National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children

[J]

I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
forgotten.









http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/first-ever-national-day-of-remembrance-for-aborted-children-to-take-place-s









STATEN ISLAND, NY, April 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) � Three national
pro-life groups have announced a �National Day of Remembrance for
Aborted Children� to honor infants killed by abortion. The inaugural
date will be Saturday, September 14, 2013.

The nationwide observance will be marked by simultaneous memorial
services in multiple cities at gravesites of aborted babies. The
bodies of aborted babies have been buried at more than twenty-five
locations nationwide. Many of their bodies were retrieved from trash
bins outside abortion clinics, or pathology labs where the bodies of
aborted babies are often shipped. Some graves have hundreds of bodies
buried in them.

Recently Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for life has asked authorities
for the bodies of the babies recovered from Gosnell�s House of
Horrors. The bodies of some 45 babies were recovered from the clinic,
where they were kept frozen in a variety of containers in freezers.
Fr. Pavone hopes to give the babies a proper burial.

The Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children is being coordinated by
Citizens for a Pro-life Society, Priests for Life, and the Pro-life
Action League. The coalition of pro-life groups expects thousands of
people from across the country to participate in the memorial
services. This is the first time in the history of legalized abortion
that such nationwide memorials will be conducted.









J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Ken]

Too bad his Mommie didn't have an abortion

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <es0kn8hhrp3phjs65...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> forgotten.

What children?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[W.T.S.]

Article <es0kn8hhrp3phjs65...@4ax.com>, Jerk...@Liar.biz

>
> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> forgotten.

What children, you stupid butt hole? No child is involved in any
abortion. Life only begins at birth, never at conception.
Stop being such a fucking liar, "J".
>
> http://www.LieSite.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/Bigotry/Hate/
>
<snip> Usual forced-birther rant, why bother to repost? </snip>
>
Summary: As much as the pro-liar loons want you to believe their lying
bull shit, no baby has ever been involved in any abortion. End of
story. So, what else is new?
>
> Jerk Young
> Jerk...@Lies.biz
>
> Degeneracy, lies, disinformation, bigotry, propaganda, lying bull
> shit, hate, and general filth, that's "J"!

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>

[MarkA]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:

>
>
> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> forgotten.
>
>

What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Patrick]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> forgotten.
>>
>>
>
>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.

The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
prevent.

[Syd M.]

On Apr 26, 12:38 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values

Does not in any way include you, IBen.
No baby is killed in an abortion.

PDW

[Syd M.]

Too bad no 'innocent live' is lost in an abortion, no matter how hard
you loons lie about it.

PDW

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Apr, 05:38, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> forgotten.

[snipped for brevity]

Would you call a teenager under 18 years old, an adult?

Would you call a child under 13, a teenager?

Then why call an unborn fetus, a child?

And why call an embryo, a fetus?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
they're not going to heaven.

How do you even begin to justify this position?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dakota]

On 4/26/2013 7:02 AM, MarkA wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>
>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> forgotten.
>>
>
> What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
> expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>

I hope that fake atheist J doesn't forget that his "god" causes the
vast majority of abortions. So called pro-lifers should be picketing
churches until J's god stops all those spontaneous abortions.

[Patrick]

According to me?
Guess again, wet-dream.

[W.T.S.]

In article <1hrkn8hd2v1kmsjug...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
> >
> >> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> >> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> >> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> >> forgotten.

What "children". Stop lying! No child is involved in any abortion. Go
suck the Pope's dick, "J", it's what you really want, isn't it?

> >>
> >What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
> >expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>
> The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
> prevent.

What "innocent lives"????? No baby is involved in any abortion, stop
lying and join "J" in his favorite activity. Abortion is a normal,
decent, wholesome procedure that every woman should have. Child birth
is sick and degenerate, take a look at the results of over population
around the world, and tell me it isn't.

[MarkA]

I suppose so. However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
the host.

Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year. You
call that "innocent"?

[Robert H]

On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> >>> forgotten.
>
> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>
> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>
> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
> the host.

Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout. You just got to make it
sound so horrible.

OMG..its a parasite!!! It's going to kill her!!! Get it out...get it
out...ARGGGGGG!!!!! Too late..it has eaten her.

Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?

>
> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
> call that "innocent"?

How many people die from car accidents?
How many people die from accidental falls?
How many people die from drowning?

Oh puh-lease, you drama queens need to just grow up. It's NATURE you
idiot.

Sometimes nature isn't kind. She could die from cancer, she could die
from MS, she could die from a pregnancy. She could die walking to her
car and slipping on ice or water. She could die falling asleep in her
bath tub and drowning.

DRAMA QUEEN!!!

[Robert H]

On Apr 26, 10:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> >>> forgotten.
>
> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>
> >The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
> >prevent.
>
> Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
> they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
> they're not going to heaven.

Apparently you don't know the scriptures very well. Read Ezekiel 18
But then again, is there an atheist who truly does without cherry
picking?

[Robert H]

Drama Queen,
How many women lived through pregnancy and childbirth per year?

You don't think about that.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:43:17 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:15:48 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>>>>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>>>>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
>>>>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>>
>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>prevent.
>>
>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>they're not going to heaven.
>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>
>According to me?
>Guess again, wet-dream.

Until you can pull up God on your cellphone, I've only got your words
for this, Patrick. And if you can't help your omniscient and
omnipotent sky pixie with the justification for my mortal ears, then
what good are you in this discussion?

Stop being such a weasel, and answer the question.

And just parenthetically, what is it with you and Dork and the sexual
references? He's obsessed with my lovely Greek form, and you're
calling me a nocturnal sexual emission. Seriously... grow up.


Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[W.T.S.]

In article <efacd301-3b29-4deb-b436-5cd7c1a7dd29
@v4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
> >
> > >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> > >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> > >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> > >>> forgotten.

What children??? No child is involved in _any_ abortion.

> >
> > >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> > >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
> >
> > > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.

What "lives"??? No baby is involved in any abortion.

> >
> > I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
> > resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
> > that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
> > That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
> > the host.

Excellent point, thanks!

>
> Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout. You just got to make it
> sound so horrible.

What makes you think it isn't horrible? How many of the filthy monsters
have you given birth to?

>
> OMG..its a parasite!!! It's going to kill her!!! Get it out...get it
> out...ARGGGGGG!!!!! Too late..it has eaten her.

In many cases, it does just that.

>
> Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?

No need, the graveyards are full of the victims of these ugly parasites.

> >
> > Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
> > call that "innocent"?
>
> How many people die from car accidents?

We work to stop car accidents.

> How many people die from accidental falls?

We work to prevent accidental falls.

> How many people die from drowning?

We work to prevent drownings.

>
> Oh puh-lease, you drama queens need to just grow up. It's NATURE you
> idiot.

And it's out jobs as human beings to control nature to the utmost.
Nature is unfair unless it's made to be fair.

>
> Sometimes nature isn't kind. She could die from cancer, she could die
> from MS, she could die from a pregnancy. She could die walking to her
> car and slipping on ice or water. She could die falling asleep in her
> bath tub and drowning.

All of which we need to work to prevent. We have a duty and obligation
to put a stop to pregnancy when the woman feels it needs to be stopped.
Her needs, wants and desires are superior to the fetus at all times,
conditions and circumstances. Let the fetus rot in the ground!
>
> DRAMA QUEEN!!!
SHIT EATER!!!!!!

[W.T.S.]

In article <1525b14f-01cf-4432-9200-f09e42274aa3
@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
> >
> > >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> > >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> > >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> > >>> forgotten.

What children? No child is involved in any abortion, so stop lying!

> >
> > >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> > >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
> >
> > > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.

What "lives", no baby is involved in _any_ abortion, so stop lying!

> >
> > I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
> > resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
> > that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
> > That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
> > the host.
> >
> > Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
> > call that "innocent"?
>
> Drama Queen,

Shit eater.

> How many women lived through pregnancy and childbirth per year?

Not as many that live through an abortion. Abortion is normal, decent
and safe. Childbirth is sick, degenerate and dangerous.

>
> You don't think about that.

You don't think at all, do you, butt hole?

>
> > MarkA
> > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> > About eight o'clock

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <1hrkn8hd2v1kmsjug...@4ax.com>,

Yep. That's why no child who is unwanted should ever be born.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
<cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 1:34�pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>
>> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> >>> forgotten.
>>
>> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. �But, I guess that's to be
>> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>
>> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>
>> I suppose so. �However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>> the host.
>
>Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout. You just got to make it
>sound so horrible.
>
>OMG..its a parasite!!! It's going to kill her!!! Get it out...get it
>out...ARGGGGGG!!!!! Too late..it has eaten her.

Shouldn't that choice belong to the woman, and not the state?

>Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?

I know you don't like it, but a parasitical relations is an accurate
description of the relationship between a woman and a fetus.

>> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year. �You
>> call that "innocent"?
>
>How many people die from car accidents?

Do we give people the option of not riding in cars, rightard?

>How many people die from accidental falls?

Do we give people the option of avoiding situations where they might
fall, rightard?

>How many people die from drowning?

Do we give people the option of avoiding situations where they might
drown, rightard?

The answer to all is yes.

But, you rightards would forbid a pregnant woman from eliminating the
risk that a pregnancy might kill her.

>Oh puh-lease, you drama queens need to just grow up. It's NATURE you
>idiot.

Dying of influenza or malaria is "NATURE" too, rightard.

Do we try and prevent it?

>Sometimes nature isn't kind. She could die from cancer, she could die
>from MS, she could die from a pregnancy. She could die walking to her
>car and slipping on ice or water. She could die falling asleep in her
>bath tub and drowning.

So, because women can die from many things, we should force her to
ignore things that can kill her....

You rightards don't get called "rightards" for nothing, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:43:17 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:15:48 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>>>>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>>>>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
>>>>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>>
>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>prevent.
>>
>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>they're not going to heaven.
>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>
>According to me?

He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.

You're voluntarily a Roman Catholic, so presumably you accept Roman
Catholic doctrine.

So, yes, you should be able to justify it as it's a belief you appear
to share.

That you -can't- justify it without sounding like an asshole is just
one of those things, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

>Guess again, wet-dream.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

How many people survive influenza per year, rightard?

Does that mean we should make flu Theraflu illegal?

Really, rightard...

It's not that complicated.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.





>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Apparently you can't read a post very well, even when it's its on the
screen right in front of your eyes.

Dreamer said "according to RC doctrine", rightard, not "according to
scriptures"

And, he's right.

According to RC doctrine, if one isn't baptized into the Roman
Catholic faith, then one goes straight to hell when they die.

And, as Patrick is a self-proclaimed Catholic and a staunch defender
of the Catholic faith, it's perfectly acceptable to say "according to
you".

If Patrick doesn't like it being saddled with the Roman Catholic
Church's position on original sin, he can renounce his Catholic faith.

We already know that RC doctrine has little to do with the Bible and
don't require you to point it out, rightard.

That's the very point that most of us are making to people like
Patrick in the first place.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:22:42 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

I don't answer questions about what YOU think is a Catholic view.
If you feel the Catholic position is something, please provide the
Catholic position first.
Otherwise you are merely building straw men.
Or... didn't you know?

[Patrick]

ilen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>prevent.
>>>
>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>
>>According to me?
>
>He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.

What RC doctrine?
Are you making up "shit" again?

>You're voluntarily a Roman Catholic, so presumably you accept Roman
>Catholic doctrine.
>So, yes, you should be able to justify it as it's a belief you appear
>to share.

What RC doctrine?
Are you making up "shit" again?

>
>That you -can't- justify it without sounding like ...

What RC doctrine?
Are you making up "shit" again?

[Patrick]

"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Go suck the Pope's dick, "J", it's what you really want, isn't it?

Don't confuse your own aspirations with others.

[Patrick]

MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:

>> The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>
>I suppose so. However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>the host.

What an incredible description of human life!

>Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year. You
>call that "innocent"?

Guns kill more than that.

[Patrick]

Just as there is an answer to allowing a parasite to enter your body.
It is called abstinence.
Stop allowing risky behavior.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:17:02 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>ilen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>
>>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>>prevent.
>>>>
>>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>>
>>>According to me?
>>
>>He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.
>
>What RC doctrine?
>Are you making up "shit" again?

No, rightard.

Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

>>You're voluntarily a Roman Catholic, so presumably you accept Roman
>>Catholic doctrine.
>>So, yes, you should be able to justify it as it's a belief you appear
>>to share.
>
>What RC doctrine?
>Are you making up "shit" again?

No, rightard.

Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

>>That you -can't- justify it without sounding like ...
>
>What RC doctrine?
>Are you making up "shit" again?

No, rightard.

Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:23:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
body.

It's called abortion.

>Stop allowing risky behavior.

Allow?

Just as others don't require your permission to go swimming, they
don't require your permission to have sex.

You're not too bright, are you, rightard?

[Robert H]

On Apr 27, 9:23 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:

Oh, see now you went and did it. You told a liberal about personal
responsibility. You see, liberals don't believe in personal
responsibility. They believe it's always someone elses fault or
government should tell you what to do. Say if a person murders
someone. It's not the persons fault, it's society. He or she was
probably bullied. It's never the person who committed the crime fault.

If a person chooses not to work or is poor, it's not their fault. It's
the rich persons fault, so they should give their money to the person
who doesn't want to work.

See how it works with the liberal?

If she gets pregnant, it's someone elses fault. It's the fetus
fault!!!

[Patrick]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>ilen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>>>prevent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>>>
>>>>According to me?
>>>
>>>He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.
>>
>>What RC doctrine?
>>Are you making up "shit" again?
>
>No, rightard.
>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

>>>You're voluntarily a Roman Catholic, so presumably you accept Roman
>>>Catholic doctrine.
>>>So, yes, you should be able to justify it as it's a belief you appear
>>>to share.
>>
>>What RC doctrine?
>>Are you making up "shit" again?
>
>No, rightard.
>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

That is why I am here.
To straighten all you dorks out about Catholic dogma.
Stop making up shit.
And I won't have anything to say.

[Patrick]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:


>Dreamer said "according to RC doctrine", rightard, not "according to
>scriptures"
>And, he's right.
>According to RC doctrine, if one isn't baptized into the Roman
>Catholic faith, then one goes straight to hell when they die.

I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

>And, as Patrick is a self-proclaimed Catholic and a staunch defender
>of the Catholic faith, it's perfectly acceptable to say "according to
>you".
>
>If Patrick doesn't like it being saddled with the Roman Catholic
>Church's position on original sin, he can renounce his Catholic faith.

[Patrick]

There is a means to do a lot of things.
Such as how to shut yer pie hole.
You could do it yourself.
Or... you could listen to rational human beings and learn something.

>It's called abortion.
>
>>Stop allowing risky behavior.
>
>Allow?
>Just as others don't require your permission to go swimming, they
>don't require your permission to have sex.

I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.
Until I am forced to pay for your burial.
You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky
behavior. Or, didn't you realize this?

[W.T.S.]

In article <m7knn8hlabc5nvtt7...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

You don't get to dictate other people's sex lives, or sexual health. We
the People do that, and only us, not the Pope or any government. We're
going to have comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraception,
sterilization and abortion on demand. And, we're going to fuck as much
as we wish, no more, no less.
Besides, even priests can't make abstinence work.
Women are not your brood sows or gender slaves.
Lesbianism also stops parasites, how do you feel about that?

[W.T.S.]

In article <f53696ea-8218-4f5b-8707-30003557a6a3
@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

Yes, it actually is. But, a nice partial birth abortion will make the
filthy fetus sorry to "God" that it had the audacity to be conceived.
We're going to punish the fetus with abortion and lead our lives the way
we wish. Is this a problem to you?

[W.T.S.]

In article <00knn8lqigjs353sj...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

> "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Go suck the Pope's dick, "J", it's what you really want, isn't it?
>

> Don't confuse my own aspirations with "J"!
Oh, gee. Perhaps you and "J" can take turns.

[W.T.S.]

In article <h3knn81rs6j1738p0...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

So? Perhaps we should get rid of both.

[W.T.S.]

In article <jg5on8trma5pvlfup...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

Often, the tax payer does have to pay for burials. Or would you rather
allow them to rot in public?

> You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky
> behavior. Or, didn't you realize this?

Comprehensive sex education, easy access to effective contraception,
sterilization on demand, and abortion on demand all remove the risk and
repercussions. Just like using a life jacket on a small boat. I like
abortion best of all, it's like spitting in the Pope's face, there's no
better feeling!

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:14:40 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>ilen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>>>>prevent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>>>>
>>>>>According to me?
>>>>
>>>>He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.
>>>
>>>What RC doctrine?
>>>Are you making up "shit" again?
>>
>>No, rightard.
>>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
>>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?
>
>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

What is it with you theists and lying, rightard?

"Catholic Doctrine, Baptism and Heaven

In Catholicism, can you go to heaven without being baptized?

For most of the last 800 years, the answer was no. From about the
beginning of the 13th century to the middle of the 20th, Catholic
doctrine held that, without being absolved of original sin through
baptism, unbaptized children and unbaptized adults who lived
virtuously went to limbo after death. But limbo, which was never
officially defined as Catholic dogma, has long been troubling to
Catholics who could not understand why God would deny admittance to
Heaven to children who had not sinned themselves. In the 1960s, limbo
began to go out of favor, and it was eventually omitted from the
catechism. In April of this year (2007), a Vatican-appointed panel of
theologians declared limbo a "problematic" concept, inconsistent with
a God that "wants all human beings to be saved," and announced that
Catholics were free to disregard the doctrine."



Now days, the RCC says they -hope- God will allow them into heaven,
but offer no guarantee of an unbaptized person being allowed into
heaven.

You're too easy, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.




>
>
>
>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:15:58 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Dreamer said "according to RC doctrine", rightard, not "according to
>>scriptures"
>>And, he's right.
>>According to RC doctrine, if one isn't baptized into the Roman
>>Catholic faith, then one goes straight to hell when they die.
>
>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

What is it with you theists and lying, rightard?

"Catholic Doctrine, Baptism and Heaven

In Catholicism, can you go to heaven without being baptized?

For most of the last 800 years, the answer was no. From about the
beginning of the 13th century to the middle of the 20th, Catholic
doctrine held that, without being absolved of original sin through
baptism, unbaptized children and unbaptized adults who lived
virtuously went to limbo after death. But limbo, which was never
officially defined as Catholic dogma, has long been troubling to
Catholics who could not understand why God would deny admittance to
Heaven to children who had not sinned themselves. In the 1960s, limbo
began to go out of favor, and it was eventually omitted from the
catechism. In April of this year (2007), a Vatican-appointed panel of
theologians declared limbo a "problematic" concept, inconsistent with
a God that "wants all human beings to be saved," and announced that
Catholics were free to disregard the doctrine."



Now days, the RCC says they -hope- God will allow them into heaven,
but offer no guarantee of an unbaptized person being allowed into
heaven.

You're too easy, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:19:46 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

Yes.

Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of them if we wish?

You've not provided any good reason we shouldn't.

>Such as how to shut yer pie hole.
>You could do it yourself.
>Or... you could listen to rational human beings and learn something.

If you're an example of a "rational human being", I'll take my chances
with irrational.

>>It's called abortion.
>>
>>>Stop allowing risky behavior.
>>
>>Allow?
>>Just as others don't require your permission to go swimming, they
>>don't require your permission to have sex.
>
>I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.

I'm sure you don't.

But, you sure seem to have a problem with someone going swimming and
using mouth to mouth resuscitation to avoid dying.

>Until I am forced to pay for your burial.
>You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky
>behavior.

The availability of mouth to mouth resuscitation is part of the risk
calculation, rightard.

As is the availability of abortion.

>Or, didn't you realize this?

Or, one could get mouth to mouth resuscitation and live.

Didn't you realize this?

You're such a child, rightard.

Do me a favor, put me back into your killfile.

Your stupidly is hurting my brain.

Owwwwww...

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Aborting a fetus one doesn't want or can't afford is being
responsible, rightard.

>They believe it's always someone elses fault or
>government should tell you what to do.

You mean like the way you believe the government should be telling
women that they can't have an abortion?

Damn, but you're stupid, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[elizabeth]

On Apr 27, 6:23 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:

Castrate all males and used stored sperm, very cheap, 100% effective,
100% safe.

[elizabeth]

On Apr 27, 9:22 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:

You promised to leave the ng forever.
Whose fault is it you broke you own word?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <jg5on8trma5pvlfup...@4ax.com>,

You've been listening to rational human beings here for years and yet
you're still a fascist asshole.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Patrick]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that
>>>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?
>>
>>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)
>
>What is it with you theists and lying, rightard?
>"Catholic Doctrine, Baptism and Heaven
>
>In Catholicism, can you go to heaven without being baptized?
>
>For most of the last 800 years, the answer was no. From about the
>beginning of the 13th century to the middle of the 20th, Catholic
>doctrine held that, without being absolved of original sin through
>baptism, unbaptized children and unbaptized adults who lived
>virtuously went to limbo after death. But limbo, which was never
>officially defined as Catholic dogma, has long been troubling to
>Catholics who could not understand why God would deny admittance to
>Heaven to children who had not sinned themselves. In the 1960s, limbo
>began to go out of favor, and it was eventually omitted from the
>catechism. In April of this year (2007), a Vatican-appointed panel of
>theologians declared limbo a "problematic" concept, inconsistent with
>a God that "wants all human beings to be saved," and announced that
>Catholics were free to disregard the doctrine."

Is this a doctrine I can find as a reference somewhere?
Or, are you merely making shit up again...

As I said:
>>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)

>Now days, the RCC says they -hope- God will allow them into heaven,
>but offer no guarantee of an unbaptized person being allowed into
>heaven.

Is this a doctrine I can find as a reference somewhere?
Or, are you merely making shit up again...

[Patrick]

Where is this doctrine written down?
Where can I find it in Catholic doctrine?

[Patrick]

W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>, pbarker001>@woh.rr.com says...

>
>> I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.
>> Until I am forced to pay for your burial.

>Often, the tax payer does have to pay for burials. Or would you rather
>allow them to rot in public?

Cremation works, and it is cheaper.

[Patrick]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>O Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

>>>Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
>>>mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
>>>body.
>>
>>There is a means to do a lot of things.
>
>Yes.
>Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of them if we wish?
>You've not provided any good reason we shouldn't.

Do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it, or your
actions do not offend me.

>>Such as how to shut yer pie hole.
>>You could do it yourself.
>>Or... you could listen to rational human beings and learn something.
>
>If you're an example of a "rational human being", I'll take my chances
>with irrational.

I am sure you feel a little more clever now.

>>I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.
>
>I'm sure you don't.
>But, you sure seem to have a problem with someone going swimming and
>using mouth to mouth resuscitation to avoid dying.

I do?
You may suck any face you like, as long as it isn't mine.

>
>>Until I am forced to pay for your burial.
>>You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky
>>behavior.
>
>The availability of mouth to mouth resuscitation is part of the risk
>calculation, rightard.

Well, do it without me.

[Patrick]

Oh, honey.... was it something I said?

[The Echo Chamber]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:59:50 PM UTC-4, Brother Love wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:48:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <es0kn8hhrp3phjs65...@4ax.com>,

>
> > J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
>
> >> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
>
> >> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>
> >> forgotten.
>
> >
>

> >What children?
>
>
>
> Well duh. The one's that the liberal athiests murder by abortion. Are
>
> you really that dumb?
>
>

More abortions are done in RED states....

Are you really that dumb?

RED states also have more teen pregnancies and higher divorce rates. Tell us again why you think your morality is better than that of anyone else... LOL!

[MarkA]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:21:05 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>
>>> The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>
>>I suppose so. However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>>resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>>that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>>That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>>the host.
>

> What an incredible description of human life!

Is it somehow inaccurate?

>
>
>>Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year. You
>>call that "innocent"?
>

> Guns kill more than that.

Evasion noted.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:52:13 -0700, Robert H wrote:

> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:

>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>

>> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>
>> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> >>> forgotten.
>>

>> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
>> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>

>> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>
>> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>> the host.
>>

>> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
>> call that "innocent"?
>

> Drama Queen,
> How many women lived through pregnancy and childbirth per year?
>
> You don't think about that.
>

Irrelevant. The point is that fetuses kill up to half a million women
every year. I don't consider that "innocent", as you claim.

The recent bombing in Boston only killed 4 people. Hundreds of thousands
survived. So, by your logic, I suppose you consider Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
"innocent"?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <2bqon81ndp589osid...@4ax.com>,

Always.

Oh, yeah, don't call me honey. I'm sure your wife would disapprove.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:47:58 -0700, Robert H wrote:

> On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>
>> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> >>> forgotten.
>>
>> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
>> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>
>> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>
>> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>> the host.
>
> Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout. You just got to make it
> sound so horrible.
>
> OMG..its a parasite!!! It's going to kill her!!! Get it out...get it
> out...ARGGGGGG!!!!! Too late..it has eaten her.
>

> Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?

Ever hear of "Rosemary's Baby"?

>
>
>>
>> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
>> call that "innocent"?
>
> How many people die from car accidents?

> How many people die from accidental falls?

> How many people die from drowning?
>

> Oh puh-lease, you drama queens need to just grow up. It's NATURE you
> idiot.

So's bleeding to death from a severed artery. That doesn't mean you have
no right to put a tourniquet on it.

>
> Sometimes nature isn't kind. She could die from cancer, she could die
> from MS, she could die from a pregnancy. She could die walking to her
> car and slipping on ice or water. She could die falling asleep in her
> bath tub and drowning.
>

All true. However, when you find you have cancer, you are not obligated
to let it kill you. You don't consider a malignant tumor "innocent human
life". If you go to the doctor to have it removed, you don't have to run
a gauntlet of do-gooders telling you you're going to burn in Hell.

> DRAMA QUEEN!!!

Your attempt to deny simple reality would be funny, if it weren't so
tragic. The simple fact is that women should have the right to avoid
taking chances with their health and life, without getting a lot of flak
from outsiders.

[MarkA]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:23:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Robert H><cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>>>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>>>> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>>>> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>>>> >>> forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
>>>> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>>>
>>>> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
>>>> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
>>>> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
>>>> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
>>>> the host.
>>>
>>>Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout. You just got to make it
>>>sound so horrible.
>>>
>>>OMG..its a parasite!!! It's going to kill her!!! Get it out...get it
>>>out...ARGGGGGG!!!!! Too late..it has eaten her.
>>

>>Shouldn't that choice belong to the woman, and not the state?
>>

>>>Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?
>>

>>I know you don't like it, but a parasitical relations is an accurate
>>description of the relationship between a woman and a fetus.
>>

>>>> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
>>>> call that "innocent"?
>>>
>>>How many people die from car accidents?
>>

>>Do we give people the option of not riding in cars, rightard?
>>

>>>How many people die from accidental falls?
>>

>>Do we give people the option of avoiding situations where they might
>>fall, rightard?
>>

>>>How many people die from drowning?
>>

>>Do we give people the option of avoiding situations where they might
>>drown, rightard?
>>
>>The answer to all is yes.
>
> Just as there is an answer to allowing a parasite to enter your body.
> It is called abstinence.

> Stop allowing risky behavior.

There it is! No defense of "fetus rights" would be complete without
slut-shaming. Men can stick their dicks wherever they want, but if a
woman gets pregnant, she's a whore, isn't she?

[MarkA]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:19:46 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

>>Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
>>mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
>>body.
>
> There is a means to do a lot of things.
> Such as how to shut yer pie hole.
> You could do it yourself.
> Or... you could listen to rational human beings and learn something.
>
>

>>It's called abortion.
>>
>>>Stop allowing risky behavior.
>>
>>Allow?
>>Just as others don't require your permission to go swimming, they
>>don't require your permission to have sex.
>

> I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.

> Until I am forced to pay for your burial.
> You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky

> behavior. Or, didn't you realize this?

Don't give me that shit. It's called living in a society. I don't like
paying the real estate taxes for the local Catholic Church, either. Nor
do I like paying welfare to raise someone's unwanted children because YOU
think they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. It goes both ways.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Apr, 13:28, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 Apr, 05:38, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
> > in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
> > date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> > forgotten.
>

> [snipped for brevity]
>
> Would you call a teenager under 18 years old, an adult?
>
> Would you call a child under 13, a teenager?
>
> Then why call an unborn fetus, a child?
>
> And why call an embryo, a fetus?

Hey "J", any chance you might address my questions?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:14:40 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>ilen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>

>>>>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>>>>prevent.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>>>>
>>>>>According to me?
>>>>
>>>>He wrote "according to RC doctrine", not according to -you-, rightard.
>>>
>>>What RC doctrine?
>>>Are you making up "shit" again?
>>
>>No, rightard.

>>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that

>>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

>
>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)
>
>

Errrm, Patrick... Dork himself spouted that exact fact right here in
this newsgroup. Why do you think I asked you for confirmation? You
think I'd take his word for it without a second opinion, dumb as it
might be?

>
>
>>>>You're voluntarily a Roman Catholic, so presumably you accept Roman
>>>>Catholic doctrine.
>>>>So, yes, you should be able to justify it as it's a belief you appear
>>>>to share.
>>>
>>>What RC doctrine?
>>>Are you making up "shit" again?
>>
>>No, rightard.

>>Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that

>>one must be baptized into the Catholic faith in order to go to heaven?

>
>I am stating that one does NOT have to be baptized a "Catholic" in
>order to go to heaven. I defy you to find this position anywhere?
>(Except maybe in the minds of other dorks like you.)
>

>That is why I am here.
>To straighten all you dorks out about Catholic dogma.

Perfect. Start with the bit about transubstantiation. 'Cos that's just
a rehash of earlier pagan cannibalism myths.

>Stop making up shit.
>And I won't have anything to say.

Would that were true...

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:23:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Robert H><cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 26, 1:34�pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>>>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>

>>>> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>>>> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>>>> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>>>> >>> forgotten.
>>>>

>>>> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. �But, I guess that's to be
>>>> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>>>

>>>> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>>>>

>Stop allowing risky behavior.

Do you think that only women who have casual sex have abortions?

And is it better to bring a child into the world if the mother knows
she can't afford it? Who is going to pay for crack babies? Turns out
that comes right of your pocket in increased taxes, and you've already
indicated how little you're interested in doing that....

So what's it going to be? Can't have it both ways.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:15:26 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:22:42 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:43:17 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:15:48 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
>>>>>>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
>>>>>>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>>>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise. But, I guess that's to be
>>>>>>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>>>>>
>>>>>The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to
>>>>>prevent.
>>>>

>>>>Innocent? According to RC doctrine, they haven't been baptized, so
>>>>they're full of original sin. Which means that according to you,
>>>>they're not going to heaven.
>>>>How do you even begin to justify this position?
>>>
>>>According to me?

>>>Guess again, wet-dream.
>>
>>Until you can pull up God on your cellphone, I've only got your words
>>for this, Patrick. And if you can't help your omniscient and
>>omnipotent sky pixie with the justification for my mortal ears, then
>>what good are you in this discussion?
>>
>>Stop being such a weasel, and answer the question.
>
>I don't answer questions about what YOU think is a Catholic view.

But in another post, you said "I'm here to tell you dorks about
Catholic dogma". Are you backpedaling, weasel?


>If you feel the Catholic position is something, please provide the
>Catholic position first.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Catholic position, but you're
cross-posting into alt.atheism... so you should defend your own
position when it's criticized.


>Otherwise you are merely building straw men.

Do you even know what a strawman is?


>Or... didn't you know?

I freely admit not knowing as much as you do about Catholicism,
because I spent a bunch of time studying math, biology, chemistry,
computer science, geography, history, and the English language.

I'll happily defer to you on issues of dogma, but if you can't defend
it, then why are you bothering to yammer on about it?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:05:16 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

Catholic teaching is based on Catholic doctrine.

How ever the hell they arrived at that conclusion, that's the
conclusion they arrived at, and what they taught for centuries.

This isn't rocket science, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.


>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:06:31 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

It's your church.

It what they taught.

If you think they're making shit up, which they frequently do, take it
up with them.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:12:06 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>O Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>
>>>>Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
>>>>mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
>>>>body.
>>>
>>>There is a means to do a lot of things.
>>
>>Yes.
>>Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of them if we wish?
>>You've not provided any good reason we shouldn't.
>
>Do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it, or your
>actions do not offend me.

You -don't- have to pay for another's abortion.

As to offending you, why would anyone give a flying fuck if you're
offended?

>>>Such as how to shut yer pie hole.
>>>You could do it yourself.
>>>Or... you could listen to rational human beings and learn something.
>>
>>If you're an example of a "rational human being", I'll take my chances
>>with irrational.
>
>I am sure you feel a little more clever now.

Feeling more clever than you is the natural state of most of the
people on the planet who've read your bullshit.

>>>I don't care if you go swimming, and then die.
>>
>>I'm sure you don't.
>>But, you sure seem to have a problem with someone going swimming and
>>using mouth to mouth resuscitation to avoid dying.
>
>I do?
>You may suck any face you like, as long as it isn't mine.

If I saw that you had drowned, and knowing how you feel about
mitigating consequences, rest assured I'd do nothing, rightard.

>>>Until I am forced to pay for your burial.
>>>You should have considered the repercussions prior to your risky
>>>behavior.
>>
>>The availability of mouth to mouth resuscitation is part of the risk
>>calculation, rightard.
>
>Well, do it without me.

We do.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:06:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

Ba-zingggggggg!

Wish I'd thought of that.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <21ipn8h5f2ashm34c...@4ax.com>,

No, he's not.

He's here to tell us. But we have no right to ask questions; we have to
take what he says just on his say so.

I know I know. It's is so hysterically funny that he thinks we play that
game.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <klppn813c5uba5ouu...@6ax.com>,

Thank you.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 02:56:35 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

Weasel?
Let me explain something.
Catholic dogma and your views on Catholic dogma are two separate
things. I will give you the correct dogma. However, I do not have to
explain why your views on dogma are stupid, unless you ask nicely.

>>If you feel the Catholic position is something, please provide the
>>Catholic position first.
>
>I don't give a rat's ass about the Catholic position, but you're
>cross-posting into alt.atheism... so you should defend your own
>position when it's criticized.

Don't ask if you can't stand the answer.

[Patrick]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <21ipn8h5f2ashm34c...@4ax.com>,
> Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> , Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>> wrote:


>> >I don't answer questions about what YOU think is a Catholic view.
>>
>> But in another post, you said "I'm here to tell you dorks about
>> Catholic dogma". Are you backpedaling, weasel?
>
>No, he's not.
>He's here to tell us. But we have no right to ask questions; we have to
>take what he says just on his say so.
>I know I know. It's is so hysterically funny that he thinks we play that
>game.

It is your game and your rules.
I am merely here to referee your insults vs questions.
Did you have a question on Catholic dogma?

[Patrick]

Prove it.
With verifiable evidence.

[Patrick]

I don't know that Duke ever said this.
You make a lot of claims.
I saved your reputation the other day.
Someone said you ate shit sandwiches.
When I know you claim not to like eating bread.

>>That is why I am here.
>>To straighten all you dorks out about Catholic dogma.
>
>Perfect. Start with the bit about transubstantiation. 'Cos that's just
>a rehash of earlier pagan cannibalism myths.

What about the bit?

[Patrick]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

When? Where?
Can you find this written down in Catholic teaching someplace?
I didn't think so.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:06:34 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:12:06 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>O Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
>>>>>mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
>>>>>body.
>>>>
>>>>There is a means to do a lot of things.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of them if we wish?
>>>You've not provided any good reason we shouldn't.
>>
>>Do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it, or your
>>actions do not offend me.
>
>You -don't- have to pay for another's abortion.

I am a taxpayer.
I AM paying for sluts' abortions who are inconvenienced by a baby.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:50:48 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

I always address waitresses and service "ladies" ... as honey.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:04:06 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

Yes, living in society is sometimes risky. Especially if you decide
to drink and drive. Or screw without protection. Or walk across an
icy sidewalk to check the mail.
As for churches paying real estate taxes, you should thank your lucky
stars that churches exist. They keep your communities safer. People
who attend services don't usually go around robbing and killing your
citizens - except maybe your local jihad extremist muslims. Perhaps
we should tax them.
And seriously, perhaps we should next eliminate all children who are
sucking gubt money for welfare, SSI, healthcare or special ed. That
seems to be your next logical step, after abortion and euthanasia.

[Patrick]

MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

>There it is! No defense of "fetus rights" would be complete without
>slut-shaming. Men can stick their dicks wherever they want, but if a
>woman gets pregnant, she's a whore, isn't she?

If you feel that men can stick their dicks wherever they want, then
you have a problem.

[Patrick]

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Do you think that only women who have casual sex have abortions?

You call it casual sex now?
Over 90 percent of all abortions are performed for the convenience of
the mother.

>And is it better to bring a child into the world if the mother knows
>she can't afford it? Who is going to pay for crack babies? Turns out
>that comes right of your pocket in increased taxes, and you've already
>indicated how little you're interested in doing that....
>
>So what's it going to be? Can't have it both ways.

Tell the cunt to close her legs and take responsibility for her
actions.

[Patrick]

MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>The recent bombing in Boston only killed 4 people. Hundreds of thousands
>survived. So, by your logic, I suppose you consider Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
>"innocent"?

Do you actually want an answer?

[linuxgal]

Patrick wrote:
> Tell the cunt to close her legs and take responsibility for her
> actions.

You and Duke should write a Conservapedia article about that method of
contraception. Just don't do TOO much research with Google Images,
might spoil your theses.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:44:25 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Prove what, rightard?

That Catholic teaching is based on Catholic doctrine?

That's self-evident.

That the RCC taught that the unbapized don't go to heaven for
centuries?

That's what the quote I posed was all about.

So, what ever the hell you want proved is already proved.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:48:44 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Yea.

See the quoted text above.

Done.

I win.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:50:23 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

How many taxpayer funded abortions were performed in the U.S. last
year?

>I AM paying for sluts' abortions who are inconvenienced by a baby.

Are the married women who have abortions "sluts" too, rightard?

[Robert H]

On Apr 27, 9:38 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:52:13 -0700, Robert H wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> >> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> >> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> >> >>> forgotten.
>
> >> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> >> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>
> >> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>
> >> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
> >> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
> >> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
> >> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
> >> the host.
>

> >> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
> >> call that "innocent"?
>

> > Drama Queen,
> > How many women lived through pregnancy and childbirth per year?
>
> > You don't think about that.
>
> Irrelevant.

No it's not.

How many women survived childbirth?

You talk about women killed due to pregnancy, so it's relevant.

Why are you afraid to address that question?


The point is that fetuses kill up to half a million women
> every year.  I don't consider that "innocent", as you claim.

You can't consider them "innocent" because it creates conflict.
Look, I know the game and why you pro-idiots refuse to address
questions and see the fetus as nothing more than a blob of cells.
You can't have the internal conflict.

Your refusing to answer my question illustrates just that.

You see to know how many women died...so you should know how many
lived.

What countries?
Medical care?
Other issues such as genetics or disease?
Poor nutrition?

> The recent bombing in Boston only killed 4 people.

Yep, and had it not been for the medical attention more could have
died

 Hundreds of thousands
> survived.  So, by your logic, I suppose you consider Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
> "innocent"?

You would be stupid to think that.

Oh wait, you are stupid. Duh!!!



>
> --
> MarkA
>
> If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Robert H]

On Apr 27, 9:54 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:47:58 -0700, Robert H wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:08:36 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:28 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >> >>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are in
> >> >>> the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the date
> >> >>> September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> >> >>> forgotten.
>
> >> >>What an incredibly stupid, pointless exercise.  But, I guess that's to be
> >> >>expected from people who think YOUR pregnancy is THEIR business.
>
> >> > The loss of innocent lives is always something we should try to prevent.
>
> >> I suppose so.  However, a being that survives by sapping the bodily
> >> resources of a woman, with no regard for her safety or well-being, and
> >> that would kill her without even being aware of it, is hardly "innocent".
> >> That's more like a "parasite", and is only tolerated at the discretion of
> >> the host.
>

> > Wow, I love the drama you pro-idiots spout.  You just got to make it
> > sound so horrible.
>
> > OMG..its a parasite!!!  It's going to kill her!!!  Get it out...get it
> > out...ARGGGGGG!!!!!  Too late..it has eaten her.
>

> > Hey, when are you going to have a baby parasite movie?
>

> Ever hear of "Rosemary's Baby"?

>
>
>
> >> Worldwide, fetuses kill between 300,000 and 500,000 women per year.  You
> >> call that "innocent"?
>

> > How many people die from car accidents?

> > How many people die from accidental falls?

> > How many people die from drowning?
>

> > Oh puh-lease, you drama queens need to just grow up. It's NATURE you
> > idiot.
>
> So's bleeding to death from a severed artery.  That doesn't mean you have
> no right to put a tourniquet on it.
>
>
>
> > Sometimes nature isn't kind.  She could die from cancer, she could die
> > from MS, she could die from a pregnancy. She could die walking to her
> > car and slipping on ice or water. She could die falling asleep in her
> > bath tub and drowning.
>
> All true.  However, when you find you have cancer, you are not obligated
> to let it kill you.  You don't consider a malignant tumor "innocent human
> life".  If you go to the doctor to have it removed, you don't have to run
> a gauntlet of do-gooders telling you you're going to burn in Hell.
>
> > DRAMA QUEEN!!!
>
> Your attempt to deny simple reality would be funny, if it weren't so
> tragic.  The simple fact is that women should have the right to avoid
> taking chances with their health and life, without getting a lot of flak
> from outsiders.


I understand the reality, but I know why you are making an issue out
of it.

It's called DRAMA and desperation. More people are turning away from
pro-choice, you don't like that.

[Patrick]

Perhaps you are either stupid or retarded.
Where did you get your "little" quote?
That is MY question.

[Patrick]

Your quote has no meaning.
It doesn't have a reference.
As far as I know, you made it up.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:47:23 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:50:23 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:06:34 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:12:06 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>O Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Just as there's a means to revive someone who's drowned - mouth to
>>>>>>>mouth resuscitation, there's a means to remove a parasite from one's
>>>>>>>body.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a means to do a lot of things.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of them if we wish?
>>>>>You've not provided any good reason we shouldn't.
>>>>
>>>>Do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it, or your
>>>>actions do not offend me.
>>>
>>>You -don't- have to pay for another's abortion.
>>
>>I am a taxpayer.
>
>How many taxpayer funded abortions were performed in the U.S. last
>year?

" a couple of million."

>>I AM paying for sluts' abortions who are inconvenienced by a baby.
>
>Are the married women who have abortions "sluts" too, rightard?

What married women?

Nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended,
and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. 22% of all
pregnancies end in abortion. 40% of pregnancies among white women,
69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended. In 2005,
1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000.
More than 45 million legal abortions were performed from 1973 through
2005. Each year, about 2% of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of
them have had at least one previous abortion. At least half of all
American women will face an unintended pregnancy by age 45 and, at
current rates; about one-third will have had an abortion.

Most women receiving abortion (83%) are unmarried. Women who have
never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions. 16% are separated,
divorced, or widowed. Married women are significantly less likely than
unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level
($9,570.) is per women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times
that of women above 200% of poverty (112 vs. 29 per 1000 women).

The decision to have an abortion is never simple. The reasons women
provide for having an abortion underscores their understanding of the
responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women
cite concerns for or responsibility to other individuals;
three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school
or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want
to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or
partner. Lack of money ranks very high. Many feel the responsible
course of action is to wait until their situation is more suited to
child rearing; 66% plan to have children when they are older and
financially able to provide for a child and/or in a supportive
relationship with a partner so their children can have two parents.

There are undoubtedly some women who, in hindsight, wish that they had
made a different choice and the majority would prefer never to have
become pregnant when the circumstances were not right for them.

54% of women having abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually
the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among
those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having
used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of
condom users report correct use. There is no contraceptive method that
can prevent pregnancy 100% of the time.

46% percent of women who have abortion had not used a contraceptive
method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had
perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had concerns
about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex.

http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html

[Patrick]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:03:15 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Patrick wrote:
>> Tell the cunt to close her legs and take responsibility for her
>> actions.
>
>You and Duke should write a Conservapedia article about that method of
>contraception. Just don't do TOO much research with Google Images,
>might spoil your theses.

FACTS ABOUT ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended,
and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. 22% of all
pregnancies end in abortion. 40% of pregnancies among white women, 69%
among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended. In 2005, 1.21
million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. More
than 45 million legal abortions were performed from 1973 through 2005.
Each year, about 2% of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them
have had at least one previous abortion. At least half of all
American women will face an unintended pregnancy by age 45 and, at
current rates; about one-third will have had an abortion.

Who Has Abortions?

Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortion are younger than 25:
Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain
17%. 37% of abortions occur with black women, 34% with non-Hispanic
white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.

Most women receiving abortion (83%) are unmarried. Women who have
never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions. 16% are separated,
divorced, or widowed. Married women are significantly less likely than
unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.

About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more
child.

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level
($9,570.) is per women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times
that of women above 200% of poverty (112 vs. 29 per 1000 women).

The decision to have an abortion is never simple. The reasons women
provide for having an abortion underscores their understanding of the
responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women
cite concerns for or responsibility to other individuals;
three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school
or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want
to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or
partner. Lack of money ranks very high. Many feel the responsible
course of action is to wait until their situation is more suited to
child rearing; 66% plan to have children when they are older and
financially able to provide for a child and/or in a supportive
relationship with a partner so their children can have two parents.

Others wanted to get pregnant and developed serious medical problems,
learned that the fetus had severe abnormalities, or experienced some
other personal crisis.

http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html

[Robert H]

On Apr 28, 12:47 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:37:09 -0400, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:48:44 -0400, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>>wrote:

You will find, he does that a LOT!

[linuxgal]

Patrick wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:03:15 -0700, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >Patrick wrote:
>>> >>Tell the cunt to close her legs and take responsibility for her
>>> >>actions.
>> >
>> >You and Duke should write a Conservapedia article about that method of
>> >contraception. Just don't do TOO much research with Google Images,
>> >might spoil your theses.
> FACTS ABOUT ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES
>
> Nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended,
> and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.

Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then
are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived
of is the opportunity to go to hell.

[Holy Moses]

J wrote:
> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
> forgotten.

I want to know why God, the omnipotent creator of everything, hasn't
stepped in and put a stop to the carnage? Shit! The guy made the
universe and he can't stop Abortion? What's he up to? Is he on
vacation and not returning your phone calls?

I'm near suicidal over those thousands of unborn sperm that end up in
condoms every time people have sexual relations while wearing a
prophylactic.

When will there be a National Day of Mourning for all those dead,
potential unborn children who were ruthlessly murdered while
attempting to swim from a man's penis to a woman's uterus?

Nobody cares about the little guys.

[Robert H]

On Apr 28, 1:20 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Patrick wrote:

> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:03:15 -0700, linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> >Patrick wrote:
> >>> >>Tell the cunt to close her legs and take responsibility for her
> >>> >>actions.
>
> >> >You and Duke should write a Conservapedia article about that method of
> >> >contraception.  Just don't do TOO much research with Google Images,
> >> >might spoil your theses.
> > FACTS ABOUT ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES
>
> > Nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended,
> > and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.
>
> Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then
> are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived
> of is the opportunity to go to hell.

Wow, what a warped and sick question.

[duke]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 05:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 26 Apr, 05:38, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> I am aware that those who value life, decency, and family values are
>> in the minority in these groups; but for those of us who do, mark the
>> date September 14th on your calenders. These children should never be
>> forgotten.
>

>[snipped for brevity]
>
>Would you call a teenager under 18 years old, an adult?
>
>Would you call a child under 13, a teenager?
>
>Then why call an unborn fetus, a child?

>And why call an embryo, a fetus?

Becasue the first cell split can only occur with something that is "life"
already.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 02:56:32 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>Just as there is an answer to allowing a parasite to enter your body.
>>It is called abstinence.

>>Stop allowing risky behavior.

>Do you think that only women who have casual sex have abortions?

No, just the murderers.

>And is it better to bring a child into the world if the mother knows
>she can't afford it?

She should have practiced sex abstinence.

> Who is going to pay for crack babies? Turns out
>that comes right of your pocket in increased taxes, and you've already
>indicated how little you're interested in doing that....
>So what's it going to be? Can't have it both ways.

I vote for you.

>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306