redsuspenders.com (C.A. Owens) wrote:
>> Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
>> his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
>Right. And the Sheinbein kid doesn't think he's wrong either. Neither
>does the kid at Berkely who let his best frind rape and kill a 7 year
>old girl and didn't tell on him for three days. And Miloshovic thinks
>his actions are justified as well. So, you were saying....?
>> Not necessarily. Pro-choice includes choosing birth.
>Bullshit. The ~choice~ you are defending is the ~choice~ to have an
>abortion. Plain and simple.
No, your mind is what's simple. Pro-choice includes choosing to give birth --
and I know that much from experience. How do you explain the existence of
pro-choice parents and grandparents?
You're the one peddling patent bullshit around here, "Salome" -- and it's
curious that you'd pick a name so close to one of a definite pro-choicer, too.
--PLH, don't you just love the pro-lifers who can't even understand simple
English words like "choice"?
Ron Nicholson
> In article <7qhn7c$k...@dfw-ixnews15.ix.netcom.com>,
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
> > >relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is
> that
> > >they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
> >
> > Because they don't want (more) children.
> >
> > >2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
> > >relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the
> spread
> > >of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are
> mature
> > >adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
> >
> > Because sex is fun.
>
> Then die for it.
Why is it your business? I do many things in the course of a day, many just
for fun, that may end my life.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <7qhndk$q...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>,
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> > >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > >
> > >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> >
> > Why don't you keep your mouth shut? Asking too much?
>
> You'd like that wouldn't you? But then, who would expose you for the
> liar that you are?
>
> And God ~did~ make the rules: Thou shalt not kill.
Old the old fucker seems allow for alot of exceptions. Tell it to call me
and express its opinions and I'll consider changing my mind. You might want
to hurry, I'm scheduled to bring a 17 year old to a clinic Thursday evening
to have the embryo she doesn't want diced and sucked out of her body.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <37CC7498...@home.com>,
> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > Salome wrote:
> >
> > > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > >
> > > Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> > >
> > > Salome
> >
> > Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours if
> > Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as many
> > men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of their
> > choosing.
>
> Crimes against humanity often result from this sort of thoughtless,
> hedonistic way of living. ~That~ I care about. I don't care about your
> fucking. Go on, fuck away! Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck. Just stop killing
> babies.
>
Never killed a baby, and I don't fuck women.
My belief is not hedonistic, but absolute autonomy over one's body and a
belief I've spent a good deal of time considering.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <37e8e4fd...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:22:19 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > >
> > >
> > >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed?
> >
> > Anyone who never opens their legs must have quite a problem with
> > constipation (or mess)... assuming normal physiology...
> >
> > Pat Winstanley
>
> If I wanted to hear an asshole, I would have farted.
>
> Salome
Great to see a pro-life hypocrite join the fray. Now go on chastise
everyone else for...
Salome
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> writes:
>
> > cao...@redsuspenders.com (C.A. Owens) wrote:
>
> >> Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
> >> his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
>
> >Right. And the Sheinbein kid doesn't think he's wrong either. Neither
> >does the kid at Berkely who let his best frind rape and kill a 7 year
> >old girl and didn't tell on him for three days. And Miloshovic thinks
> >his actions are justified as well. So, you were saying....?
>
> >> Not necessarily. Pro-choice includes choosing birth.
>
> >Bullshit. The ~choice~ you are defending is the ~choice~ to have an
> >abortion. Plain and simple.
>
> No, your mind is what's simple. Pro-choice includes choosing to give
birth --
> and I know that much from experience. How do you explain the
existence of
> pro-choice parents and grandparents?
Like I said, you are promoting and supporting the choice to have an
abortion. If you were promoting and supporting the choice to give
birth, then you would be pro-life. Because abortion = termination and
birth = life. If something is terminated, or ended, it is dead. It's
you who doesn't know plain English, Mr. Pro-Death.
>
> You're the one peddling patent bullshit around here, "Salome" -- and
it's
> curious that you'd pick a name so close to one of a definite pro-
choicer, too.
Well, Dick Tracy, since you know so much about the name I was BORN
with, why don't you tell me how this name is so associated with Pro-
lifers? I've never heard it before, so why don't you enlighten me?
You're the one with all the bright ideas. I like to bake too, soshould
I call myself "Julia Child"? And I like music, so should I call myself
"Patsy Cline"? How bored you are to grasp at straws like this. Why do
you assume everyone on this news group is acting under some veil of
secrecy, just becasue we don't choose to use our full names? Or would
it make sense for me to throw out my full name in wide open cyberspace?
Shall I post my phone number and address as well? And if I were pro-
choice, what would you have to say about my name then? Should I change
it to suit you? What does my name have to do with the price of tea in
China?
Salome
Salome
The Outlaw Josie WAILS just keeps shifting blame. Keep it up, maybe
you'll eventually convince yourself. You've managed, in the space of
one post, to alternately shift blame, duck and weave rational arguments,
evade responses, and flat-out lie. You say the majority of Protestants
and Jews support abortion? You are an incorrigible liar. Did they tell
you this themselves? At least the examples I gave of women who bitterly
regret their decisions where based on women I had really met. You
haven't bothered to pick up one book and read, to try to at least get
your facts straight concerning the RCC. It's so much easier to sit back
on your fat ass and make false statments and argue without back-up. You
wouldn't be able to have this conversation face-to-face with anyone.
You argue totally from the angle of your own one-sided opinions, with
nothing to back up your statements. I'm not going to have a discussion
with a liar and a blame shifter. The only reason you don't stop is
because you are so arrogant that you can't let a Catholic have the last
word, lest you feel like a loser. Well, I'm not that vain. I don't care
what a NG full of strangers think about me. You can talk to each other
for all I give a shit. It's impossible to reason with someone who
spouts out lies in the face of a logical argument. You've got more
problems than just your opinions on abortion. You let a lot slip
through the cracks with your constant tirade about religion. Why don't
you grow up and get over yourself?
Salome
In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-Hqi29zwdnuch@localhost>,
Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:30:04, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-ObSwGgU2oRkE@localhost>,
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:48:21, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No, they're much more subtle than that: they redefine birth
control as
> > > "abortifacient" in order to have it banned and they harass drug
> > > companies into abandoning sales and research on various birth
contro
> > > methods.
> >
> > You're telling me it ~isn't~ an abortifacient? I think I know some
> > people in the medical profession who would argue you down on that
one.
>
> If they think that all, or even "most", birth control is
> "abortifacient," they certainly aren't "medical professionals" that I
> would trust with *my family's health care.
>
> > Ah, but I guess they are probably part of the RCC conspiracy, right?
> > You're sounding an awful lot like Hilary Clinton there.
>
> Wow! Considering that she is one of the most brilliant minds in this
> country today, that's a *tremendous compliment! *Thank you! <sweet
> smile>
>
> > The right-wing of the RCC leadership is the backbone of the
> > > anti-choice movement, in the US at least, and their only interest
is -
> > > not the lives and health of women's, not preserving lives of
zygotes,
> > > blastocysts, embryos and fetuses - but, generally, wresting away
from
> > > people the right to privacy with reguard to sexual matters and,
> > > specifically, wresting away from women the right to reject any
sperm
> > > that might have been deposited in their "vessels" (makes me want
to do
> > > a bad Star Trek Chekov, "Wessels"), even in the case of rape.
> >
> >
> > Oh, bore, bore, bore, bore. Stop whining and wake up!
>
> Turn around and say that to the Pro-Involuntary-Gestation brigade. You
> want to talk "whining:" "Eeyewie! Women are having *SEX* and getting
> away with not having babies! That's <shrieked at loudest possible
> volume> *HORRIBLE!!!!!*"
>
> >You're telling me
> > that abortion is in the best interests of women everywhere?
>
> I'm telling you that abortion is a woman's personal decision, thus
> absolutely none of your business.
>
> > Snap out of
> > it!
>
> <L!> Seen "Moonstruck" one too many times?
>
> > I have never, never met ONE woman who had an abortion and didn't
> > wish that she would have or could have made a different decision.
>
> Then you don't know many women. Or all of the women you know have been
> mentally and emotionally abused by religious zealots.
>
> >If
> > abortion is such a good solution, and is so safe for women, then
why do
> > so many women regret that part of their lives?
>
> Once again, it's a personal decision and none of your business.
>
> >This isn't like "I
> > regret I wore the black dress instead of the red dress to the
company
> > cocktail party."
>
> Women are neither that stupid nor that petty, so why do the P.I.G.s
> keep treating them as though they are?
>
> >This is real, down-in-the-soul regret.
>
> Mostly for women who've been mentally and emotionally abused by
> self-serving religious zealots.
>
> > And they never
> > get over it. Why ~is~ that?
>
> Because they've been mentally and emotionally abused by those who sell
> guilt to keep themselves in power.
>
> >Part of the conspiracy? And furthermore,
> > you make yourself sound real ignorant with your bitching about the
RCC.
>
> The fact that you don't recognize what goes on doesn't mean it isn't
> happening. Read something besides anti-choice
> propaganda.
>
> > Don't you know that Hindus and many African tribes consider
abortion an
> > ABOMINATION? There are some African tribes that don't even have a
word
> > for abortion in their language because the prospect of killing a
child
> > in the womb is so unthinkable.
>
> And in such places women are set on fire when thier husbands want to
> get rid of them; and/or they have thier clitorises and labias cut off
> and their vaginas sewn into tiny little openings so that men's sexual
> pleasure is increased and women's sexual pleasure is non-existent and
> the women's lives are put at terrible risk from infection, horrible
> complications in childbirth, etc. The people who defend those things
> as part of their "cultural heritage" are the people the Pope chooses
> to ally himself with in order to oppose abortion. Thank you for
> illustrating my point.
>
> > And many, many Christian non-Catholics
> > abhor abortion as well, and Jews.
>
> The majority of protestants and Jews support reproductive choice.
>
> <snip of P.I.G. cyber-flatulence>
>
> > You're a liar. The Church is the ~only~ true supporter of loving,
safe,
> > and healthy sexual relationships--within marriage, of course.
>
> <BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!>
>
> There is nothing "beautiful" about what the RCC leadership has done in
> distorting human sexual relationships to serve it's own purposes. If
> it had nothing else to answer for, the very idea of castrating young
> men (due a period in which RCC leadership's misogyny was so rampant
> that even the sound of women's voices in the church choir were an
> anathema), then later forbidding them to marry because they were
> incapable of fathering children, is dispicable in the extreme.
>
> Be well, Josie
>
> ======================================================
> "For the reason of laughter, since laughter is surely
> The surest touch of genius in creation.
> [Thomas, from Act Two of Christopher Fry's
> _The Lady's Not For Burning]
> ======================================================
Salome
> > > >relationship ~want~ to use condoms? Everything I've ever heard is
> > that
> > > >they ruin everything and are a pain in the neck to deal with.
> > >
> > > Because they don't want (more) children.
> > >
> > > >2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
> > > >relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the
> > spread
> > > >of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are
> > mature
> > > >adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically
safe?
> > >
> > > Because sex is fun.
> >
> > Then die for it.
>
> Why is it your business? I do many things in the course of a day,
many just
> for fun, that may end my life.
Then keep doing them. It'll be one less idiot in the world.
Salome
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7qjf3k$lg3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
> > In article <37CC7498...@home.com>,> > > > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> want
> > > > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salome
> > >
> > > Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours
> if
> > > Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as
> many
> > > men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of
their
> > > choosing.
> >
> > Crimes against humanity often result from this sort of thoughtless,
> > hedonistic way of living.
>
> inquisition, witch-burning, the Holocaust or the Gulag) resulted from
> a "thoughtless, hedonistic way of living" ?
>
> You *are* running out of arguments ....
1) This is not a race, so no, I'm not running out of arguments.
2) I have been more than forthcoming in my views, but you aren't
interested in the substance of what anyone has to say. You just want to
wear down anyone who disagrees with you so that you can vainly proclaim
some sort of victory. You want the last word? You can have it.
Salome
>
> ~That~ I care about. I don't care about your
> > fucking. Go on, fuck away! Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck. Just stop
killing
> > babies.
>
> You'll have to stay after hours and write a hundred times on the
> blackboard:
>
> "No baby is killed during an abortion".
>
> HRG.
>
> > Salome
> >
Salome
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> Salome wrote:
>
> > In article <37CC7498...@home.com>,
> > Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Salome wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't
want
> > > > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > > >
> > > > Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> > > >
> > > > Salome
> > >
> > > Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of
yours if
> > > Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as
many
> > > men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of
their
> > > choosing.
> >
> > Crimes against humanity often result from this sort of thoughtless,
your
> > fucking. Go on, fuck away! Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck. Just stop
killing
> > babies.
> >
>
>
> My belief is not hedonistic, but absolute autonomy over one's body
and a
> belief I've spent a good deal of time considering.
Gay? Oh, how quaint. That a homosexual gives didley-squat about what
happens to a woman's body....now that's news! Everything is falling
into place now...
Salome
> > pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:22:19 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com>
> > >
> > > >In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > > > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't
want
> > > >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed?
> > >
> > > constipation (or mess)... assuming normal physiology...
> > >
> > > Pat Winstanley
> >
> > If I wanted to hear an asshole, I would have farted.
> >
> > Salome
>
> Great to see a pro-life hypocrite join the fray. Now go on chastise
> everyone else for...
>
Hypocrite for what? For swearing? Are you actually putting the word
"asshole" on a par with baby-killing?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkbtbm...@eris.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> writes:
>> > cao...@redsuspenders.com (C.A. Owens) wrote:
>> >> Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
>> >> his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
>> >Right. And the Sheinbein kid doesn't think he's wrong either. Neither
>> >does the kid at Berkely who let his best frind rape and kill a 7 year
>> >old girl and didn't tell on him for three days. And Miloshovic thinks
>> >his actions are justified as well. So, you were saying....?
>> >> Not necessarily. Pro-choice includes choosing birth.
>> >Bullshit. The ~choice~ you are defending is the ~choice~ to have an
>> >abortion. Plain and simple.
>>No, your mind is what's simple. Pro-choice includes choosing to give birth --
>>and I know that much from experience. How do you explain the existence of
>>pro-choice parents and grandparents?
>
>Like I said, you are promoting and supporting the choice to have an
>abortion. If you were promoting and supporting the choice to give
>birth, then you would be pro-life. Because abortion = termination and
>birth = life. If something is terminated, or ended, it is dead. It's
>you who doesn't know plain English, Mr. Pro-Death.
Gee, I guess it would never occur to you that there might be some of us out
here who are interested in the _woman_ (you know, the one you cram your head
up your ass in your effort to ignore?) having the right to choose for herself.
I'm not interested in what choice she might make -- only that she have that
option to begin with. You're the drooler who screeches that that means I'm
supporting abortion -- and if that really were the case, just how the bloody
hell _did_ I get to be a father and grandfather, again?
>>You're the one peddling patent bullshit around here, "Salome" -- and it's
>>curious that you'd pick a name so close to one of a definite pro-choicer,
>>too.
>Well, Dick Tracy, since you know so much about the name I was BORN
>with, why don't you tell me how this name is so associated with Pro-
>lifers? I've never heard it before, so why don't you enlighten me?
You can't be enlightened, little troller. (It _would_ be entertaining to
watch you try something simple, though -- like pointing out precisely where I
claimed your name was associated with pro-lifers. My own words are right up
there, so you're either lying through your teeth, or you're mind-bogglingly
stupid. Take your choice.)
>You're the one with all the bright ideas. I like to bake too, soshould
>I call myself "Julia Child"? And I like music, so should I call myself
>"Patsy Cline"? How bored you are to grasp at straws like this. Why do
>you assume everyone on this news group is acting under some veil of
>secrecy, just becasue we don't choose to use our full names? Or would
>it make sense for me to throw out my full name in wide open cyberspace?
That's your choice -- but I've been using mine since the day I wandered into
this newsgroup a decade ago, and I have yet to have any problems as a result
of it. I guess some of us believe in what we say enough to put our real names
on it.
>Shall I post my phone number and address as well? And if I were pro-
>choice, what would you have to say about my name then? Should I change
>it to suit you? What does my name have to do with the price of tea in
>China?
About as much as your screeching has to do with being pro-life.
--PLH, looks like she's more into being pro-aggressive stupidity, from where
I'm standing
Theodore M. Seeber
> Salome wrote:
>
> > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> > Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
> >
> > Salome
>
> Have a problem with rights, I see. What business of it is of yours if
> Josie, or any other woman decides to fuck them self silly with as many
> men, and as many times, and with the birth control methods of their
> choosing.
What business is it of yours if I decide that incest is my sexual right?
What business is it of yours if I decide that torture (Sadism) is my
sexual right, regardless of my partner's feelings on the subject?
What business is it of yours if I decide that it is my right to commit
murder?
In short, where do rights end and societal good begin?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:58:07 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >1)Why would a man and a woman in an adult, manogamous, and loving
> >relationship ~want~ to use condoms?
>
> Because they want to have sex, but not a pregnancy.
Why would anybody want to cause a pregnancy when they don't want a
pregnancy?
After all, condoms are only about 61% effective in real life (as opposed
to the 95% ideal when properly used)
> >2)If two people are having sex and not in a manogamous and loving
> >relationship and wish to use condoms, it must be to prevent the spread
> >of disease, as well as prevent pregancy. So, I ask you, why are mature
> >adults having sex with someone they can't trust to be medically safe?
>
> Because they want sex, not a lifetime commitment.
The problem with that one is that sex is a lifetime commitment.
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:43:30, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Do anything you want without consequence and without restriction.
> > That's what you are asking for from society.
>
> What we are asking is that you mind your own ignorant, useless
> business.
Ok, so we should allow men to sexually abuse children, because it isn't
our own ignorant useless business to ask.
Throw out sexual harassment laws as well, it's none of your own ignorant,
useless business.
Get rid of the impeachment of President Clinton as well.
Or the investigation into Judge Clarence's background....
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:43:19 -0400, "`jamis+" <ja...@sitio.de> wrote:
>
> > All I want is continued autonomy regarding my reproduction. I don't
> > want the government telling me I have to procreate next time my birth
> > control fails.
> >
> > Its not the government telling you not to abort the fetus. Its your
> >conscience
>
> Here's a clue: Not everyone, even after a serious examination of
> his/her conscience believes that abortion is wrong.
Which only goes to prove that some people aren't very serious about
examining and informing their conscience.
The second part is more important than the first.
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:22:19 GMT, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> in
> <7qhh1u$9kk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> >> growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> >
> >Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>
> Why should anyone pay any attention to your opinions on how others
> should behave?
I don't know, why do we? Why are there laws to begin with? Why should
you care if I steal your money? Or kill you?
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:22:19, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <BCstMbiOewf2-pn2-9YmBEbncPD8V@localhost>,
> > Lora...@nospam.America.Net (Josie Burgin Lawson) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We are free to have removed from our bodies anything we don't want
> > > growing there, whether or not you approve.
> >
> >
> > Well then, why don't you keep your legs closed? Asking too much?
>
> <LOL!> I've had 6 children *by my choice*. And yes, it *is "asking too
> much" for you to be allowed to stick your long,
> snotty, wart-covered nose in my bedroom.
So stop having sex. There ARE other options avilable, just ask any GenX
virgin who is sleeping in the same bed as her boyfriend.
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:09:03, Salome <_Jak...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > So, I want to sell crack to children on the streets. You might think
> > that's wrong, but it's right for me, because I need the money to pay my
> > rent and put food in my mouth
>
> Okay, so you can't grok the difference between a woman's right to
> decide what will or will not grow inside her own body and a person
> taking actions that harm another human being.
The thing growing in her body IS another human being. I can't grok your
complete lack of cognitive ability to understand this simple point.
Salome
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990901...@user2.teleport.com>,
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Do anything you want without consequence and without restriction.
> > > That's what you are asking for from society.
> >
> > What we are asking is that you mind your own ignorant, useless
> > business.
>
> Ok, so we should allow men to sexually abuse children, because it
isn't
> our own ignorant useless business to ask.
> Throw out sexual harassment laws as well, it's none of your own
ignorant,
> useless business.
> Get rid of the impeachment of President Clinton as well.
> Or the investigation into Judge Clarence's background....
> Ted
She doesn't want anyone to respond to her posts except those who agree
with her. The rest of us are P.I.G's. She preaches women, women, women,
but this women she calls a pig. Then she can keep her ass over on her
baby-killer NG and stay out of my face.